Try on impressions from a naysayer

[GrimmsGirl]

Yeah, Rolex makes some thick watches (Seadweller, Sub, Deepsea) and I'm most definitely not a fan. As I pointed out, I wear a Daytona, which is a much smaller case size (still 40mm, but smaller in terms of thickness). I've worn that for the last 4 years and been ok with it. Last week I bought a Panerai 512 (42mm case size but WAY thinner than the Daytona) and I love it. Yesterday I put the Daytona on the first time since buying it and it did feel awfully thick and chunky in comparison.

From what I could find (after a very brief search on the internet) the Daytona is 12.2 mm thick. The Apple Watch is 10.5 mm thick. You wore the Daytona for 4 years and you were okay with 12.2 mm thick, but you weren't okay with the 10.5mm thickness of the Apple Watch. Am I missing something, is there a thinner Daytona? I'm confused.

I don't really care who likes the Apple Watch and who doesn't. I've never been one to validate my choices based on the opinions of others. I do find it interesting, however, to read the opinions of others which is why I'm in your thread reading about your opinion. Not flaming you at all.

 

[Night Spring]

That Panerai is stunning.

And my reaction was, "eww!"

I think Apple went with a "safe" design that offends the least amount of people. If they go for a too distinctive look, a few people are going to love it, but too many people will feel it doesn't fit their style.

 

[chris975d]

Well, I do like Rolex, but you've got to admit, they make so many god awful models (leopard print with diamonds, etc). I like the standard tool watches, GMT, Daytona, etc. Though to be honest, I've never cared for the Sub, though mostly because of how popular it is. The day I bought my first Rolex it was between the GMT and the Sub, and the security guard in the jewelry store said to me "For what it's worth, me, and most of the guys on the force (I guess he was off duty) wear subs, I decided GMT immediately. I didn't want what everyone else had.

I don't know about "many", but yes, like with most manufacturers, there are some head scratchers. But not a lot...Yacht master 2, the leopard Daytona...that may be it for me. But Omega has some hideous models, as well as Panerai, definitely Breitling, most TAGs, etc. All are capable of putting out an abomination.

 

[KauaiBruce]

I totally disagree and perhaps this watch was not intended for a guy who already has 3 rolexs. I myself prefer a more simple design for watches so I think the apple watch is quite classic looking but also modern.

I don't really understand how people can get a good impression of how the watch will actually fit into their lives in a few minutes without real experience.

For one, I get texts all the time that I can't reply to on the fly because it takes a long response but the fact that I'll be able to quickly say "busy I'll get back to you" without pulling out my phone is pretty awesome. But that's not something you can experience at the store.

Plus, it seems like you're comparing a smart phone experience with a watch experience so of course it's going to fall flat.

But Yoir opinion is your own but I do feel these apple watch try ons are simply 90% feel and look 10% function and fit to your lifestyle.

The Edition is for the guy with 3 Rolexes.

 

[KenAFSPC]

From what I could find (after a very brief search on the internet) the Daytona is 12.2 mm thick. The Apple Watch is 10.5 mm thick. You wore the Daytona for 4 years and you were okay with 12.2 mm thick, but you weren't okay with the 10.5mm thickness of the Apple Watch. Am I missing something, is there a thinner Daytona? I'm confused. .

The Apple Watch is only 10.5mm thick EXCLUDING the heart rate sensor. The full width of the Apple Watch, including the sensor, is about 12.5mm.

Apple placed the bracelet/band connection mid-way up the Apple Watch, which makes the Watch appear less thick when worn, but also produces a noticeable air gap where the the band connects to the Watch. It doesn't lay flat.

 

[ninethirty]

That's what good design will do for you The Daytona (or any Rolex tool watch) is made up of the case, the lugs, bezel and sapphire. The lugs curl a bit downward (where the bracelet picks up) which gives it more of a shaped look. The bezel is angled, and the sapphire protrudes from the top, but all in a way that prevents it from looking like a thick brick of stainless steel on your wrist.

Now even if you don't like the design of any Rolex watch (and that's not what this is about. I'm not trying to say that Apple couldn't have designed a beautiful watch because I happen to like Rolex - quite the contrary), anyone should be able to admit that Apple probably could have applied some smart design that made the watch appear less thick than it is.

