Why no sapphire on the sports watch?

[57004]

I'm just wondering why Apple is using "Ion-X" glass on its sports model, when they say in the same paragraph that Sapphire is the strongest glass ever? The steel and gold models use sapphire.

On most Apple Watch models, the display is laminated to a machined and polished single crystal of sapphire. Next to diamond, it’s the hardest transparent material. On watches in the Sport collection, protection is provided by strengthened Ion-X glass. (from here).

I would have thought that especially a sports watch would have benefited from strong glass as you'll be excercising with it. More likely to be banging into stuff. That makes aluminium a weird choice too as it's also much more fragile than steel.

This might impact my decision which one to get - the stainless steel looks better in my opinion but is bound to be heavier. But if the sports one is more prone to scratches it makes it a hard decision. I wonder if the sports model would actually be the cheapest one?

 

[Patriot24]

I wonder if the sports model would actually be the cheapest one?

I believe this to be true. The idea being that it is the most basic version for people just looking mostly at fitness tracking. As such, it would need to be the lowest-priced to compete with Fitbit and other trackers out there (although still significantly more expensive).

The materials on the sports model appear to be less high-end than the others, as you've pointed out. Even the bands look less premium and fashion-y.

In our world of tech, heavy = bad. In the watch industry, heavy = premium build. We're going to have to change our thinking somewhat in this brave new world of fashion-forward wearables.

 

[DavidTheExpert]

I agree that the sports line will probably also be the cheapest, but there may be another reason why they are not using sapphire on the sports line.

Sapphire is highly resistant to scratches, but more likely to shatter under hard forces. So for the normal watch wearer, you want it to be scratch resistant in case you bump it into a wall or a table corner. But if you are, say, a bike rider, you don't want your watch to shatter when you take a tumble down that mountain trail. You could live with a couple of scratches in that case.

 

[NT1440]

My guess is the ion treated glass is better suited for direct impacts, if that's the case that's good news for the iPhone 6 as well...

 

[Patriot24]

Sapphire is highly resistant to scratches, but more likely to shatter under hard forces. So for the normal watch wearer, you want it to be scratch resistant in case you bump it into a wall or a table corner. But if you are, say, a bike rider, you don't want your watch to shatter when you take a tumble down that mountain trail. You could live with a couple of scratches in that case.

Really interesting point there. I'd be interested to hear more from Apple on their research around shatter vs. scratch in these materials.

 

[OllyW]

I would think it's simply to keep the price of the cheaper model as low as possible.

 

[NewbieCanada]

I can't guarantee anything but when they list products in order of steel, aluminum and gold, I'm pretty sure steel is the cheapest.

 

[OllyW]

I can't guarantee anything but when they list products in order of steel, aluminum and gold, I'm pretty sure steel is the cheapest.

The aluminium model looks like the cheaper option to me.

 

[NewbieCanada]

The aluminium model looks like the cheaper option to me.

They went to special effort to make it lighter and stronger, and listed it in the middle - consistently. No one ever lists the cheapest model after the more expensive one. Certainly not Apple.

 

[douglasf13]

Really interesting point there. I'd be interested to hear more from Apple on their research around shatter vs. scratch in these materials.

This may be similar to Seiko's Hardlex vs. Sapphire in their watches. The Hardlex may be slightly more scratch prone, but it is less shatter prone, which can be a good thing in a diver's watch. It's a trade off (although price and weight may also have something to do with it.)

 

[crjackson2134]

I agree that the sports line will probably also be the cheapest, but there may be another reason why they are not using sapphire on the sports line.

Sapphire is highly resistant to scratches, but more likely to shatter under hard forces. So for the normal watch wearer, you want it to be scratch resistant in case you bump it into a wall or a table corner. But if you are, say, a bike rider, you don't want your watch to shatter when you take a tumble down that mountain trail. You could live with a couple of scratches in that case.

Completely agree with this except the cheapest part.

 

[Appl3FTW]

if its the cheapest then why are the line up.. watch, watch sport, watch edition?

shouldn't it be: watch, watch sport, watch edition?

 

[Squid7085]

if its the cheapest then why are the line up.. watch, watch sport, watch edition?

shouldn't it be: watch, watch sport, watch edition?

I look at it like the other lines used to be lined up, the "iPad" and the "iPod" originally referred to the middle of the road base model. The "iPod mini" and the "iPad mini" were the cheaper named models. The Sport is without a doubt placed as the budget model.

 

[mcdj]

Actual production costs are hardly the deciding factor in omitting sapphire. Sapphire is not nearly as expensive as the watch industry would like us to believe. Sapphire is the lobster of synthetic minerals. I'd be very surprised if the WATCH sapphire crystal cost more than $5 to make.

It's also likely not about shattering. 99.9% of high end Swiss sports watches have a sapphire crystal.

To my thinking, it's all about marketing; creating exaggerated differences to justify wildly disparate pricing.

In terms of raw materials and assembly costs, the aluminum and steel versions of the watch are likely separated by no more than a few dollars.

I'm guessing $400+ for the steel version.