Michal Ždanský Among the data that Apple didn't bother to share during the keynote, or after it ended when showing off to journalists, were the dimensions, in addition to the battery life. The only dimension we learned from the presentation was the height of the device, which is 42 mm and 38 mm for the smaller model. The width of the watch, the size of the display and above all the thickness were officially kept from us. Apparently, Apple had a reason not to comment on the thickness at all, because from the perspective the device is not as thin as we would imagine.
Web designer and developer Paul Sprangers did the job, and from the available information and photos, including those where the watch is shown next to the new iPhones whose dimensions we know, he calculated the individual dimensions and published them on his blog. His findings about the dimensions of the watch as well as the size of the touch screen (also not mentioned by Apple) are as follows:
[one_half last="no"]
Apple Watch 42mm
Height: 42 mm
Width: 36,2 mm
Depth: 12,46 mm
Depth without sensor: 10,6 mm
Display size: 1,54", aspect ratio 4:5
[/one_half][one_half last="yes"]
Apple Watch 38mm
Height: 38 mm
Width: 32,9 mm
Depth including sensor: 12,3 mm
Display size: 1,32", aspect ratio 4:5
[/one_half]
The thickness practically corresponds to the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus placed on top of each other. By comparison, the first iPhone was 11,6mm thick, which is smaller than the Apple Watch when you count the sensor protrusion. It is also worth noting that the smaller model of the watch is also 16 tenths of a millimeter thinner. The resolution is not yet known, we can only speculate about it, but according to Apple it is a retina display, i.e. a display with a pixel density of at least 300 pixels per inch.
SO THEY ARE FATTER THAN I THOUGHT
TERROR
YUCK
I HAVEN'T SEEN SOMETHING SO DISGUSTING IN A LONG TIME
Do you care about thickness or rather functions? Is it better to go thinner, thinner, thinner, or increase battery life and make devices waterproof? I would definitely choose the latter. With the iPhone 6, Apple prefers to stick to a thinner strategy, and you can think for yourself whether you prefer an iPhone half a millimeter thinner or a slightly thicker one, but waterproof and with a longer battery life.
For watches, in my opinion, their thickness is an even less important detail than for smartphones, and the most important thing is battery life.
I like the Apple Watch a lot, but I understand that some people may simply not like their design.
For a watch, the thickness seems more important to me than for a mobile phone..
well, even though I own one watch with a tourbillon movement that weighs something like 200g, it's not terribly thick either. this is a big extreme. 1,3 cm thick hoviso on the wrist. it doesn't look like it, but it's the same height as a docking cradle for an iPad or iPhone. hell indeed. all shirts for it will be small around the wrist. so apple gave business to tailors who make a living from the network of custom shirts.
Thickness and height are the same!
You are wrong, thickness and depth are the same thing. Height and width are dimensions from the top view..
Or how to easily prepare for the next generation, which will typically be thinner and lighter.
It just needs Apple handbags and backpacks so that we have somewhere to put our ever-growing iDevices.
Making the Watch a must-have by making everything else bigger and moving the use of things on the phone to the watch is not the right direction.
I'd rather reach into a pocket where I have my phone (iPhone 5S and older) and which I know rather than have a watch and take off my backpack with my iPhone 6/6+ phone tablet when needed.
I don't think moving the iPhone screen to the wrist makes life easier, quite the opposite.
So that we don't miss the iPad mini when the iPhone 7 is introduced.
There will still be missed calls on the iPhone 6/6+ before someone pulls it out of their backpack.
We will have to wait for the features introduced in OSX Yosemite, which took the iPhone and Mac together in their use a step further (telephone functions on the Mac, etc.), for the Watch.
Or according to Apple, the era of hip-hop clothing is beginning, where there will probably be no problems with dimensions?
The height of the watch is relatively large, that's true... a lot of space for critics, especially from the advice of those who never invented anything that should be produced, never programmed anything... to show their abilities.
Perfectly written...
How I don't like this argument... So only those who invented and made something can have their opinion and present it? Is this some kind of entry requirement for a club that is allowed to rate? And who determined it that way? I thought that these consumables are intended especially for people who have never done anything, never created and will never do or create anything. Need for me. And although I have never programmed anything (except for simple things on Commodore and Consul when I was about eleven years old), I will allow myself to evaluate the watch. They are fat as a pig and do not bring anything that extra. Given that the Sony Xperia Z1 Compact seems to me to be at least as fast as the iP5s (practically the most important parameter for me) and Android has a much better selection of watches and bracelets, Apple is slowly losing its competitive edge for me.
that's a terrible argument - so when I leave the cinema, I'm not allowed to rate the film, because I haven't shot one myself? when I leave the pub, I can't say that I didn't like the food, because I also burned the water for tea myself?
The height of the watch is quite large, that's true... but I share the same opinion and wrote it. I didn't even ban opinions, let alone criticism... I'd be quite interested in what made you so excited ;-) If...
Whoever has the desire and the time should determine the mean value and variance of the chronographs sold... I'm guessing that it won't get below 10-11 mm.
