Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Stainless vs Aluminum - Why buy SS?
- Thread starter dseg42
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only matte finish you will see is the sport model Apple Watch with the 7000 series aluminum. The stainless model utilizes 316 L stainless and the black stainless uses a diamond like carbon coating over the 316 L stainless finish to help protect it from scratches and scuffs.
For
The only reason I bought the AW is the Health option I monitor My heart bit and hope that Apple will add more option so it look like I will need to up great every year for durability I use ROLEX
I wood chuse stainlees steal, becuase i hafe diffaculties speeling aluminum.
I caught a brief glimpse of one today in our offices and it definitely was shinier than I remember. Guess I am just comparing it to my wife’s aluminum rose gold watch and how it looks matted there.
However I will say that Apple’s website gives off the impression from the images that it will not be as shiny as member that posted his pictures.
I am traveling for business but will try to walk into an Apple store and look at them again.
I havent really tried one SS on so dont know how i will find the extra weight.
What i dont like for sure is the corrosion on the back of the aluminum watch. For me if the SS works fine i could keep it for four years ,perhaps even more...dont care about the apps on the watch or the fitness.What i trylly love about the watch is the fact that i dont hear no more annoying sounds from my iphone since i bought it.
So can everyone look at that photo?! Is that stainless steel space black not matted to anyone else? I saw another one on the street today (space black) and saw it was matted as well. At least to what I feel is a "matte" black. Is the non-space black (I guess just the "stainless steel") cases really that shiny? Or am I a lunatic?!
@Nell @Neodym @mackie8 @BillGates1969
Again, comparing it to this post here:
You’re confusing the space gray Apple Watch for the space black. The space Black is very noticeable with its high gloss shine, it doesn’t even resemble anything close to the matte finish. Perhaps the lighting is confusing you, but as a space black owner, its a very different finish from the space gray Sport.
Space Black
Space Gray
Umm - the picture you refer to (from oeagleo) shows an aluminum S3, as is stated in the text. The aluminum versions are indeed matte.
Both SS are shiny. I have a SBSS and it's shiny. The watch a few posts up that says it's SBSS looks like Space Gray Sport to me. Maybe it's the bright light/flash? But my SBSS does not look like that.
Sorry, that pic from me up there showss the Ostrich band on my old Space GRAY non-stainless steel, Aluminum Series 3. I have since purchased the Stainless Steel Space Black version of the watch, but don't have a photo. And, YES, the SBSS is just as shiny as the "chrome" stainless steel version, absolutely gorgeous.
Photographs can be so misleading. For example, I can remember when I got my watch and wanted a second band. I went through lists of people showing off their watches with various Apple bands. Then went off to my nearest Apple Store. When physically trying on various bands I was surprised that some I’d originally dismissed out-of-hand as being ugly/fugly I actually really liked.
If they were matt, you weren’t looking at stainless.
S
[doublepost=1534197406][/doublepost]
Those pics are accurate IMO. It shows a clear distinction between the two.
S
Should have come back into this thread following Sunday. Spent sometime at a local Apple store in the city that I am working from and did note the significant difference in finish between the stainless steel and aluminum. Apologize for being a confused monkey.
There is nothing to apologize for. You were simply looking at aluminum and thought it was stainless.
S
As a former owner of a S0 SS and S3 SS, and ardent supporter of the stainless model in the past, I have to say that I have now flipped. My S0 made it about 2 and half years before the battery began to struggle to get through a day, which made it essentially worthless when it came time to sell. If you look at eBay and the like, the S3, which is under a year old is trading at slightly over 50% of its MSRP. The value on the stainless simply drop too fast to justify the initial cost. The same goes for any of the bands that are not at the $50 price point. I think a used current-gen aluminum model is the sweet spot for the Apple Watch.
Apple has always charged more than competitors, but you can count on the resale being high since the products tend to last and age well. The watch is, in my opinion, the first time they have sold a disposable device. I think $649 is too steep to pay for a disposable device that might get you three years of service.
And for those that say it is a quality watch and demands quality watch prices, I would disagree. While I agree it is very well made and a nice product, it still suffers from its disposability. You will be lucky to get much more than 4 years out of an Apple Watch, and it simply does not stack up to a nice $600 Hamilton, Tissot, Seiko, Junghans, etc. Not to mention all of the models those companies offer that can be had below $500. All of which will go 10-15 years before needing service and will hold their value and in many cases increase a bit. In the end, the stainless steel is still an electronic device that is no different than the aluminum version and has a very definite end of life and plummeting value. If it were under $500, I could see it being worth it. At $649, it simply is an overpriced gadget that you will be losing a significant amount of money on in a short amount of time.
Apple has always charged more than competitors, but you can count on the resale being high since the products tend to last and age well. The watch is, in my opinion, the first time they have sold a disposable device. I think $649 is too steep to pay for a disposable device that might get you three years of service.
And for those that say it is a quality watch and demands quality watch prices, I would disagree. While I agree it is very well made and a nice product, it still suffers from its disposability. You will be lucky to get much more than 4 years out of an Apple Watch, and it simply does not stack up to a nice $600 Hamilton, Tissot, Seiko, Junghans, etc. Not to mention all of the models those companies offer that can be had below $500. All of which will go 10-15 years before needing service and will hold their value and in many cases increase a bit. In the end, the stainless steel is still an electronic device that is no different than the aluminum version and has a very definite end of life and plummeting value. If it were under $500, I could see it being worth it. At $649, it simply is an overpriced gadget that you will be losing a significant amount of money on in a short amount of time.
But there is value gained from the extra $250 in having the same version of a cheaper product but this one is less scratchable. It feels good to not have to look at blemishes on your device. For $250 over two years I’d say it’s worth it.
I prefer the aluminium version for its lightweight feel. A nice change from my heavy stainless mechanical watches. If the aluminium was slightly more expensive than the stainless I’d probably still opt for it.