Sold it very fast for $200. I got it at a really good price initially so I didn't really want to charge more than I bought it for. It came with a small defect in the bottom right corner.
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.
Why is availability of SS so poor?
- Thread starter satchmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sold it very fast for $200. I got it at a really good price initially so I didn't really want to charge more than I bought it for. It came with a small defect in the bottom right corner.
$200.00 is not a bad sale. Especially if it had a small defect. Did you sell it on eBay or private resale?
Yeah, I've had a SS for about two years and would never step down to aluminum... if anything I'll likely go for an Hermes next time.
Hermes is nice. I have never handled their bands. But the quality seems to be outstanding and it comes with a custom Hermes Watch face.
I sold it on the Facebook Marketplace within a day of putting it up.
I saw a video where a guy dropped both the SS and Alum watches first in to a bucket of water, then face down on cement. The ION glass didn't scratch or shatter. The Sapphire glass shattered. Not sure why that was. Though I've heard if you hit sapphire just right, it will shatter.
I have the SS Series 2. Just got it this week. It's mainly a gadget to me and extension of my iPhone. Of which, it's worked better than I could have imagined it could have. With that said, my reasoning for spending the extra on SS was for the sapphire glass and looks. To me, a watch is jewelry. I have nice Swiss and Japanese analog watches that I may still wear from time to time.
Edited as I forgot to say why I think the SS is harder to find. There are a couple of reasons why this could be.
People will pay more if they think it's rarer.
Manufacturing process could have been hampered through material availability or other issues.
Demand was higher than Apple figured it would be.
I have the SS Series 2. Just got it this week. It's mainly a gadget to me and extension of my iPhone. Of which, it's worked better than I could have imagined it could have. With that said, my reasoning for spending the extra on SS was for the sapphire glass and looks. To me, a watch is jewelry. I have nice Swiss and Japanese analog watches that I may still wear from time to time.
Edited as I forgot to say why I think the SS is harder to find. There are a couple of reasons why this could be.
People will pay more if they think it's rarer.
Manufacturing process could have been hampered through material availability or other issues.
Demand was higher than Apple figured it would be.
The Sapphire display will shatter because it's heavier. It's harder, but not necessarily stronger. It's also fairly more expensive to manufacture and it takes longer to do so then the Ion-X Glass.
Perhaps some clarification in materials science might help. Strength, hardness, ductility and toughness all have different meanings.
***
Strength refers to a materials ability to sustain loads (tensile or compressive) without breaking.
Hardness is the ability of a material to resist permanent deformation under compression (sometimes the word "resistant to scratching" is thrown around, but that is very misleading).
Note that hardness and strength are somewhat related, but they don't mean the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
Ductility is the amount a material can stretch/deform under tension.
Toughness is the amount of energy a material can absorb before it breaks. A tough material must be both strong and ductile.
***
Both glass and sapphire may be strong and hard (as is diamond), but they are not ductile. They cannot absorb energy under impact and are therefore, not tough but brittle.
The point is, sapphire may be harder than ion X glass, and therefore, resists scratches better (I'm not sure if it's stronger). However, if sapphire is more shatter prone, it just means that it is less tough.
I think the problem is that we tend to use terms like hardness and strength incorrectly that results in some confusion.
***
Strength refers to a materials ability to sustain loads (tensile or compressive) without breaking.
Hardness is the ability of a material to resist permanent deformation under compression (sometimes the word "resistant to scratching" is thrown around, but that is very misleading).
Note that hardness and strength are somewhat related, but they don't mean the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
Ductility is the amount a material can stretch/deform under tension.
Toughness is the amount of energy a material can absorb before it breaks. A tough material must be both strong and ductile.
***
Both glass and sapphire may be strong and hard (as is diamond), but they are not ductile. They cannot absorb energy under impact and are therefore, not tough but brittle.
The point is, sapphire may be harder than ion X glass, and therefore, resists scratches better (I'm not sure if it's stronger). However, if sapphire is more shatter prone, it just means that it is less tough.
