Let me get this out of the way first: I am not a watch guy. I own a watch I use for running. I own a few dress watches that I used to put on when I had a big fancy business meeting to attend. But those haven't seen the light of day in decades. So I have zero interest in owning an Apple Watch. (I might be interested if you could use one to replace the phone, but it's clearly an accessory device.)
But I am fascinated by this new business Apple's going into; the sheer number of products and prices is pretty amazing: By my count, Apple will be shipping 38 separate models of watches. There's a gallery page at Apple's site where you can page through all of the watches, and get the details on each specific model. You can also view the watches in the store, where you can find pricing info.
Update: Kirk McElhearn pointed me to Apple's Watch Sizing Guide, which contains information on band lengths. I've added two columns (Band Sizes, Band Size Range) to reflect these values.
Both of these solutions, though, require lots of paging and scrolling to get all the details. I was curious as to how all the watches compared, so I pulled data from those sources and made one massive spreadsheet:
If you'd like to download the file and look at it in Excel (or Numbers or whatever), here it is. Feel free to share; I merely compiled the publicly-available data and don't really care what you do with it (though leaving the attribution in place would be nice).
There are some interesting facts hidden in all that data:
- The lightest watch isn't any of the Watch Sport versions. Instead, it's the Classic Buckle Apple Watch (56 grams), which is a full six grams lighter than the next-lightest watch.
- The heaviest watch—at a whopping 125 grams—is the Apple Watch Stainless Steel link (42mm in either stainless or space black). That may not sound like much, but 125 grams is over four ounces, or to put it another way, it's like wearing a quarter-pound hamburger on your wrist (weight before cooking, of course). It's also 2.2x as heavy as the lightest watch.
- Color adds weight: in the Watch Sport category, the bands' weight varies by color. Black is 37g, then pink (42g), green (43g), blue (44g) and white (47g). So somewhat oddly, to go light, go with black.
- Band size only changes weight by one gram (modern buckle) or three grams (leather loop).
- In the Apple Watch family, you can't get a 38mm leather loop, or a 42mm modern buckle. I have no idea why they restricted these choices; it seems odd.
- In the Apple Watch Edition family, there's no 38mm classic buckle, and no 42mm modern buckle. Again, this seems an odd restriction.
I don't have any plans on keeping this current as Apple (inevitably) adds more watches to the mix, but it was interesting seeing all the "day one" models in one spot.
"The heaviest watch—at a whopping 125 grams—is the Apple Watch Stainless Steel link... It’s also 2.2x heavier than the lightest watch - the Classic Buckle Apple Watch (56 grams)."
It is not 2.2x heavier. It is 1.2x heavier or 2.2x the weight of the lightest watch. The math should not be difficult. If you think that "2.2x heavier" is correct, what do you think that the weight (mass) would be in order for the heaviest Apple Watch to be 1.2x heavier than the lightest Apple Watch.
I think you're confusing "times heavier" with "percent heavier". If something weighs 100 grams how heavy is something that is 2x heavier? (Hint: most people would interpret that to mean twice as heavy.) On the other hand, if something is 200% heavier (i.e. 3x heavier), then that thing is 300 grams. It's semantics. Who would ever expect 1x heaver to be equivalent to twice as heavy?
The point is that something like '2.5x heavier' is bad English to start with (because it can be misunderstood or possibly just plain incorrect). You either should use '2.5x as heavy' or '150% heavier'.
I switched it to "as heavy," but "heavier" is just as correct semantically. The key, in my mind at least, is the 'x' denoting "times." So you'd read the sentence as "2.5 times heavier than," which is precisely what it is (2.5 * 56 is about 125 grams, less rounding errors). 2.2x gives an easy mental visual: just over two of the lightest watches equals one heavy watch. You wouldn't get that with 120% or 1.2x.
It is really unfortunate, Rob, that you seem to not understand that there is only one correct way to say "x times heavier." When you try to make excuses to justify the incorrect way of saying what you are trying to say, you appear to not truly understand.
"Who would ever expect 1x heaver to be equivalent to twice as heavy?"
Anyone/everyone who understands eighth grade math, which requires a simple understanding of the English language.
For those who are mathematically illiterate: "1x more" is the same thing as "100% more." It is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of illiteracy.
"If something weighs 100 grams how heavy is something that is 2x heavier? (Hint: most people would interpret that to mean twice as heavy.)"
If this is true, it is because most people are illiterate.
Please stop insulting people. There's no need to get rude—I do not like it, and will not allow further comments that insult myself or the readers.
And just to upset you further, I will continue to be illiterate in your eyes, because saying you need 2.2 small watches to make one big watch is understandable to everyone. It bothers you, fine, but I'm not going to change my approach regardless of how illiterate you consider me to be.
So please, back off the insulting language, or find somewhere else to play.
Thank you for an intelligent and responsible remark. I agree with you and I am grateful for your remark and for your information.
Dcj001 is confusing 2x heavier with 2x more. The two are very different and suggest that dcj001 may be numerate, but not literate.
You know, I am not good at math and frankly don't need to be. Mark me down as "illiterate". Oh - and mark me down as "I don't care" with regard to who said what and what it meant blah-blah-blah x times heavier.
