what is this galvanic corrosion i'm hearing?

[Night Spring]

Compatible with the explicit disclaimer that they may not match the finish of or be optimal for use with that specific collection.

Saying "not optimal for use" is the exact opposite of an explicit disclaimer.

I have to agree with Chimera. An explicit disclaimer will be something like: "use of steel bands with Sports watch is not recommended due to possibility of galvanic corrosion." This "not optimal for use" language could mean anything -- it's totally vague and unspecific.

----------

I have to say, I think that it is you who is trying too hard. To me, Apples wording makes it clear that there is some sort of issue, outside of aesthetics.

Yes, but what sort of issue? It doesn't say.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

To me, Apples wording makes it clear that there is some sort of issue, outside of aesthetics.

Makes it clear? Clear as mud, perhaps.

They don't say there's any sort of issue at all. You're just imagining things. This whole thread reeks of obsession and echo chamber.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I have to agree with Chimera. An explicit disclaimer will be something like: "use of steel bands with Sports watch is not recommended due to possibility of galvanic corrosion." This "not optimal for use" language could mean anything -- it's totally vague and unspecific.

----------



Yes, but what sort of issue? It doesn't say.

I agree it's totally vague and nonspecific, hence the speculation. It may or may not pose a problem.

----------

Makes it clear? Clear as mud, perhaps.

They don't say there's any sort of issue at all. You're just imagining things. This whole thread reeks of obsession and echo chamber.

If the only issue is aesthetics, they would have stopped after "may not match the finish of that specific collection."

 

[Arran]

Saying "not optimal for use" is the exact opposite of an explicit disclaimer

So it's a vague disclaimer then?

It does sound a bit lawyer-inspired and weasel-word-ish. If things go south, it could be argued that "work" was only meant in the fashion sense of "yeah, that hat just totally works with your outfit, darling"

That said, if Apple was to have a corrosion gate on its hands, it'll likely end up good for 1st gen buyers. Thanks to scratch-gate, Apple replaced my half-dead and beat-up 1st generation 2GB nano with a shiny 6th gen 8GB.

Might not be a bad thing.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

So it's a vague disclaimer then?

It does sound a bit lawyer-inspired and weasel-word-ish. If things go south, it could be argued that "work" was only meant in the fashion sense of "yeah, that hat just totally works with your outfit, darling"

That said, if Apple was to have a corrosion gate on its hands, it'll likely end up good for 1st gen buyers. Thanks to scratch-gate, Apple replaced my half-dead and beat-up 1st generation 2GB nano with a shiny 6th gen 8GB.

Might not be a bad thing.

I agree. The first part of the disclaimer is pretty explicit ("may not match the finish of") but the second half is vague ("may not be optimal for use with"). We just don't know what they actually mean by the latter.

 

[GrimmsGirl]

Apple would not endorse use of a band that would cause some sort of damage to their product, and their engineers are likely to be more informed than a macrumors member that read a wikipedia article.

I really don't understand why you are trying so hard to discredit the fact that stainless can cause a galvanic reaction with aluminum. Given the right conditions, it can and will happen if the stainless is not treated in such a way to prevent it. This is not wikipedia knowledge. Just read a paper or two on the subject of galvanic reactions between metals, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get it.

 

[Arran]

I really don't understand why you are trying so hard to discredit the fact that stainless can cause a galvanic reaction with aluminum. Given the right conditions, it can and will happen if the stainless is not treated in such a way to prevent it. This is not wikipedia knowledge. Just read a paper or two on the subject of galvanic reactions between metals, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get it.

Or just put some silverware (and I mean real silverware, made out of actual silver) in the cutlery rack of the dishwasher alongside stainless steel "silverware". You get rust spots in one wash cycle.

Not that I'm boasting about my solid silver cutlery, or anything. Who me?

 

[Appl3FTW]

When did this galvanic thing became so explicit lol

 

[Arran]

When did this galvanic thing became so explicit lol

Oh, the internet's full of explicit stuff - so I'm told.