Because if the measurements you quoted are true, the Apple watch literally felt significantly thicker than the Rolex I'd just taken off moments before to try it on.

From what I could find (after a very brief search on the internet) the Daytona is 12.2 mm thick. The Apple Watch is 10.5 mm thick. You wore the Daytona for 4 years and you were okay with 12.2 mm thick, but you weren't okay with the 10.5mm thickness of the Apple Watch. Am I missing something, is there a thinner Daytona? I'm confused.

I don't really care who likes the Apple Watch and who doesn't. I've never been one to validate my choices based on the opinions of others. I do find it interesting, however, to read the opinions of others which is why I'm in your thread reading about your opinion. Not flaming you at all.

----------

Oh I'm sorry. Are you trying to suggest that because I own nice watches that I'm an idiot and throw money away like it doesn't matter? That I'd waste an incredible amount of money on a poorly designed and incredibly overpriced watch that's literally going to be worth only it's weight in gold after a year?

Come on dude, there's no need to be rude.

The Edition is for the guy with 3 Rolexes.

 

[chris975d]

Try on impressions from a naysayer

That's what good design will do for you The Daytona (or any Rolex tool watch) is made up of the case, the lugs, bezel and sapphire. The lugs curl a bit downward (where the bracelet picks up) which gives it more of a shaped look. The bezel is angled, and the sapphire protrudes from the top, but all in a way that prevents it from looking like a thick brick of stainless steel on your wrist.

What ninethirty is saying is that good watch design can be thick, but typically thins out/tapers as it approaches the bracelet, hiding some of the thickness (if it is a thick watch). Here's a side shot of my Rolex Submariner Date (13mm thickness), and it wears very slim. A lot of the thickness is in the super thick case back needed to take the pressures encountered at its rated depth of 1000ft. The Apple watch seems to carry the majority of its thickness all the way to the edge where the bands connect. It does give a very chunky, thick look.

 

[GrimmsGirl]

The Apple Watch is only 10.5mm thick EXCLUDING the heart rate sensor. The full width of the Apple Watch, including the sensor, is about 12.5mm.

Apple placed the bracelet/band connection mid-way up the Apple Watch, which makes the Watch appear less thick when worn, but also produces a noticeable air gap where the the band connects to the Watch. It doesn't lay flat.

Got it. Makes more sense now.

That's what good design will do for you The Daytona (or any Rolex tool watch) is made up of the case, the lugs, bezel and sapphire. The lugs curl a bit downward (where the bracelet picks up) which gives it more of a shaped look. The bezel is angled, and the sapphire protrudes from the top, but all in a way that prevents it from looking like a thick brick of stainless steel on your wrist.

Now even if you don't like the design of any Rolex watch (and that's not what this is about. I'm not trying to say that Apple couldn't have designed a beautiful watch because I happen to like Rolex - quite the contrary), anyone should be able to admit that Apple probably could have applied some smart design that made the watch appear less thick than it is.

Because if the measurements you quoted are true, the Apple watch literally felt significantly thicker than the Rolex I'd just taken off moments before to try it on.

It would appear that the Apple Watch is thicker, although not significantly. I do understand how the design differences between them would make the Apple Watch feel much more so.

 

[Poochi]

Apple Watch SS Linked Band from the 80s:

http://i.imgur.com/BWlMUwt.jpg


Did Apple copy Casio design?

 

[Arran]

It's all about perceived thickness. Apple is extremely accomplished in minimizing perceived thickness. Makes me wonder why they skipped it on the watch?

Here's a pic:

 

[maka344]

I'm also a gadget geek and love anything Apple but I have to agree with the OP; the watch is not great. It's too complicated for a quick use tool, some of the bands look cheap and in hand the watch just felt, well wrong. It actually reminded me of the old Casio TV remote watch from the late nineties.

I prefer my Swiss watches for beauty, style and elegance.

 

[pmau]

It should not be compared to a traditional watch at all.