What else could Apple have invented for the Watch? He is entering here for the first time. I also don't enjoy reading about how Jobs was a visionary and such. Times have changed and the visionary is now Elon Musk or someone else. Jobs was Jobs and period. Complaints about the dimensions of the watch? Why? Is the height of almost 13 mm too much? Anyone who wears quality sports mechanics with a diameter of 40 or more knows that such a height is standard. And as if no one noticed that there are two sizes (which correspond to regular watches), three types of materials, and a range of straps. Does anyone stop to think how much a normal watch costs? Ordinary hand quartz steel watches from a renowned Japanese manufacturer with functions: time, day, date, stopwatch and WR100m covered with mineral glass cost around 4000 CZK. It seems to me that it is not enough for the performance offered. However, I am not saying that they are bad. They are excellent. When we add solar power, radio controlled, alarm clocks and such to other models, we can easily swing over 10 thousand. Is it a very demanding technology? I don't think it would justify such a price. And that does not include the price of branded mechanics. That would be enough for a proper study. Given the features of the Apple watch presented in the videos, the basic materials used in the Sport version, is the price too high? I do not think so.
I wouldn't compare it too much with watches, there it's a lot about the brand, you can get a titanium case with a sapphire for a triple and also for a drop (and I doubt that the price difference is justified by the possible higher quality processing and movement). In the case of an Apple watch, the price seems to me to be something that is made of high-quality materials and is almost certainly excellently made, completely fine. Apple itself fit the role of a "think different" company that does things differently and new, so it is, in my opinion, understandable why people increasingly expect revolutionary products or at least functions from Apple. Tim file, when Apple itself always presents it, as if it just presented something unusual and awesome. And that doesn't really apply to his watch.
the materials on the watch play a practically negligible role. Of course, the most expensive movement in the watch is the movement. different watches have different calibers. the better the caliber, the less delay or acceleration threatens the watch. cheap machines give you 1-4 seconds a day. on the other hand, the most expensive movements give you 1-4 seconds per year. (but those are watches for 10 euros or more)
Paradoxically, it is exactly the opposite. Cheap quartz movement models usually do within 1 second per month, while the COSC precision (mechanical) chronometer certification, which is tested by a number of prestigious watch manufacturers, has a tolerance of -4/+6 seconds per day. Precise quartz models with thermocompensation have the same COSC certification, but with a much stricter standard. So the price is not directly proportional to the accuracy.
but here we are already talking about something else.
every movement (mechanical or automatic) has a certain number of oscillations per hour. ordinary watches have from 15 to about 22 oscillations per hour, and these movements are actually delayed by about 6 seconds a day. but then there are significantly better movements (also of course more expensive) that make almost 29000 swings per hour and they run very precisely and make a maximum of a couple of seconds per month (models from 10 CZK onwards). and then we have an absolute peak with 36000 swings per hour, i.e. 600 swings per minute, which makes 10 swings per second. this means that these watches are accurate to 1 tenth of a second and watches with this movement are comparable to quartz movements (unfortunately, the price is right around 10t euros for one watch).
but I apologize for the initial comment, it was not completely accurate from a watchmaking point of view (I wasn't expecting some knowledgeable person here)
Hello Filo. Please, it's not all about swings. The fact that they will have 36000 or more does not mean that they will be more accurate. Of course, there is a certain percentage, but the accuracy is important in terms of adjustment, wearing, ways of putting them away overnight and stretching them. Because if 36000 was almost the most accurate, then almost all watches with COSC would have movements with this frequency. And with that I would close the mechanics, because it doesn't really belong here
So I think the Apple Watch is one of the most beautiful in terms of design (Samsung gear s are in 1st place for me), but somehow the functions didn't really impress me, I'd rather wait for the second generation.
From my point of view, the Moto 360 is the most beautiful in terms of design.
The watch is ugly, thick, with minimal durability and minimal use without a phone, because they don't even have GPS. And feel free to throw stones that I didn't build the clock myself. I have nothing against Apple, I use both an iPhone and a macbook pro, but my opinion is that these first hours have gone badly wrong.
I wouldn't say they are ugly or disgusting. remember the original iphone. I never buy the first version of the device. Inductive charging in the iPhone would fail.
you see, but according to me and many millions of others, the first iPhone was the most beautiful piece of HW ever, I don't think so about this watch..
Motorola Moto 360 thickness 11,5 mm, Galaxy Gear thickness 11,1 mm ... simply technologically, the standard is currently over 11 mm.
So now I'm going to buy a new iPhone and a new Apple Watch worth a total of 40-50 thousand. CZK so that I don't have to reach into my pocket and pull out my cell phone... That's crazy. I think I'll stick with the phone without the OS, the iPad is enough for me. It would be nice if they had a SIM and sophisticated voice control in Czech, I would pay for them even 10 thousand. ;)
I would never buy such a huge, thick pasquil for my hand. They can make a thin iPhone, but not a watch, for God's sake, why?!