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.
Who is getting ready for 49mm Series 8?
- Thread starter akidokraja
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t think Apple will make such a larger AW because if they do, they’ve to tweak the OS aspect to make use all that new screen real estate. You’ve to have like two watchOSes to boot with which is quite cumbersome.
Like they have to have multiple iOS for multiple iPhone sizes and resolutions? No need for that at all.
Despite the name, the Apple Watch is all about going beyond a mere time display.
With Ive gone, the fashion/jewellery aspect will increasingly diminish and the functional aspect will gain more priority.
In a few years we may even see a dedicated functional display that can be strapped on the wrist and which goes far beyond the „watch“ sizes people are used to today.
The current watch size is far from being sufficient to properly power future AR glasses, so there may be a new functional category that could take the role of a separate iPhone as AR glasses hub.
And with the major target markets seeing increasingly aging societies, a larger display - to counter worsening eyesight of the potential customers - is a logical conclusion imho.
That‘s the point: Let go the name-implied notion that this device needs to resemble a Watch. Take it at face value: A wrist-worn computer and mobile phone with a touch screen interface, that happens to also be able to tell the time.
In that scenario, a way bigger screen (which commands a bigger casing as well) would be very logical imho. Think Apple Bracelet instead of Apple Watch (I’m sure I’ve seen concept drawings going in that direction, but can’t find ‘em just now).
The screen of such a bracelet could easily be twice as wide and high as the current Apple Watch, without necessarily looking ugly for most people. Because people associate certain measures with a Watch, but not necessarily with a bracelet.
Surely that would not be for everyone, but it may very well co-exist with an Apple Watch. And it could even be required for years to come (until miniaturization has significantly advanced), in order to function as hub for the rumored Apple Glasses, for people without an iPhone to take that role.
I find it hard to picture a bigger watch screen living along its smaller sized brothers. To be honest, my view of a watch should be limited to no more than 46mm.
You are still thinking in Watch terms. That name (probably) originated from the initial idea to market the AppleWatch as jewellery and fashion item. Maybe you could think of something like a new product category with a more functional approach, called e.g Apple cuff/bracelet.
Prior to the AppleWatch release, there were some interesting design concepts floating around the net. While they sometimes exceed the technical possibilities of even today (as it’s expected from design concepts), they give a nice idea of what I‘ve been talking about earlier: Design Concepts
Well, I personally wouldn’t want an accessory anything bigger than 46mm on my wrist.
The whole point is a watch with added functionality, not an extra screen (or device) to look at. The whole point for me is a minimalistic accessory that adds value to the iPhone. Not sure if I made sense. Let me know.
Think I get your point. As for me, I’d very much welcome a bigger screen on my wrist, as my eyes aren’t getting younger unfortunately. Longterm, I could even imagine such a cuff/bracelet to take over some tasks from the iPhone - perhaps even being a hub doing the heavy lifting for e.g. the Apple Glasses (when no iPhone is available).
I assume that such a bracelet would be rejected by quite some people in the beginning - similar to the AppleWatch at first (and probably similar to the initial reactions to the Apple Glasses). Other people, however, would surely welcome the increased possibilities of a way bigger screen on the wrist, with more room for sensors, battery, radios etc.
Guess it partially depends on personal priorities: Aestethics vs functionality. And then of course aesthetics is a very subjective thing
Yeah but he’s 6’4” so his eyes are much further away from the watch than the average person. Or maybe his eyes are really small. I honestly don’t know.
i think you should strap an iPhone to your wrist. One of the bigger ones on account of your huge arm.
i also think it would look good if you take up falconry and have a snowy owl or something perched on there. They’re large. And i know people say falconry should be limited to falcons, but I think you can apply the same logic as people do for phones, which are basically computers.
Apart from your ad-hominem attack, do you have any actual arguments against more screen real estate on a wrist device?
Maybe I’m old, but I think the 48mm-54mm spectrum of timepieces is absolutely ridiculous unless you’re just a naturally large person with massive wrists. And I think that’s exactly why Apple started at the sizes they did from the beginning. Because, although it was going to be considered a smart watch, they also wanted to stay traditional.
I was searching for a timepiece a few years back for more of a dress watch. I couldn’t count how many times I clicked on something that looked nice and it was around 50mm. I ended up going with a Tag Formula 1 42mm. Way more than someone would usually want to spend, but now it’s my forever watch and a classic.
So that’s a no thanks for me. But I will be going for Series 8 if it’s 46mm or smaller. 😃
I was searching for a timepiece a few years back for more of a dress watch. I couldn’t count how many times I clicked on something that looked nice and it was around 50mm. I ended up going with a Tag Formula 1 42mm. Way more than someone would usually want to spend, but now it’s my forever watch and a classic.
So that’s a no thanks for me. But I will be going for Series 8 if it’s 46mm or smaller. 😃
Would you have a similar resentment if we'd talk about a wearable in form of a bracelet with a display?
Originally they aimed at the fashion market - which is also why they hired Angela Ahrendts for a better understanding of that market. They wanted to open themselves a new niche in the (high-margin) fashion market by complementing jewelry with their core competence (computer/digital devices).
Then they realized that it was a wrong approach: Classic high-priced/high-margin jewelry relies on a more or less strict exclusivity, in order to justify the cost of admission for its customers. And those products don't get replaced every other year.