Traditional watchmaking is about the art of assembly and miniature parts.
Assembling a watch means checking all parts for imperfection, polishing them even though they are invisible.

Then the watch is assembled by hand, this is why there are Watchmakers in the first place.

The Apple watch is a mass-produced product.

The casing is CNC milled, then the battery and the S1 package is glued in, then the display is put on top.

I like the idea of an Apple Watch, but comparing it to a "real" watch and the art and tradition of watchmaking is kind of pointless.

Just because Apple borrowed terms from traditional watch making, doers not make this thing a watch.

Sorry to say that. I want one, too. But it is in no way comparable to a watch.

 

[01silver4]

Look! first of all, if people are going to go try the apple watch on. Solely just to compare it to there Rolex, Tag, etc. then most are going to be disappointed. When I was there for my try-on, I notice a few people comparing the apple watch to there traditional watch. When clearly they are from defferent times.

Some talk about thickness and what not. my Invicta and citizen Eco drive are ticker than the apple watch. Even though they are both thinner at the end of the watch body meeting the band. I think the AW is beautiful for what it is, category smart watch. Another thing to consider, is the AW has a computer chip, and all kinds of sensors etc.

Personally I think it is very ingenious, to be able to fit all that technology into a casing only 38-42mm in length, and 10.5 mm tick. Also using the demo for a review. Is not a true review to me. I want to be able to put all of the apple watch features to the test. And u just can't do that with the demo watch siting on the display table.

I will be putting mine to the test when I get it. Ordered the 42mm SS with the Milanese loop, and black sport band. If doesn't deliver on the functions where I am not happy with it. I will have no problem returning it for a refund simple. But I just can't see how people can't give a honest review of the AW, when they them self have not put the AW to the test.

I personally what to know how it performs with everything that it is capable of doing. Until then no judging for me, Just waiting until then. It's all good.

 

[Bobajobbob]

I haven't tried on or seen the  Watch in the flesh yet but I'm surprised to hear that it feels chunkier than a Panerai. I have a Sub and Panerai Luminor and the Panerai is definitely the one that feels the chunkier of the two watches. The Submariner really feels quite small on my wrist these days though it didn't when I first bought it.

I've order a 42mm SS sight unseen so it will be a surprise good or otherwise when it turns up.

 

[HelloMikee]

Well, and maybe this is why it feel so off, Apple products are generally "for everyone".

As for what you're saying about texts and stuff... well different strokes I guess.

But that's the thing. Try designing jewelry that's "generally for everyone"... then add in the tech aspect of it and it's a whole new world.

Wearable technology is relatively a new culture with loads of potential. I think Apple has done good job at merging the two.

I respect this product is not for you but that doesn't mean there aren't millions of people out there who will actually love and benefit from it.

Different strokes I guess...

 

[cmichaelb]

one thing i didn't get a sense of in the store, but i certainly can't imagine myself doing is using siri with this thing. I never use it with my iphone as i find talking to my phone to be extremely awkward..

That seems quite ironic that you find speaking into your phone awkward lol.

 

[ninethirty]

Speaking to my phone. I also don't like speaking on my phone. I text, but still. Do you know many people who speak to their phone often and ask it to look things up for them? I'm betting most people don't.

That seems quite ironic that you find speaking into your phone awkward lol.

 

[mightyjabba]

The thing is, Apple had a very tricky design job in the Watch because they needed to make something that was inoffensive enough to appeal to just about everyone -- men and women -- and to look good with dozens of different straps, while still being attractive. There are probably designs that would look better to me personally, but I'm not sure I can think of designs that would be as universally acceptable. I'm also convinced that they made the right choice going for a non-circular design, because the only thing a circular design really excels at is displaying an analog watch face (and appealing to people's nostalgia for conventional watches, I suppose). For everything else, a squared-off design is vastly superior.

 

[cmichaelb]

Speaking to my phone. I also don't like speaking on my phone. I text, but still. Do you know many people who speak to their phone often and ask it to look things up for them? I'm betting most people don't.

Yes, I do. They use Siri a LOT.

----------

It's all about perceived thickness. Apple is extremely accomplished in minimizing perceived thickness. Makes me wonder why they skipped it on the watch?

