# AW3 vs. AW4 vs Traditional timepieces



## Dougiebaby (Jun 21, 2017)

Well, I picked up 3 Apple Watches today (one for me, my girlfriend, and my mom). Since we are all watch guys/gals, I thought I would post my first impressions of it vs. traditional timepieces and also the AW3 vs. AW4 in 2019 (for me). Quick video in 4K...


----------



## Dougiebaby (Jun 21, 2017)

I am LOVING the Nike watch faces in different hues!


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I’m interested in hearing later what you think of the aftermarket straps, what your charging routine is (bedside stand, or living room, etc), any pleasant or unpleasant surprises, etc.


----------



## Dougiebaby (Jun 21, 2017)

BarracksSi said:


> I'm interested in hearing later what you think of the aftermarket straps, what your charging routine is (bedside stand, or living room, etc), any pleasant or unpleasant surprises, etc.


Hi BarracksSi,
I received the aftermarket bands (3 for $12) and the quality is good but not as premium as the OEM Nike strap. Meaning, they are a little thinner and the band is slightly narrower which makes the strap a bit more flexible and lighter. The straps seem secure when attached - so no problem there. I cannot complain at all about the straps when realizing their very low cost.

I charge at bedtime. So far, I have REALLY enjoyed this watch! I love the activity monitoring, the crisp screen, vibrant colors vs. the black screen, and the comfort. It is a WONDERFUL companion to my current lineup ... Rolex Sub No Date, Tag Heuer F1 Chrono, Casio G Shock 7900, and an incoming Tag Heuer Monaco. Here's some photos of the straps...


----------



## Dougiebaby (Jun 21, 2017)

With my GF and our AWs. Her aftermarket band really dresses it up.




























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kezcub (Dec 18, 2015)

Definitely not timeless. Most technology struggles to be timeless.


----------



## cashmonee (Jul 13, 2015)

kezcub said:


> Definitely not timeless. Most technology struggles to be timeless.


I agree with you, which is why I think the OP is smart to go with the 3 over the 4. The less money you invest in one of these up front, the better. They have very low resale value and you will want to replace it within a few years. I think it is smart to buy the previous gen each time in this case. Especially considering that the updates have not been Earth shattering, so you are not really missing out.


----------



## Mnmcoll (Feb 3, 2018)

I definitely know i won't buy 3 apple watches because of a lot of reasons. Congrats though and enjoy them.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

cashmonee said:


> I agree with you, which is why I think the OP is smart to go with the 3 over the 4. The less money you invest in one of these up front, the better. They have very low resale value and you will want to replace it within a few years. I think it is smart to buy the previous gen each time in this case. Especially considering that the updates have not been Earth shattering, so you are not really missing out.


I kinda think that the AW4 is a bigger jump than the Series 2 was, mainly because the AW4 runs a 64-bit CPU (making every Apple device 64-bit, fwiw). Checking on the iPhone side, the 64-bit models, starting with the 5S, have had the longest span of iOS support (the 5S debuted with iOS 7 back in 2013, and it still runs today's iOS 12). I would guess that the AW4 would stay supported for a similarly long time.

There won't be much _externally visual_ evolution because we're talking about wristwatches; and I'm not sure how much more complicated the UI can get, either. I didn't foresee the ECG capabilities, but I still think the next big change that makes a significant day-by-day impact will have to be battery technology.


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> There won't be much _externally visual_ evolution because we're talking about wristwatches; and I'm not sure how much more complicated the UI can get, either. I didn't foresee the ECG capabilities, but I still think the next big change that makes a significant day-by-day impact will have to be battery technology.


I agree that battery life must have priority over new features. Apple needs to extend the battery life to a week.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

utzelu said:


> I agree that battery life must have priority over new features. Apple needs to extend the battery life to a week.


Apple only has partial responsibility here, if any at all. They aren't the primary researchers tackling battery chemistry.


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> Apple only has partial responsibility here, if any at all. They aren't the primary researchers tackling battery chemistry.


Indeed. But they can refrain from cramming too many features which suck the battery.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

utzelu said:


> Indeed. But they can refrain from cramming too many features which suck the battery.


And end up like a Fitbit Alta? What's the point of that?


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

Apple may think, if you recharged your IPhone daily, you also an for your AW?