Apple however wants (and structurally needs) to sell high numbers of relatively identical products every year, which does not help with building the expected reputation for high-priced jewelry. Let alone that Apple is not really "high-priced" when compared to traditional high-priced jewelry.
So they switched to target the fitness and health market and got successful there. But now they're facing another problem: Competition can serve that market with significantly cheaper products, which are also better suited for that market (e.g. battery life). Their answer is that they try to distinguish themselves from the competition by offering higher-end functions, courtesy of Apple's core competence.
However, by now they have probably realized that they've hit another wall there, because the really interesting, non-invasive health-features are either not possible at all for a wrist-worn device - or need way more time (and perhaps still-to-be-developed new hardware) than expected. But unlike pure jewelry, Apple can not sell an AppleWatch unchanged over several years.
So I expect them to eventually put a stronger focus on the technical side to offer something new to their customers, which imho inevitably leads to an increase in display size and available room for tech inside the device. Nice side effect: a bigger display would also help with the aging customer base in their primary markets.
The interesting question is: Which customer segment is more important for Apple: The ones prioritizing aesthetical aspects (thus limiting the "allowed" size) or the ones prioritizing pragmatic aspects? My wild guess is that the pragmatic group is bigger than the aesthetical group.
Apple surely has the required data available and will react accordingly with their future roadmap for the Apple Watch (and perhaps a future Apple Bracelet). Perhaps we'll see a new product category in the wearable segment in the future ...
Absolutely. Because a bracelet with a display (especially a display that has the time on it) would be considered a watch.Would you have a similar resentment if we'd talk about a wearable in form of a bracelet with a display?
Originally they aimed at the fashion market - which is also why they hired Angela Ahrendts for a better understanding of that market. They wanted to open themselves a new niche in the (high-margin) fashion market by complementing jewelry with their core competence (computer/digital devices).
Then they realized that it was a wrong approach: Classic high-priced/high-margin jewelry relies on a more or less strict exclusivity, in order to justify the cost of admission for its customers. And those products don't get replaced every other year.
Apple however wants (and structurally needs) to sell high numbers of relatively identical products every year, which does not help with building the expected reputation for high-priced jewelry. Let alone that Apple is not really "high-priced" when compared to traditional high-priced jewelry.
So they switched to target the fitness and health market and got successful there. But now they're facing another problem: Competition can serve that market with significantly cheaper products, which are also better suited for that market (e.g. battery life). Their answer is that they try to distinguish themselves from the competition by offering higher-end functions, courtesy of Apple's core competence.
However, by now they have probably realized that they've hit another wall there, because the really interesting, non-invasive health-features are either not possible at all for a wrist-worn device - or need way more time (and perhaps still-to-be-developed new hardware) than expected. But unlike pure jewelry, Apple can not sell an AppleWatch unchanged over several years.
So I expect them to eventually put a stronger focus on the technical side to offer something new to their customers, which imho inevitably leads to an increase in display size and available room for tech inside the device. Nice side effect: a bigger display would also help with the aging customer base in their primary markets.
The interesting question is: Which customer segment is more important for Apple: The ones prioritizing aesthetical aspects (thus limiting the "allowed" size) or the ones prioritizing pragmatic aspects? My wild guess is that the pragmatic group is bigger than the aesthetical group.
Apple surely has the required data available and will react accordingly with their future roadmap for the Apple Watch (and perhaps a future Apple Bracelet). Perhaps we'll see a new product category in the wearable segment in the future ...
And do you think in the 50’s, when the average watch sizes were 35-37mm, there were no hard of seeing people wearing them? Usually when people get to the point of having a hard time seeing the clock face on a watch, they get their eyes checked and get glasses. I know I will when the time comes. I’m not gonna buy something that looks absurd on my wrist just to avoid the fact I need glasses.
Apple knows exactly what they’re doing when targeting the majority. That’s why they won’t compromise with a massive watch in order to compete with others that get 5-7 days of battery life. Just as they won’t compromise in the thickness of the iPhone to get 2-4 days of battery life vs a day to a day and a half. They will continue to stay true to the design they choose until the technology of batteries get better, or the components inside get small so they can fit a larger battery in it.
But that’s JMO 👊😃👍
I'm petite being a little under 5 ft, with an almost bony, thin wrist lol, but I'm really happy with the Apple Watch 7 41mm. Thought it was huge at first, but then it's the perspective that tricks you into thinking that. The size of the watch is really the same as the Series 2 - 4. There's no difference with the 40-41mm really. I can't complain haha
I’m 6’ and have super skinny writs also. I’m fit, but wrists just don’t get larger. My last AW was Series 6 at 45mm and there’s just a little space between the case and the edge of my wrist, so it looks proportionate. I didn’t notice much difference between it and previous 44mm AW’s I had. But anything larger would start hanging over and look tacky, to me. Plus I see myself knocking it on more things 😂I'm petite being a little under 5 ft, with an almost bony, thin wrist lol, but I'm really happy with the Apple Watch 7 41mm. Thought it was huge at first, but then it's the perspective that tricks you into thinking that. The size of the watch is really the same as the Series 2 - 4. There's no difference with the 40-41mm really. I can't complain haha
Correct. And I have even a larger issue. I have to wear it upside down because of all my tattoos. My right wrist underneath has just enough skin showing there isn’t an issue with the sensors.
Sensors won’t read heart rate and it also doesn’t read that I’m wearing the watch constantly. So I would always have to put in my password 🤦🏻♂️
Workouts would always stop on me. Took me a while to figure out what was going on.