When I heard the Apple Watch Ultra was 49mm I was shocked, in particular when I discovered there was no “smaller” option. I then immediately figured maybe that was being reserved for next year. But now that I looked carefully at the real specs, and not the rumors from before the announcement, it is becoming somewhat obvious that Apple had little choice but to go to 49mm and it may be very difficult to make a smaller Ultra in the future without painful trade offs, and I’m not just talking about battery life.
It all comes down to the screen. The rumors said the new Apple Watch would have a bigger screen, and it does, but that size increase is nowhere near the rumored 7% increase, or even what people perceived after the Ultra was shown… in fact it is so small the screen may as well be considered identical in size to the normal 45 mm Apple Watch Series 7/8. The 45mm Series 8 has a 1,143 sq mm screen. The Ultra has a 1,164 sq mm screen. That’s a difference of just 1.8%! To give you an idea when the Series 6 44mm went to the Series 7 45mm it went from 977 sq mm to 1,143 sq mm, a jump of nearly 17%. Basically the Ultra for all intensive purposes has the same size screen at 49mm (case size) as the 45mm (case size) has.
So why? It has to do with the new beefy titanium case. Although the metal bezels are small, they ARE wrapped all the way around the screen on the Ultra like a picture frame. This adds up, but is necessary for the flat screen to be protected as part of a “rugged” design. The 45mm Apple Watch has essentially no bezels as the screen wraps around and merges with a base of metal casing but exposing the edges of the glass to side impact. THIS is why the Ultra is 49mm. Apple to make the watch any smaller would have had to either 1) have a less sturdy / rugged design (and ultimately it would have looked like a regular Apple Watch) or 2) have a smaller screen than the 45mm Apple Watch. I think Apple realized they couldn’t make a sports watch that cost $800+ and not have a screen at least as big as the biggest Apple Watch. That meant a 49mm watch.
Now what about the future? I speculated earlier perhaps they would build a 45mm Ultra option for next year for smaller wrists. The problem with that is a 45mm Ultra style watch would likely have a screen roughly the same in size as the current 41mm Apple Watch. I know I wouldn’t like that! I’ve worn a 42/44/45 Apple Watch since the beginning and the idea to get a rugged watch that “fits” my wrist would require me to downsize the screen would seem totally unacceptable to me. I suppose it might still be offered as a solution for truly small wristed individuals who currently only wear the 41mm and would be willing to tolerate an “oversized” 45mm Ultra in exchange for those high end features (and the screen would remain about the same as their old 41mm.)
As for me? I have 160mm wrists. 49mm on the surface of it sounds absurd and too large. Oh hell, you only live once… see you all on the 23rd when I post pictures of my oversized Ultra… lol.
It all comes down to the screen. The rumors said the new Apple Watch would have a bigger screen, and it does, but that size increase is nowhere near the rumored 7% increase, or even what people perceived after the Ultra was shown… in fact it is so small the screen may as well be considered identical in size to the normal 45 mm Apple Watch Series 7/8. The 45mm Series 8 has a 1,143 sq mm screen. The Ultra has a 1,164 sq mm screen. That’s a difference of just 1.8%! To give you an idea when the Series 6 44mm went to the Series 7 45mm it went from 977 sq mm to 1,143 sq mm, a jump of nearly 17%. Basically the Ultra for all intensive purposes has the same size screen at 49mm (case size) as the 45mm (case size) has.
So why? It has to do with the new beefy titanium case. Although the metal bezels are small, they ARE wrapped all the way around the screen on the Ultra like a picture frame. This adds up, but is necessary for the flat screen to be protected as part of a “rugged” design. The 45mm Apple Watch has essentially no bezels as the screen wraps around and merges with a base of metal casing but exposing the edges of the glass to side impact. THIS is why the Ultra is 49mm. Apple to make the watch any smaller would have had to either 1) have a less sturdy / rugged design (and ultimately it would have looked like a regular Apple Watch) or 2) have a smaller screen than the 45mm Apple Watch. I think Apple realized they couldn’t make a sports watch that cost $800+ and not have a screen at least as big as the biggest Apple Watch. That meant a 49mm watch.
Now what about the future? I speculated earlier perhaps they would build a 45mm Ultra option for next year for smaller wrists. The problem with that is a 45mm Ultra style watch would likely have a screen roughly the same in size as the current 41mm Apple Watch. I know I wouldn’t like that! I’ve worn a 42/44/45 Apple Watch since the beginning and the idea to get a rugged watch that “fits” my wrist would require me to downsize the screen would seem totally unacceptable to me. I suppose it might still be offered as a solution for truly small wristed individuals who currently only wear the 41mm and would be willing to tolerate an “oversized” 45mm Ultra in exchange for those high end features (and the screen would remain about the same as their old 41mm.)
As for me? I have 160mm wrists. 49mm on the surface of it sounds absurd and too large. Oh hell, you only live once… see you all on the 23rd when I post pictures of my oversized Ultra… lol.
