Those measurements are not accurate for the Watch.
Here's the 42mm Watch case measurements from the Official Apple Band Design Guidelines:
42.5 x 38.03 x 12.46mm
Also, the Watch does not include the lug measurements which is why the Samsung measures larger than 46mm top to bottom. It's also the reason the watch industry measures their watches horizontally, rather than vertically as Apple does. But the Samsung may include the control buttons in their measurements as well. The Watch lugs adds 3.46mm to each side. So the true measurements for a 42mm Watch are:
49.42 x 38.03 x 12.46mm
When you consider any round watch is wider than any square watch, that's not really a compromise, but an expectation.
So here's the actual comparison:
Apple Watch 49.42 x 38.03 x 12.46mm Samsung S 49.00 x 46.00 x 12.9mm
I don't know what a "lug measurement" is, but this diagram seems to have values that are very different from your statement.
(Click image to see large version with more detail)
Are the "lugs" the metal that protrudes for connecting the leather watch bands? If so, then I don't see why that's an argument to be added to it's size, unless you qualify it to only be an additional length if and only if a leather band is being utilized; otherwise, the fluoroelastomer, woven, and metal bands all attach inside the top and bottom cavities of the watch. Additionally, I'd like to hear a valid argument as to why the leather band connecters need to be counted as "lug lengths" since these are permanent parts of the bands, not the watch.
Those measurements are not accurate for the Watch.
Here's the 42mm Watch case measurements from the Official Apple Band Design Guidelines:
42.5 x 38.03 x 12.46mm
Also, the Watch does not include the lug measurements which is why the Samsung measures larger than 46mm top to bottom. It's also the reason the watch industry measures their watches horizontally, rather than vertically as Apple does. But the Samsung may include the control buttons in their measurements as well. The Watch lugs adds 3.46mm to each side. So the true measurements for a 42mm Watch are:
49.42 x 38.03 x 12.46mm
When you consider any round watch is wider than any square watch, that's not really a compromise, but an expectation.
So here's the actual comparison:
Apple Watch 49.42 x 38.03 x 12.46mm Samsung S 49.00 x 46.00 x 12.9mm
I don't know what a "lug measurement" is, but this diagram seems to have values that are very different from your statement.
(Click image to see large version with more detail)
Are the "lugs" the metal that protrudes for connecting the leather watch bands? If so, then I don't see why that's an argument to be added to it's size, unless you qualify it to only be an additional length if and only if a leather band is being utilized; otherwise, the fluoroelastomer, woven, and metal bands all attach inside the top and bottom cavities of the watch. Additionally, I'd like to hear a valid argument as to why the leather band connecters need to be counted as "lug lengths" since these are permanent parts of the bands, not the watch.
Which measurements are you refuting?
And yes, you need to post the "lug" page as well. The Samsung watch includes the equivalent "lug" measurements in its dimensions (as they aren't removable on that watch), so the Watch must too, since they are a practical part of the watch unless you plan to stick it onto your wrist with double stick tape. It's disingenuous to claim the Watch is significantly smaller than the Samsung, but exclude the corresponding measurements on the Watch due to technicalities. As for the flourolastimer bands, those don't apply since the comparison is with a watch with traditionally attached bands as are the Apple leather straps. If you want to post the measurements with the flourolastimer bands feel free, but then it's no longer a 1:1 comparison. Also, the metal bands absolutely have an equivalent inflexible "lug" space before the links effectively allow a bend, so they most definitely increase the height of the watch.
I don't know what a "lug measurement" is, but this diagram seems to have values that are very different from your statement.
(Click image to see large version with more detail)
Are the "lugs" the metal that protrudes for connecting the leather watch bands? If so, then I don't see why that's an argument to be added to it's size, unless you qualify it to only be an additional length if and only if a leather band is being utilized; otherwise, the fluoroelastomer, woven, and metal bands all attach inside the top and bottom cavities of the watch. Additionally, I'd like to hear a valid argument as to why the leather band connecters need to be counted as "lug lengths" since these are permanent parts of the bands, not the watch.
Which measurements are you refuting?
