The Apple Watch is almost 2mm thicker than advertised

[MH01]

No, you are wrong.

It clearly says in the ad which YOU have a picture of that the DEPTH is 10.5.

It does NOT say the THICKNESS is 10.5 (which is what you said in your headline).

Words matter.

Actually making sense, matters more .

 

[oddysea992]

From a popular watch manufacturer:

Case Thickness:

The thickness of the watch, measured from the highest point of the crystal to the base of the watch case.

... so being pedantic, you should measure from the top crystal to the bottom of the metal casing. The sensor array is not the bottom of the case, just as the crown is not included when measuring a traditional watch face.

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

 

[macdaddy86]

Oh no, I'm cancelling my order now! i just don't think the extra mm's will fit correctly on my wrist...

Why do they do this, feel like I've been shafted from behind now.

 

[lugworm]

It still looks like a toy watch from the 1980's.
Sorry.

 

[wdfly]

Best way to test would be to just grab a dial caliper

google almost crashed once you posted that.

 

[Mac 128]

Apple has been advertising their Watch cases as being only 10.5mm thick.

View attachment 549591

Some people have used this value to diss other smartwatches such as the Moto 360, spec'd at 11.5mm (which includes its sensor pod and display).

A while back, I posted this question about the watch's actual dimensions:



Due to Apple posting their specs for wrist band makers, we finally have the schematics, which tell the true story. The Apple Watch is actually 12.46mm thick in total. Making it almost 1mm thicker than the Moto 360, not 1mm thinner as many had supposed.

View attachment 549594

Apparently Apple is only counting the metal case. But leaving out the sensor pod and display bulges (marked in red above) is a bit disingenuous, especially since the other two dimensions follow normal watch rules.

The thickness of a watch is normally defined as "the width between the case back and the top of the crystal." In other words, the entire watch, not just the middle section as Apple used.

You know this is really interesting, and explains something I noticed ... Every watch I've ever had has a crystal that is flush with the bezel. The Watch crystal sits on top of the case. But this does something important for the Watch -- it allows more room inside of the case for electronics.

I would think Apple would be looking to eventually make both the sensors and crystal more flush with the case. It better protects the crystal and reduces the overall thickness of the watch.

 

[mcdj]

But this does something important for the Watch -- it allows more room inside of the case for electronics.

It also does something arguably more important. It gives Apple somewhere to go in the slimming department for the next version or two. There are no idiots in Jony Ive's ID lab. They have thinner watches in the pipeline, and they know they can't blow their wad on V1.

 

[Knowimagination]

It also does something arguably more important. It gives Apple somewhere to go in the slimming department for the next version or two. There are no idiots in Jony Ive's ID lab. They have thinner watches in the pipeline, and they know they can't blow their wad on V1.

I don't know why people keep saying this. After owning the watch for a while I wouldn't want it to get too much thinner. I would welcome a few mm but If it ever got to say half the depth I doubt I would like it as much from a looks perspective.