----------



## rationaltime (May 1, 2008)

In my opinion a "watch" does not need a 64-bit, dual core processor.
However, the Apple watch is a wrist phone. The watch function is just
an app. Commonality between the processors makes it easier to maintain 
and expand the operating system and develop new applications. I suspect 
Apple plans to use the capability of this platform to enable even more 
features. We have to wait and see.

Of course there is a trade off between more features and longer battery
life. I guess most customers give higher priority to the features, 
though they are not given much choice. 


Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> And end up like a Fitbit Alta? What's the point of that?


I remember I read somewhere that most people are not installing new apps on the watch and use the out-of-box functionality, mostly notifications and health tracking. So lack of new features is not an issue, at least on short term. I believe it would make more sense to do small refinements on the existing features while the big ones are being developed properly. And come up with more case design options to offer more diversity.


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

rationaltime said:


> Of course there is a trade off between more features and longer battery
> life. I guess most customers give higher priority to the features,
> though they are not given much choice.


In theory, customers are excited when new features are announced. But in reality, few of them will use them. Who is using the walkie-talkie feature or the Maps for example?


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

utzelu said:


> I remember I read somewhere that most people are not installing new apps on the watch and use the out-of-box functionality, mostly notifications and health tracking. So lack of new features is not an issue, at least on short term. I believe it would make more sense to do small refinements on the existing features while the big ones are being developed properly. And come up with more case design options to offer more diversity.


The use of more or fewer apps really depends on the user. Off the top of my head, I can think of five third-party apps that I use semi-regularly. Other people might find other apps for some specialized purposes that they just can't get on any other smartwatch or fitness band.

I still don't understand this want for more case design options, either. It's already enough work for developers to write for a full display and choose options for, I think, three views for complications (and remember, they're usually writing iPhone apps, too). Should they also have to rewrite their apps for round screens and/or different rectangular aspect ratios? And besides, is Apple struggling to sell them as they are now?


----------



## utzelu (Aug 17, 2015)

BarracksSi said:


> I still don't understand this want for more case design options, either. It's already enough work for developers to write for a full display and choose options for, I think, three views for complications (and remember, they're usually writing iPhone apps, too). Should they also have to rewrite their apps for round screens and/or different rectangular aspect ratios? And besides, is Apple struggling to sell them as they are now?


Case design and screen format are not necessarily affecting each other. You can have a square screen in a round case. For me personally, I like diversity and different looks. That's why I don't have only one watch.

Apple Watch is selling good because the competition is not allowed to have a fully integration with iOS. Maybe it's time for the governments to step in and force Apple to open the OS for 3rd party devices? As a customer, I feel frustrated sometimes that I have no choice in using non-Apple smartwatches with my iPhone.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

MAybe a larger square screen might be better for more data to be displayed?


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

utzelu said:


> Case design and screen format are not necessarily affecting each other. You can have a square screen in a round case. For me personally, I like diversity and different looks. That's why I don't have only one watch.
> 
> Apple Watch is selling good because the competition is not allowed to have a fully integration with iOS. Maybe it's time for the governments to step in and force Apple to open the OS for 3rd party devices? As a customer, I feel frustrated sometimes that I have no choice in using non-Apple smartwatches with my iPhone.


But you _can_ use non-Apple smartwatches with your iPhone.

And a square screen in a round case? That's a lot of wasted material.



ronalddheld said:


> MAybe a larger square screen might be better for more data to be displayed?


Yup, it is. The only reason most wristwatches and clocks are round is because the hands spin in a circle. Most digital watches are square already.


----------



## nepatriot (Oct 1, 2010)

ronalddheld said:


> MAybe a larger square screen might be better for more data to be displayed?


Curved screen. There are folding phones in the works and coming to market soon. Flexible screens too.

The AW is limited by the case size relative to wrist real estate across the top. And a flat screen. An androgynous watch by design puts further limitations on design. It's ugly in many ways, a square box. Rides high. Looks odd.

Not much further to go with this design. Maybe a few more revisions.

Imagine a curved screen ... and case ... that hugs the wrist? More like a regular watch with deeply cured lugs. But the whole surface, even extending down the lugs, is a screen?

Take it further, and imagine a flexible screen, one that evolves to perhaps ultimately, over design generations, extends nearly all the way around the wrist? Internal components evolve to be distributed around the wrist vs all clustered on top?

All of this is tech ready or close to being ready now, and could work its way into wrist devices.


----------