I think the problem is that we tend to use terms like hardness and strength incorrectly that results in some confusion.
Sadly, I can see Apple eliminating the SS model altogether. I don't know for certain, but I suspect the aluminium is cheaper to produce yielding greater margins (even with a lower selling price).
Think about it...other Apple products have started out with stainless steel, only to go aluminum including the original 5g iPod and iPhone. Even Apple's current website AW page doesn't show the SS model.
As watches and wearables become more popular, lower priced aluminum models will drive mass adoption. There's probably already anodized models in a rainbow of colours in development. Lighter, slimmer throwaway watches, all sealed with glue.
I hope I'm wrong and that the SS is here to stay. Apple's vision is so driven by efficiency and profits that if demand is tepid, it may look to go all aluminum.
Rumor has it that the next iPhone or at least one version of it will go back to using SS, suggesting Apple is still a fan. I'm sure the watch will continue to use both aluminum and SS. I think having two options helps overall sales.
My thought is that while Apple initially tried to market the watch both as a fashion accessory and a fitness device it has become apparent since that time that the fitness aspects of the watch have proven to be more popular. Thus the sport model probably outsells the stainless version by a 4:1 or even 5:1 margin, resulting in a scarcity of the stainless model.
I believe their is a big difference between a watch and a phone. The only two types of watches I've owned were SS or rubber coated (G-Shock). The markup on the SS watch has got to be higher than Aluminum too which has to be appealing to Apple.
We still don't know the real reason why SS watches are hard to find in retail stores. We can only speculate. I've been watching the two stores near me and those "near by" on istocknow. It seems the only SS watches around are the silver with white band and space black with black band. I can see where you may like the space black with the black sport band but not like the regular SS with white band. I was one of those. So what did I do? Got the SS with white band and hit up Amazon for a couple other bands. How many do that vs ordering online and getting the watch with the band they want?
Consider the Ceramic watch. I found only one store with it in stock and it was in Northern Virginia. Does that mean Apple will abandon Ceramic due to demand?
Watches to me, and it seems many others, need to be a silver stainless steel or gold, or mix of the two. I don't see Apple abandoning SS any time soon. It attracts people who may normally buy a regular analog watch from Japan or Europe.
We still don't know the real reason why SS watches are hard to find in retail stores. We can only speculate. I've been watching the two stores near me and those "near by" on istocknow. It seems the only SS watches around are the silver with white band and space black with black band. I can see where you may like the space black with the black sport band but not like the regular SS with white band. I was one of those. So what did I do? Got the SS with white band and hit up Amazon for a couple other bands. How many do that vs ordering online and getting the watch with the band they want?
Consider the Ceramic watch. I found only one store with it in stock and it was in Northern Virginia. Does that mean Apple will abandon Ceramic due to demand?
Watches to me, and it seems many others, need to be a silver stainless steel or gold, or mix of the two. I don't see Apple abandoning SS any time soon. It attracts people who may normally buy a regular analog watch from Japan or Europe.
Stainless steel is here to stay. Margins are higher and there is a lucrative, not-too-small part of the market that will never buy an aluminium watch. Heck, Jony Ive would never wear one, either. The continuation of the Hermes partnership and the new (ceramic) Edition also confirm that there is a high(er) end market for smart watches.
Apple has always been a premium brand and will never adjust its market position to cater to the price conscious - instead, it is always the other way around where the entry level products in its price range are there to entice customers to upgrade to the more expensive options.
I disagree. I do believe the Sport model likely outsells the Stainless model. The stainless model offers more of a premium separation away from the aluminum model. In the world of smart watches and Watches in General for that matter, it makes sense to offer different variations of the Watch. Apple offering different iterations allows for consumer options and the theory stands "Not one size fits all."
I feel it would be a costly mistake if Apple were to only allow one option.
The Apple Watch can't be compared to the iPhone in terms of how it will compare in materials. Two different things and different categories.