# Why is 42mm not 42mm? Because, Apple.



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

I was near the Apple Store today and decided to drop in to check out the  Watch.

When the watch was put on my wrist (since they don't allow you to put it on yourself..) I was certain that the sales associate was showing me the 38mm model instead of the 42mm I requested. Something didn't feel right.. it felt really, really small in comparison to the 42mm Explorer II I wore into the store. But she assured me that it was, in fact, the larger model and showed me the smaller 38mm model to prove it.

So what gives?

As it turns out, Apple is measuring the case vertically, from top to bottom, to get their measurement of 42mm.. if you measure it like any other watch, horizontally, it's a surprisingly small 35.9mm.. and the 38mm is even smaller, measuring only 33.3mm across.

Here's an illustration to show what a difference it makes:









As you know, only a couple millimeters can make a huge difference, and it was glaringly obvious that this wouldn't wear like a 42mm watch. In addition to the size of the case feeling too small, the 'Digital Crown' provided an awkward first experience; it felt rather strange twisting such a small knob to interact with the device. That said, the fit and finish of the various straps was excellent, the magnetic closures were very clever, and the 'Link' bracelet was impressive with how it can be resized without tools. But don't get me started on the $4,000 'modern buckle' you can purchase for your  Watch Edition..

Overall, I felt like the  Watch was a solution to a problem I don't have.. the built-in apps certainly don't offer a killer use-case that would make it a 'must have' for me. Perhaps once developers have spent some time with the device in the real world, some compelling apps will come along and change my mind.. but I walked away less enthusiastic than I was previously. I think the biggest problem for me is that it's not a watch you're just going to add to your rotation, it's all or nothing.. and it's not yet compelling enough for me to make that leap.

YMMV


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

Knowing Apple, they probably tested this amongst the general public and their loyal customers and when they got a response on ideal size they were probably said it in terms of height. That's probably why it's described that way. Personally for me, if I had only one number to go off of on a tonneau or rectangular watch, I'd care more about the height as the width I would always assume is not going to be too wide.


----------



## FernandoValenzuela (Dec 23, 2008)

The size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. At least that's what all the people with little "watches" say.


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

FernandoValenzuela said:


> The size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. At least that's what all the people with little "watches" say.


The people with big watches are also found of wearing tight and ill fitting clothes to flaunt how big their watches are too. :-d


----------



## Norm S (Nov 24, 2013)

why do i get this feeling the conversation is about watches anymore... hmm


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Measured diagonally it is bigger than 42


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

how do you do the little apple logo?


----------



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

yankeexpress said:


> Measured diagonally it is bigger than 42


That must make it a 50mm class then, right? lol


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

FernandoValenzuela said:


> *The size doesn't matter, it's how you use it.* At least that's what all the people with little "watches" say.


That's not what she said. Story of my life.....


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

yankeexpress said:


> Measured diagonally it is bigger than 42


That IS what she said. Ok......


----------



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

Memphis1 said:


> how do you do the little apple logo?


Option + Shift + K on a Mac
Or just Google "apple symbol" and cut/paste (and then add an iOS keyboard shortcut for later reuse)


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

sleepyhead123 said:


> Knowing Apple, they probably tested this amongst the general public and their loyal customers&#8230;


Nope. It probably didn't even see sunshine until they took it out of the secret studio for photo shoots (that is, if it wasn't photoshopped into all of them).



> Personally for me, if I had only one number to go off of on a tonneau or rectangular watch, I'd care more about the height as the width I would always assume is not going to be too wide.


Yup, that makes sense. It also seems to take a while for people to find out that lug-to-lug distance makes more of a difference in fit than just the width.


----------



## NathanielGoodtimes (Jul 22, 2014)

Size doesn't matter to appleheads.....


----------



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

BarracksSi said:


> Yup, that makes sense. It also seems to take a while for people to find out that lug-to-lug distance makes more of a difference in fit than just the width.


Agreed that lug-to-lug distance is important for fitment, but typically a rectangular watch is represented by width x height, whereas most watches are represented by a single measurement, representing the width.

I guess I was just expecting something a little more substantial since it is marketed as a 42mm watch. I have to remember that it's marketed at the masses and not us WIS'...


