Selectively quoting out of context and replying with a patronising comment instead of being additive to the conversation is simply boring, reductive and nobody cares for it.
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.
Apple Watch Ultra: Titanium finish less durable?
- Thread starter AppleTLDR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple watch ultra
- Sort by reaction score
Well, when no one on the opposing side will even respond to the repeated fact of titanium being stronger per unit mass than stainless steel, what else could possibly constitute a meaningful comment? There was nothing out of context about it. I quoted your exact words in regard to the topic at hand. I do not believe the Ultra and specifically Titanium as a material choice offers much extra in the way of additional functional durability. In other words, you choose to not believe something, simply because it would prove your entire argument null in void. I’m sorry, but that’s just not the way facts work. A simple Google search can easily confirm this for you.
Anecdotes, like what you’ve provided thus far, aren’t meaningful comments either, with regards to compelling arguments. Despite the repeated assertions that facts are subjective & evidence is meaningless, I continue to point out the obvious. There is quite literally, nothing, to support the notion that stainless steel is stronger than titanium, when it comes to durability. Scratches are cosmetic, period. They have never, in history, been an indicator of a material’s durability.
Futhermore, the actual premise of the original post remains as absurd as it was the day of posting. I tried being meaningful & factual earlier, & it was ignored. So I’ll go with the language more people seem to engage.
Titanium has some really great qualities. It’s strong, light, amagnetic, and highly corrosion resistant. Stainless steel likewise, is also a very durable material. I have watches made of both titanium and steel. The whole argument of which is better is ridiculous in this context as both titanium and steel will hold up much better than your wrist in almost every conceivable scenario. Also, one has to consider what grade of titanium Apple uses and what grade of stainless steel Apple uses because it makes a huge difference. The highest grade of titanium will beat the snot out of low to medium grade stainless steel and the best steel alloys will give titanium a run for it’s money. Buy the Ultra for all of the features, but worry less about the titanium. I’ve already determined that my titanium Ultra probably has a useful life of four or five years. There is almost nothing I can do to destroy the watch in that length of time. I have titanium watches over 25 years old (Sinn EZM1) that are still going strong and look as new as the day I got them.
I don't think he was dunking on steel–rather he was arguing with the ridiculous idea that Grade 2 titanium's lower scratch resistance means it's weak. And I was shocked to see people advising shaving off the metal after scratches. Day to day use isn't going to destroy the watch, but shaving the case off will.
If you cared to read each of my posts, you’ll see I did research the properties of Stainless steel vs Titanium. A high grade SS outperforms most Titanium alloys. I’m also quite capable of using a search engine without instruction. And based on that research, as I said, I do not believe the grade of Titanium being used (likely grade 4) will meaningfully out perform the 16L stainless steel used in the Series 8. I don’t and have never disputed that Titanium offers comparable strength at half the weight. Merely that is does not offer any meaningful increase in durability when contrasted with Stainless Steel.
My point still stands. Cosmetic durability and functional durability are not synonymous. The entire point of this thread was simply to point out that if folks are making a purchase of AW Ultra in the hopes of seeing greater levels of cosmetic durability, then they’ll be sorely disappointed. The finish can’t be restored as easily as the SS silver models which can be polished. Not so with bead blasted Titanium without changing the finish entirely. Unless you happen to have access to very expensive and proprietary equipment.
I’m not saying the Ultra is a bad product. Far from it. What I am saying is that if a person is making a purchase with the hope that durability as Apple describes = resistant to nicks and scratches, then the product won’t match those expectations. Especially not with questionable design tropes such as the inclusion of thin, laser cut chamfers in the metal.
Attachments
”Cosmetic Durability” is a made up term. It doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s essentially an oxymoron. Run a Google search on it & you will get back nothing. That is for good reason. A material’s durability is tangible, while cosmetics are subjective. How easily a finish can be restored is irrelevant to this conversation. It still seems like you’re blurring the lines between the two terms, but at this point, I’m willing to admit that I’m wasting time trying to explain it.
I don’t and have never disputed that Titanium offers comparable strength at half the weight. Merely that is does not offer any meaningful increase in durability when contrasted with Stainless Steel. If only this were actually true, but I’m a broken record at this point. Again, feel free to fire up that Google machine at any time.
If you’re speaking solely to the scratch resistance of the two materials, then use that term instead of durability. They are not interchangeable, like many here seem to think they are. Perception of what something is, doesn’t make it such.
My experience with titanium ultra are 2 deep scratches after 1 week on titanium frame ( i accident. smash them against wall) I thought its unrepairable but it tooks circa 1 or 2 hours of pollishing with ordinary washcloth and they are completely gone. Of course it changed little bit finish but it looks good.
May be a scotch brite could have expedited the polishing task? Although it poses a risk to the screen if not handled properly.
Do not sand the case of your watch! Yes, Scotch Brite counts. It will damage both case and screen.
Where are people getting these insane ideas?
And yet the idiot who took a Dremel tool to his new Ultra to "improve" it got front-page billing on this website. SMH.
Let's see what will happen to this idiot when he needs to send in his AWU for repairs
That’s not nice.
He’s an idiot because he prefers a different look?
There are names for people like you too.
Before you guys come with all guns glazing I request you to watch this video-
Just because it doesn’t sound right doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I just looked that up. Leaving aside the structural damage, it looks just awful! I don't mean that subjectively– I mean it's very poorly brushed. It just looks damaged.
If I sanded/Dremeled the top of my MBP to remove the Apple logo, I would be an idiot. Not because I dislike the logo that replaced the light, but because it compromises the structural integrity of the whole device.
What's your point? I can find all manner of bad repair/technical videos from YouTube channels.
I am not recommending it, all I am saying is that there is a possibility should the situation demands.
I've had my watch for a solid week or so now. I've banged it off a few door knobs. Been to the gym to life weights, tinged it off buttons and random things here and there and so far not a mark. This does mean I won't get any dings, but its not the "breath on it and get a scratch" finish everyone is worried about.
That seems a bit escalated. I think it looks perfectly nice, and his second phase polishing job looks quite good. Is it a perfect factory finish no. Does it look good yes. Will it hold up and allow periodic maintenance yes. Is he an idiot, I would say no.
Anyway for a watch I wear daily on my wrist that gets exposure to everything I expect some scratches regardless of material
In my view the occurrence of scratches on the Apple Watch are conditional and differ from person to person usage.
I was initially quite apprehensive to keep my aluminium model as online threads such as these were inundated with messages of people scratching their aluminium watches big time.
I thought I would give it a go. So after 2+ years all I see is couple of scratches on the glass that is all.
Was I overly careful- yes initially.but after my first scratch I did not bother.
In these 2+ years of usage I did bump into things.I definitely remember bumping into metal objects few times and I am pretty certain that aluminium body took the beating and not the glass. But as I said it survived with few scratches on the glass.
So let’s see how I will fair with the ultra.
I mean how bad can it be! Surely It can’t be as bad as the aluminium, which I did not scratch till date.
I was initially quite apprehensive to keep my aluminium model as online threads such as these were inundated with messages of people scratching their aluminium watches big time.
I thought I would give it a go. So after 2+ years all I see is couple of scratches on the glass that is all.
Was I overly careful- yes initially.but after my first scratch I did not bother.
In these 2+ years of usage I did bump into things.I definitely remember bumping into metal objects few times and I am pretty certain that aluminium body took the beating and not the glass. But as I said it survived with few scratches on the glass.
So let’s see how I will fair with the ultra.
I mean how bad can it be! Surely It can’t be as bad as the aluminium, which I did not scratch till date.
Last edited: