Wasn't the 38mm for women per the advert at the Apple Event

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Korican100, Apr 10, 2015.

  1. Korican100 macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #1
    I was under the impression the 38mm was for women -- labeled by the media as the feminine device due to its size. I mean for instance, the woman runner (whom I highly respect) that they showed using it in the Apple event, had on the 38mm.

    So I am sitting here thinking 38mm is just for women. But I come to these forums and realize men are actually ordering the 38mm?

    Can anyone confirm? I thought its because women in general have smaller appendages and wrists.
     
  2. Shanghaichica macrumors 603

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I don't know. I ordered the 38 mm as I'm a female with small wrists. I think the 42 mm would have been too big. I didn't want something really big as I don't wear a watch normally.
     
  3. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #3
    The 38 is for people who want a small watch. The 42 for people who want a big watch. Nothing more to it.
     
  4. Pinksteady macrumors 6502a

    Pinksteady

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    #4
    I think 'generally speaking' the 38mm is designed to cater for the female market, because women 'in general' have smaller wrists and smaller devices look more feminine anyway. Not having a smaller watch option would have ruled out a significant portion of the market.

    However, much of the above relies on social stereotypes and there's a) nothing wrong with a man wearing something feminine and b) plenty of women with large wrists and men with small wrists, who would also suit a smaller watch.

    Apple have been very deliberate in never specifically labelling the watches for men and women, but I do think they are sized with genders in mind, but that doesn't for one minute mean they wouldn't look great on the opposite sex either.

    There are no rules when it comes to fashion.
     
  5. Korican100 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #5
    Thanks, I agree with you totally. I guess my assumption was off.
     
  6. rayricepudding macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    #6
    All about preference

    The 38mm is for women AND men. the 42mm is for women AND men with either large wrists, who want a larger screen, or who want the watch to be the first thing other people notice when they walk in a room - nothing wrong with any of this, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla. 42mm isn't huge, but this is honestly a rather bulbous watch design, so unless you have a larger wrist, the watch is going to stand out.

    38mm isn't small, and frankly, it's substantially larger than most women's watches. It's obviously not large enough to fit the large watch trend, but if there were only a 38mm model, and no 42mm model to compare to, nobody would be saying anything about it being too small for men. Think about all the fitness trackers out there - the fitbit flex is tiny, the charge is really small, and the jawbone and garmin options are also very small. Obviously this is in a different category, but for those of us wanting to use these things for fitness - there's a reason that the fitness trackers are all as small as possible.

    I personally want to be as discreet as possible and am planning on using this thing for productivity purposes and fitness - the smaller the better.
     
  7. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #7
    No. The 38mm watch is for people shorter than 5'4" and the 42mm watch is for people taller than 5'4".
     
  8. Korican100 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #8
    That doesn't even make sense. How does height dictate the size of something on your wrist. Its about the girth of your wrist.

    That's why Apple clearly implied the 38mm is for women by running that video clip of the woman runner in the apple event.
     
  9. atiffarooq macrumors 6502

    atiffarooq

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #9
    No. The 38mm is for people shorter than 5'4" and the 42mm is for people taller than 6'4". There is no watch size for anyone in between.
     
  10. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #10
    Thanks for the correction. I was clearly mistaken. :)
     
  11. uiop. macrumors 68020

    uiop.

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    #11
    If I hear one more thread claiming "X product or color is for women"....

    The gender binary exists in your head. It's 2015. Move on.
     
  12. Shanghaichica macrumors 603

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    I guess I got the right one then as I'm 5'3'' lol
     
  13. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #13
    Absolutely! It especially doesn't make any sense with regard to the Apple Watch since the designs are exactly the same. The only difference is size.
     
  14. MasterRyu2011 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2014
    #14
    I hope not. I ordered the smaller watch sport. I think if you're trying to work out, the lighter and smaller the watch, the better. I might go see one in person. If it's too small-looking, I might just sell the the one I ordered.
     
  15. leesweet macrumors demi-god

    leesweet

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    #15
    Lol on all this. And if you look at the actual specs, it's not 4mm, it's 3.5 (rounding off here...). So, the size is really not that much. I think they even have two sizes just to give a choice.
     
  16. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #16
    If they were trying to cater to the female market, they would've offered a 36mm or even 34mm watch. I understand why they didn't because it'd be hard to display much data at smaller sizes.
     
  17. Phil A., Apr 10, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2015

    Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Shropshire, UK
    #17
    That makes no sense at all - just because a woman wore a 38mm watch doesn't mean all women have to wear it or all men have to wear the 42mm one. What if she'd worn a 42mm one - would you then assume there were no watches for men, or all men had to wear 38mm ones? What about the phone she used? Is that also only suitable for women now?

    Basically, buy the one you like the most and which you think looks the best, whatever your gender and whatever size it happens to be
     
  18. Korican100 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #18
    it makes plenty of sense. not sure if you have observed the REGULAR watch market, but women watches are smaller in size - this is consistent across the board. That's why it was so apparent that the smaller watch is for women. Implied by apple when they made christy turlington wear it in the event.
     
  19. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #19
    People just won't quite debating or stereotyping despite the FACT that is it just this simple.:eek:
     
  20. alia macrumors 6502a

    alia

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #20
    How do you know they didn't give Christy Turlington the option to wear whichever watch she wanted? I don't recall any literature saying she was "made" to wear the 38mm. Don't conflate preference with gender-specific mandates.
     
  21. Korican100 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #21
    Cmon man Do not be so naive. Everything at that level of advertisement is strategic. Of course if they would have put the 42mm on her, the women's reaction maybe have been turned off by the look being too bulky.

    They went for the safe, natural bet of smaller watches are for women, larger watches are for men. Its plain and simple.
     
  22. alia macrumors 6502a

    alia

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #22
    She's 5'10" - Sure, she's thin, but her frame could probably support the 42mm watch no problem. I think you're the one who's being a bit naive. If she'd thought the 38mm looked crappy on her wrist, she wouldn't have worn it. No one would have MADE her do it. She has her own reputation to safe keep as well. She made money off being a marketing tool for Apple, but Apple needed a model willing to do a fitness blog more than she needs the extra cash.
     
  23. Korican100 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Korican100

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #23
    now i know you are being naive. Apple does not NEED any certain model for anything. If anything, this helps HER career out.
     
  24. alia macrumors 6502a

    alia

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #24
    How so? She's been retired from modeling for how long? She's only doing this for charitable purposes for her foundation. It's galling how you assume that a business woman has literally no decision-making capability when it comes to a joint campaign like this.
     
  25. Wallabe macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    #25
    Would you say a T-shirt size small is feminine vs a T-shirt that is large is masculine?

    What if I fit in a small?
     

Share This Page