----------



## X2-Elijah (Dec 25, 2009)

Well, it makes sense that Apple would go as small as possible. One of the most prominent criticisms of Android smartwatches, so far has been related to how heavy roll and large roll they are to people who aren't used to wearing a watch. 
And I bet that those same people have no idea that rectangular watches are measured side-to-side, not just the largest dimension. This is Apple just playing it safe to avoid all the "omg too large!!" and "wtf Applie lied it's >42mm !1!!" posts from tech blogs that would inevitably crop up if they didn't state the largest dimension...


----------



## MarqDePombal (Jan 1, 2015)

Think about how they would market the various sizes of iphones...they certainly wouldn't promote the various widths of iphones to the public, those measurements would be meaningless. They would publish the vertical sizes...this gives the public a better idea of the general dimension of the iPhone.

All they've done is use the same logic for the watch. Only people on these forums would care about the width of this latest computing device...everyone else would care about the vertical.


----------



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

MarqDePombal said:


> Think about how they would market the various sizes of iphones...they certainly wouldn't promote the various widths of iphones to the public, those measurements would be meaningless. They would publish the vertical sizes...this gives the public a better idea of the general dimension of the iPhone.
> 
> All they've done is use the same logic for the watch. Only people on these forums would care about the width of this latest computing device...everyone else would care about the vertical.


Nope. iPhones screen sizes are based on the diagonal measurement..


----------



## VabaX (Jun 30, 2014)

NathanielGoodtimes said:


> Size doesn't matter to appleheads.....


that's what Jobs said about the "perfectly sized [3.5"] iPhone that will never be bigger", too.......


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Moved to Smart Watches.


----------



## PYLTN (Jan 24, 2015)

They put it on for you?? Don't they trust people to put on a watch?


Sent from my ZX 81


----------



## STEELINOX (Mar 20, 2006)

Meh, apples; (#applefx) , and it's screen is too small for my liking. And the winding/manipulator thingy too !


Electronic post generated by human via apple interface...


----------



## _Jeremy (Apr 14, 2014)

PYLTN said:


> They put it on for you?? Don't they trust people to put on a watch?
> 
> Sent from my ZX 81


Correct, I got scolded for taking it off myself too.


----------



## PYLTN (Jan 24, 2015)

Good grief. 


Sent from my ZX 81


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

Interesting observation. Obviously they just wanted to give it traditional watch measurements. I think the 42mm size feels appropriate though because given that it has a rectangular shape you can't really measure it the same way traditional watches are measured. I think it's fine.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

_Jeremy said:


> Correct, I got scolded for taking it off myself too.


Is that why the $17k version is so expensive - it actually pays for an apple genius to follow you round and put it on/take it off for you?


----------



## PYLTN (Jan 24, 2015)

Bradjhomes said:


> Is that why the $17k version is so expensive - it actually pays for an apple genius to follow you round and put it on/take it off for you?


It's all starting to make sense now. Is the genius allowed to help around the house too?

Sent from my ZX 81


----------



## ZASKAR36 (Sep 25, 2009)

Bradjhomes said:


> Is that why the $17k version is so expensive - it actually pays for an apple genius to follow you round and put it on/take it off for you?


It's that expensive so they can pay for the genius employee to show the Apple heads how to actually use the strap.

It's true. Apple focus test showed the strap was actually the most complicated part of the watch, but Ivy Jones and the rest of the Apple designers couldn't come up with a more simple solution so they had to train their genius employees in how to show customers how to use the buckle.


----------



## Dragonutity (Feb 19, 2013)

FernandoValenzuela said:


> The size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. At least that's what all the people with little "watches" say.


lol, big watches are just to UNCOMFORTABLE


----------



## ezwip (Jan 2, 2015)

I like g-shocks bluetooth it is really all I need for a smartwatch.


----------



## srvwus (Aug 9, 2012)

Actually Apples' website does have the height and width dimensions and for a rectangular watch it seems very appropriate to list it that way. 

In fact, I'd argue that the traditional case size measurements (typically without crown) can be more deceiving. Take a 42mm Royal Oak Offshore and you'll see that the lug to lug is somewhere around 55 mm and compare it to a 40mm Daytona with a 47mm lug to lug and you'll see the difference in size and fit is significantly more than the 2mm case difference suggests. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