Dear dcj001, You spelled heavier wrong . . . 1x heaver ? . . . are you throwing something, like 2x criticism, at us?
Hey Rob.. The dropbox link isn't working anymore. Did you take the file down?
Sorry, I updated the spreadsheet with the band info and saved it ... and I guess Dropbox then gives it a new public URL. Fixed now.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Cheers Rob. Thanks.
"In the Apple Watch family, you can’t get a 38mm leather loop, or a 42mm modern buckle. I have no idea why they restricted these choices; it seems odd." The leather loops are wider bands aimed at a larger wrist and in general masculine appearance, while the modern buckle is more narrow and a less masculine appearance. Of course there are countless men who would want the modern, or woman who might want the leather loop, but the sizing choices was definitely was based on gender assumptions and imagine if there is a strong enough desire they will add options later on. Thanks for compiling this very helpful list.
I wonder if the differences in weight between color bands indicates different materials being used or being added to the bands. White & lighter colors normally would show dirt more than black. Grunge repellent?
I was thinking the lighter colors have to be slightly denser to appear opaque or to get a uniform color. Black would naturally conceal any flaws.
"The heaviest watch—at a whopping 125 grams"
Just as a reference a medium size sport watch from Rolex like the Explorer weights about 135gr.
Yowza. That's ... insane. Of course, that's coming from someone who doesn't like to wear a watch (and when I had to wear one, I always went for the thinnest and lightest model I could find).
Any chance you'd add band prices and which are available separately? Appreciate all your efforts either way. Thanks!
Probably not—Apple makes it pretty easy to browse the bands; I built the spreadsheet because that other data was too time consuming to view for each watch.
Went and did it myself if anyone is interested. http://goo.gl/KpzJoz
Thanks for your time and effort on this project. Those people that leave mean or hateful posts are just unhappy people looking for their next fight. It's really too bad when this is meant to be a tool to assist people. I found it useful and I have been through the Apple site many times. Appreciate it!
I absolutely second this!! You obviously put in a lot of time and effort to compile this a it's much appreciated by most people.
thank you for that spreadsheet it's the only one of its kind I've seen.. nice, nice work on this!
LOL. Call me nerdish, but the usage of "X heavier than" and "X as heavy" here interested me, as well.
"1X" means "ones times" something; that something being whatever base value you plug in next to it. "2X' is the same... "two times" the base value being discussed. And so forth. These are calculated values.
The base value up there was 56 grams. "2.2X heavier than" or "2.2X as heavy as" both use "2.2X" as the calculated value, where X is the base value of 56 grams. But, "as heavy" and "heavier than" communicate two different operational relationships in the math.
To say "2.2X heavier than 56 grams" adds the calculated value to the base value, and means [(2.2 X 56 = 123.2) + 56] = 179.2 grams, which of course, is wrong.
To say "2.2X as heavy as 56 grams" compares the calculated value to the base value, and means [(2.2 X 56) = 123.2] = 123.2 grams, which of course, is right.
So, despite much noise to the contrary, dcj001 is incorrect in ridiculing your edited phrasing of "2.2X as heavy as." He was correct to challenge the article as first written to say "2.2X heavier than."
Thanks a lot for your amazing work.
I've adapted it for French market / Euros, keeping credits of course !
You can find it here on A-Watch.Fr : http://www.a-watch.fr/2015/03/22/tableau-recap-modeles-apple-watch-prix-choix-0269/
Thanks for the chart, but why do _no_ charts I've seen publish the difference in the glass?? Sport has "ion-x" glass and the other two have strongr sapphire. I hope you can include this detail!
Way uninterested. Not only do I have no use for this, thanks to large assemblage of idevices that already have clocks on them, but the small would cover my entire wrist. I'm a 5'1" fairly slim woman. Silently thanking my grandma for the gift of her mother's Longines. True, it doesn't work, but I've got about as much use for it as I have for the Apple watch, and it only takes up about a half-inch square on my wrist.
I'm just wondering if there are any feature differences in the watches, or do they all have the same features, with the price differences being dictated by the size, and materials in the watches themselves.
There are no feature differences. Size and material are the differentiating factors. (And service if you buy the car-priced Edition watch. You get a better delivery experience, and improved Apple Care, though that comes at a much higher price, too.)
Thanks Rob. Much appreciated.
Rob, thank you for your wonderful work.
There's an interesting thing about the Sport Bands that I thought you should know about. Apple's sport band weights actually include all three pieces of the sport band included in the box (the S/M piece, the M/L piece, and the top piece). When you actually have a watch configured to wear, the weight is substantially less, since one of the pieces is unused. For example, the 38mm Apple Watch Sport with the S/M Black Sport Band weighs just 48 grams. This actually makes it lighter than the Stainless Steel Apple Watch with Classic Buckle (so that one is not the lightest, as the available data misled you to believe).
Wow, that's great work, JA! So basically, any of the sport band weights are wrong, and by quite a bit. I'm not sure how I'll fix that, other than maybe asking all those who actually have watches to do some weighing.
Nice! Will you do one more for the Series2?
I am glad to read your blog initially i got more information about Apple Watch Band.Few days ago i purchased it and it's features are really fabulous and working well.Thanks for sharing your views with us.
Comments are closed.