Here's a pic:

Exactly! Macbook Airs, the current iMac desgin etc. for example.

 

[meldea]

I'll preface this by saying that I've made no secret of my being unimpressed with the Apple watch. Based simply on Keynotes, Apple Videos and the recent reviews, I've been asking myself why this thing exists. I should also mention that I'm very much a "watch guy." In the last 5 years I've bought 3 Rolexes, and last week, a Panerai. I really like my watches. Even though I'm not in love with the watch, I planned to buy one because I work in product design/user experience and there's a good chance I'll have to design something for the watch someday.

Anyway, went down to the Michigan Ave Apple store in Chicago today to check the watch out and try a few on. My first impression from seeing it under the glass was that both models are much smaller than I thought. I knew instantly the 38mm was going to be too small (and I have small wrists). It also seemed a lot thinner than I though, but this is looking down at it. Hard to get a good look from the side. Another thing I noticed right away was how thin the milanese loop looked. I was bummed out about that because that's the one I was interested in.

I start by trying on the 38mm milanese loop. I absolutely hated the band. It felt so.. unsubstantial, cheap even, and it feels unrelated to the watch. I also knew immediately that 38mm was definitely too small. Then I tried the 42. While it fit better, I noticed that the watch IS actually much thicker than it looked, and I really do not like the way it looked on my wrist. The design, while very Apple, seems totally wrong for a watch. Honestly, even if I loved what the watch did, I couldn't see myself wearing this and glancing down at it like I do with my other watches and admiring it.

I also thought the SS with White Sports band looked nice, so I tried it on. Same thing.. really didn't like the way it looked. So the girl showed me the space grey sport with black band. This one actually didn't look so bad. I asked if it was thinner, and she said no, but that the color kind of makes it seem that way. On my wrist, it looked more.. complete than the other ones I'd tried on.

As for software, the demo really didn't let me get a sense for how I'd use the watch so she grabbed the display model that's functional and tried to demonstrate a few things. She tried about 5 different times to open the message app to demonstrate force touch and each time she touched the wrong app. Zoomed all the way and she was still having problems. Once she got in there she handed it to me to try, so I did, and being 100% honest, I really didn't think it was all that great. I found it hard to navigate, the screen too small to be able to really navigate with touch, and the digital crown wasn't the easiest thing to manipulate while on my wrist.

So, I'm sure a lot of you will write off these thoughts as a guy who went in intending to hate it, but I assure you I was quite the opposite. I'd have loved to have changed my mind some about it, but after seeing it in person and using it, I can say with absolute certain that this is not for me. I'm actually in shock even that Apple is releasing this thing the way they are. It feels so unlike them to do something so half assed. Design seems wrong, interacting with it seems clumsy, and still I don't understand what the need for it is (other than that we all think it would be cool to have a smart watch on our wrist, even if we don't know why).

If you're on the fence, I'd say pass - see if they improve it in future years. If you're sold but haven't seen one, I really think you should check it out yourself, and if you're sold but don't know which one to get. I really think the space grey sport was the nicest of them all.

Oh, and because I've had quite a bit to say about it, I'll say with even more certainty than before now: If you spend $17k on the Edition version of this, you have no regard for money at all. As it is, sport feels appropriately priced, watch seems overpriced, and edition is the complete joke I thought it would be.

Edit: Oh and if you're wondering about 38 vs 42.. I have small wrists and the 38 was WAY too small. 42 for absolute sure.

Anyway, flame away, discredit me, tell me I'm wrong. Those are my thoughts and I'm sticking to 'em.

You mentioned you are in product design. It seems like you fit the "watch guy who knows what he wants" persona. Your opinion is fine, it's yours. But it's weird that you follow up with a general recommendation of skipping this version, when there are plenty of people who aren't part of your persona.

I agree with you regarding Apple not knowing what to do with this thing. Great product requires deep understanding, and clearly, they have put in the time to figure out smartwatches, watch wearers, and people who don't wear watches. But from the messaging I've seen, it also seems like they committed to the project before finishing discovery. There's no deep pain point these devices address, so they are going to have to invent one as they go.