 

[Sun Baked]

Always a possibility, since we have in the past seen Apple products react poorly to a minority of the population. As when some of the palm rests on the MacBooks corrode from the sweat on the hands.

 

[technosix]

It's a very ugly form of corrosion.

Of the various problems the first generation Apple Watch will come with, corrosive issues won't be on the list.

 

[cmChimera]

So it's a vague disclaimer then?

It does sound a bit lawyer-inspired and weasel-word-ish.

I'm a lawyer, and find that weasel comment offensive. (Joke. Not actually offended.) I think they're trying to prevent people from running in the rain with a leather loop or something. Leather bands are not the same as the sport bands, and are not optimal for the same conditions.

I really don't understand why you are trying so hard to discredit the fact that stainless can cause a galvanic reaction with aluminum. Given the right conditions, it can and will happen if the stainless is not treated in such a way to prevent it. This is not wikipedia knowledge. Just read a paper or two on the subject of galvanic reactions between metals, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get it.

i'm not trying to discredit that corrosion exists. I'm stating that it's not an actual issue with the Apple Watch.

 

[Arran]

I'm a lawyer,

The diversity in here is great. What sort of law do you practice?

 

[cmChimera]

The diversity in here is great. What sort of law do you practice?

It really is. Immigration.

 

[Arran]

It really is. Immigration.

Okay, I won't make any jokes about defecting to Android, then

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I think they're trying to prevent people from running in the rain with a leather loop or something. Leather bands are not the same as the sport bands, and are not optimal for the same conditions.

Yet they put an X next to the link bracelet for use on the Sport model, which according to mixyourwatch.com doesn't look too bad together given that the link bracelet is brushed/matte similar to the Aluminum case. And Apple is advertising the link bracelet as appropriate for exercising. Surely they mean something else by "not optimal for use with that specific collection."

 

[cmChimera]

Yet they put an X next to the link bracelet for use on the Sport model, which according to mixyourwatch.com doesn't look too bad together given that the link bracelet is brushed/matte similar to the Aluminum case. And Apple is advertising the link bracelet as appropriate for exercising. Surely they mean something else by "not optimal for use with that specific collection."

Image

Well the link bracelet is still waterproof, unlike the leather bands, so that makes sense to me.

Okay, I won't make any jokes about defecting to Android, then

lol

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Well the link bracelet is still waterproof, unlike the leather bands, so that makes sense to me.

Yet it gets an X (not recommended) for use on the Sport model according to the chart.

 

[cmChimera]

Yet it gets an X (not recommended) for use on the Sport model according to the chart.

Are you talking about a sales chart? It seems like they wouldn't recommend a link bracelet based on price alone. It costs more than the sport watch.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Are you talking about a sales chart? It seems like they wouldn't recommend a link bracelet based on price alone. It costs more than the sport watch.

That reasoning doesn't quite go with the "not optimal for use with" line.

 

[Appl3FTW]

It really is. Immigration.

so im guessing u getting the watch edition? LOL

 

[cmChimera]

That reasoning doesn't quite go with the "not optimal for use with" line.

The chart of recommended bands is not tied to that statement correct? If I'm thinking of the right chart. All its suggesting is what bands to sell with each collection.

so im guessing u getting the watch edition? LOL

Nope.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

The chart of recommended bands is not tied to that statement correct? If I'm thinking of the right chart. All its suggesting is what bands to sell with each collection.

Correct. However, the band options chart may not necessarily suggest what bands to sell with each collection. It may simply be a chart of available out-of-the-box options.

That statement stands squarely on its own so it's up to interpretation, given the vagueness of what they actually mean by "may not be optimal for use with that specific collection." However, I'm interpreting the first part of the statement "Bands work with all collections" to mean "Bands fit all collections," not necessarily "Bands function properly with all collections" given the aforementioned disclaimer. If it wasn't for the disclaimer, then I'd agree with your interpretation.