It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?
It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?
No. 42 is big enough.It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?
It seems to me there is room for a third size of Apple Watch: either 46 or 48 MM. What do you think?
I don’t see Apple venturing onto a 48 mm, not to mention the cost behind that to the consumer. Perhaps a 44 mm, but a 48MM would be way to large for many.
Don't mix up case size with font size and clarity. There's a lot of dead space on that Fenix's screen.42MM is a little small in my honest opinion when used for sports. As a fashion accessory it's a fine size. I'd like it a little larger though for workouts and sport activities. I train for and do triathlons and a larger screen would, well you know, make seeing the data on the move that much easier. Try taking a gander at your Apple Watch while swimming...
Here is my Garmin Fenix 5 in 47MM... Not all that large and in all honestly, I wonder if I should have went with their 52MM version instead after using it for several months now...
Don't mix up case size with font size and clarity. There's a lot of dead space on that Fenix's screen.
I don't want the bulk on my wrist.
been saying this since day 1....should be at least 46mm...
I think there would be a very small demographic for a 46 mm Apple Watch. I think the 42 mm is a great size, if it was slightly larger as a 44 mm, I think that be the most I would want with a smart watch. But I don’t see a large majority being interested in a 46 mm variant. Also, Apples price point for a 46 mm would be something likely not attractive as well, already given the price point for some of the stainless and ceramic models.