 

[dotnet]

The Apple Watch is only 10.5mm thick EXCLUDING the heart rate sensor. The full width of the Apple Watch, including the sensor, is about 12.5mm.

Citation needed.

 

[Rce84]

Since when is a piece of technology, while bridging a gap on wearable interfaces, supposed to look as good as some dated-looking mechanical device only designed for two things (time and prestige)? Totally different design goals...a display vs a dial.

Dunno why "watch guys" feel the need to chime in with reviews like this. You can't even compare the capabilities of a mechanical watch to what is the best smart watch to date. As tech gets better, mechanical and Quartz wrist watches will go the way of the pocket watch...a conversation piece, a trinket, a memory. Why do you think watch makers like Tag Heuer are scrambling to catch up?

I disagree. I think we are a long ways off from people talking into their watches. I would never pay the amount people do for a Rolex but at least that's something that can last decades and has resale value. Within 5 years, this version of the watch will be worthless to anyone.

I would say Apple opened up the comparisons to a Rolex when they decided to charge an obscene amount of money for a watch. If you're going to charge up to 17k for a product, expect it's going to be compared with products for the same amount.

 

[Septembersrain]

I honestly thought I'd love it. Then I didn't. Though the reasons are a little odd. It was just too complicated! Having such a tiny screen, I felt I wasn't comfortable trying to navigate the screens. It felt overly loaded and I was put off.

While yes I'm a tech hard and love trying new things, I'm still the type who wants to actually like what I'm using. It's why I gave up the iPhone 6 in favor of my iPhone 5c. I like my 5c a lot, hoping for a 6c!

My opinion is that technology can be useful but it should also be enjoyable to the user. If it's not, then it's like buying the most popular car to be cool but secretly wishing you could have something different. This is just my opinion anyways.

 

[nickchallis92]

I'm just going to add my two cents.

It looks terrible and the prices for something that looks like that and can barely tell the time are laughable.

I'd pay £300 not to wear one and this is coming from a bloke who wears a £70 quartz watch everyday. I wear a watch because it is utterly reliable at telling the time. Once it is on my wrist, I forget about it and remain content with it interfering with my life every 7 years when the battery runs out.

 

[ninethirty]

Maybe it seems weird because I didn't make a general recommendation at all. I proposed a number of scenarios and made a recommendation based on what I saw. I said if you're on the fence, I'd suggest a pass; meaning, if you already had concerns, like I did, it will disappoint. I said if you're sold, I'd still recommend seeing it in person (for the same reason I'm glad I did - I thought the Milanese looked best in photos, and all of the SS for that model, but found that to be otherwise in person), and lastly I said if you're sold no matter what, I found the space grey aluminum to look best.

You mentioned you are in product design. It seems like you fit the "watch guy who knows what he wants" persona. Your opinion is fine, it's yours. But it's weird that you follow up with a general recommendation of skipping this version, when there are plenty of people who aren't part of your persona.

I agree with you regarding Apple not knowing what to do with this thing. Great product requires deep understanding, and clearly, they have put in the time to figure out smartwatches, watch wearers, and people who don't wear watches. But from the messaging I've seen, it also seems like they committed to the project before finishing discovery. There's no deep pain point these devices address, so they are going to have to invent one as they go.

----------

Totally agree! Among the many things I find strange around here is that people keep saying "It's brand new technology, you'll learn to love it," and I'm left scratching my head thinking, I shouldn't have to get used to it - I should immediately be able to see how this thing fits in with my life and why I'd want one. Not buy it just because and force it into my life over time.

I honestly thought I'd love it. Then I didn't. Though the reasons are a little odd. It was just too complicated! Having such a tiny screen, I felt I wasn't comfortable trying to navigate the screens. It felt overly loaded and I was put off.

While yes I'm a tech hard and love trying new things, I'm still the type who wants to actually like what I'm using. It's why I gave up the iPhone 6 in favor of my iPhone 5c. I like my 5c a lot, hoping for a 6c!

My opinion is that technology can be useful but it should also be enjoyable to the user. If it's not, then it's like buying the most popular car to be cool but secretly wishing you could have something different. This is just my opinion anyways.