|
On my desk at work in the morning.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Rubiks Pubes posted:For those of you that use sleep trackers, when do you charge your watch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Rubiks Pubes posted:For those of you that use sleep trackers, when do you charge your watch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:Some dude here said his bother surfs with his and hasn't had an issue. Oh man I would stink eye the poo poo out of anyone I saw in the water with an apple watch. That is some orange county garbage right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I went ahead and created an event thread here: Apple Event - September 7th - Pre-, Live- and Post-Discussion Thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
So I'm trying to figure out which watch to get ready to preorder on the 7th and I'm still waffling about 38 vs 42, assuming they stay the same. If I buy online should I expect that if I don't like the size I can switch it up at the fruit stand, one way or the other? Understand that for the first month or so quantities will probably be limited. I guess I could go to the fruit stand NOW to try them on, but it's not in the cards this weekend and I'm going to be kind of busy next week so ehh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
You can exchange in the first two weeks if they have the one you want in stock otherwise you can return to the store. But I'll say this: unless you are a very small person, 42mm will be fine for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Thanks for confirmation. I was going to get the 42 anyway so that'll probably work out fine for me 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Yeah I have kind of skinny wrists and the 42mm looks fine. The 38 looked ridiculous on me when I tried it on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
My wrists are somewhat skinny, and the 42 looks ridiculous on my arm, and all of my coworkers shared my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
The 42mm also has a bigger battery. I would guess the next gen would be the same way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I have I dunno, average wrists maybe? Either casing size looked fine, I just went with the 42 cause the width on the Milanese loop looked better, the 38 version looked a bit thin to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I have tiny man wrists but the 38mm screen is so small it made me wonder why bother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
I weigh 150 and never work out so my wrists are tiny as hell and the 38mm looks like it's made for penguins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Am I weird for wanting them to come out with a larger model for large manly wrists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
The Apple Watch Plus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Ultimate Mango posted:Am I weird for wanting them to come out with a larger model for large manly wrists? No cause the 42 is pretty normal sized. My big friends look silly even with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Ultimate Mango posted:Am I weird for wanting them to come out with a larger model for large manly wrists? Bigger guys do look like they are wearing a dainty little watch with the 42mm. I'm a fairly normal sized guy with normal sized wrists and the 42mm seems like a light, but not small, watch. Especially compared to what the current trends in fine wristwear are. A new 44mm/45mm that was also thinner would probably feel like an overall smaller watch than the current 42mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Apple Watch Tess Holliday Edition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
You could always bulk it up with a ridiculous looking case 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
I believe Samsung has giant man watches for you fatties
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
I guess it's really no indication of what will happen on Wednesday, but when AW was originally announced did it ship immediately or was it one of those "available on xyz, order now" things? I can't remember that presentation to save my life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
I hate being that guy, but if you had googled "Apple announces Apple Watch" it's literally the in the headline of the first result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Fair enough; My bad I should have done the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I got the 38mm one because I'm cheap 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
The 42mm looks too clunky and bulky even on big gorilla arms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
LOL no. It's like the same size as many common, popular men's watches, never mind ridiculously oversized things like Shinola or Android watches whatever. It's thinner and lighter than my Seiko diver with similar dimensions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Two non-looks-related things: 1) It may have been due to something else, but I originally got a 38mm sport and found the battery charge struggled to reach 22-24 hours. Switched to a 42, and I easily can count on 26, even with a 30 minute workout. 2) I find it noticeably easier to enter the passcode on the 42mm watch (which you need to do every time you put it on, if it's enabled - and it has to be enabled if you want to use Apple Pay). Pretty minor point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Can we all just admit that people with the 38mm are poor and stupid and probably dumb as well
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
AWWNAW posted:The 42mm looks too clunky and bulky even on big gorilla arms. lol no it doesn't
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
LODGE NORTH posted:Can we all just admit that people with the 38mm are poor and stupid and probably dumb as well Probably, let me just make sure the 38 isn't what looks best on me before I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
LODGE NORTH posted:Can we all just admit that people with the 38mm are poor and stupid and probably dumb as well Yep, and the 42mm too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
LODGE NORTH posted:Can we all just admit that people with the 38mm are poor and stupid and probably dumb as well *buys a $300 watch* heh stupid poors, why bother. clearly i am superior in buying a watch that is imperceptibly bigger
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Has anybody else's watch developed dark red edges around the screen when the screen is off? I just noticed it a few days ago along with an obvious red spot midway up the left side of the screen as well. Is this some kind of weird OLED thing or should I prepare to buy an Apple Watch 2?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:2) I find it noticeably easier to enter the passcode on the 42mm watch (which you need to do every time you put it on, if it's enabled - and it has to be enabled if you want to use Apple Pay). Pretty minor point. Or you can set it to unlock the watch when you unlock your phone (if the former is on your wrist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
JamesOff posted:Or you can set it to unlock the watch when you unlock your phone (if the former is on your wrist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
So, if one were to be in the market for the apple watch: for the next couple or three years, is the new series 2 or whatever they are calling it worth the premium over the current version if you have no need for the gps or waterproofing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
The current model does everything I would expect a smart watch to do so yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The current model does everything I would expect a smart watch to do so yes. Pretty much this. I don't have any reason to upgrade to the series 2. Maybe if I did some swimming or something but it looks like the Apple watch will survive another year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Tide posted:So, if one were to be in the market for the apple watch: for the next couple or three years, is the new series 2 or whatever they are calling it worth the premium over the current version if you have no need for the gps or waterproofing? Definitely. In fact, with the series one getting a processor upgrade too the actual first gen watch might end up having some crazy fire sales on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:15
|
|