And yes, you need to post the "lug" page as well. The Samsung watch includes the equivalent "lug" measurements in its dimensions (as they aren't removable on that watch), so the Watch must too, since they are a practical part of the watch unless you plan to stick it onto your wrist with double stick tape. It's disingenuous to claim the Watch is significantly smaller than the Samsung, but exclude the corresponding measurements on the Watch due to technicalities. As for the flourolastimer bands, those don't apply since the comparison is with a watch with traditionally attached bands as are the Apple leather straps. If you want to post the measurements with the flourolastimer bands feel free, but then it's no longer a 1:1 comparison. Also, the metal bands absolutely have an equivalent inflexible "lug" space before the links effectively allow a bend, so they most definitely increase the height of the watch.
I think my comments are clear. Again, if lugs are the metal that protrudes from the top and bottom of the watch to attach the leather bands, then where are the lugs for the Sport Watch? No, leather is not the most common bands for Apple Watch. Again, all bands re removable so lugs are not part of the Watch, and not present on 2/3rds of the band types.
And yes, you need to post the "lug" page as well. The Samsung watch includes the equivalent "lug" measurements in its dimensions (as they aren't removable on that watch), so the Watch must too, since they are a practical part of the watch unless you plan to stick it onto your wrist with double stick tape. It's disingenuous to claim the Watch is significantly smaller than the Samsung, but exclude the corresponding measurements on the Watch due to technicalities. As for the flourolastimer bands, those don't apply since the comparison is with a watch with traditionally attached bands as are the Apple leather straps. If you want to post the measurements with the flourolastimer bands feel free, but then it's no longer a 1:1 comparison. Also, the metal bands absolutely have an equivalent inflexible "lug" space before the links effectively allow a bend, so they most definitely increase the height of the watch.
I think my comments are clear. Again, if lugs are the metal that protrudes from the top and bottom of the watch to attach the leather bands, then where are the lugs for the Sport Watch? No, leather is not the most common bands for Apple Watch. Again, all bands re removable so lugs are not part of the Watch, and not present on 2/3rds of the band types.
Now you're just moving the goal posts to suit your narrative. You're being intellectually dishonest comparing one type of watch to another with different rules. My comments stand and show yours up for what they are.
I think my comments are clear. Again, if lugs are the metal that protrudes from the top and bottom of the watch to attach the leather bands, then where are the lugs for the Sport Watch? No, leather is not the most common bands for Apple Watch. Again, all bands re removable so lugs are not part of the Watch, and not present on 2/3rds of the band types.
Now you're just moving the goal posts to suit your narrative. You're being intellectually dishonest comparing one type of watch to another with different rules. My comments stand and show yours up for what they are.
I'm comparing the watch proper. If Apple made a watch with lugs protruding from it that were part of the watch, and not the band then you'd have an argument. You're even ignoring that 2/3rd of their watch band types don't even lugs protruding as they connect fully inside the watch casing, but you want to paint a picture that every Apple Watch should be deemed larger than it is to support your anti-Apple narrative that the Watch is too big given the included HW.
Now you're just moving the goal posts to suit your narrative. You're being intellectually dishonest comparing one type of watch to another with different rules. My comments stand and show yours up for what they are.
I'm comparing the watch proper. If Apple made a watch with lugs protruding from it that were part of the watch, and not the band then you'd have an argument. You're even ignoring that 2/3rd of their watch band types don't even lugs protruding as they connect fully inside the watch casing, but you want to paint a picture that every Apple Watch should be deemed larger than it is to support your anti-Apple narrative that the Watch is too big given the included HW.
Like I said, you're moving the goalposts. And now I have an "Anti-Apple narrative". How convenient for you. Can't argue with that kind of logic.
By the way, I'm not ignoring 2/3 of the bands, since the Milanese and link bracelets both have fixed inflexible metal segments that protrude from the watch, before the bands begin to bend around, parts that would be attached to any other watch. The only watch bands that don't have these rigid segments are the "Sport" bands, which are an unfair comparison, since that's not the kind of watch the Samsung is. Apple publishes marketing specs, which are clearly different than the technical specs. And the fact that they can technically exclude parts of the watch in the measurements because they are attached to the bands is dishonest. So you just keep spinning your web of misrepresentation.
I won't be engaging with you further. Welcome to my block list.
Who would waste money on this to use with your iPhone just to get half the functionality of an Apple Watch?
My AW2 lasts a full 3 days. When I'm doing workouts/jogging it drops to 2 full days. So yes, workouts (with constant heart rate tracking) do use more power. But if anyone claims it only lasts a single day they're either lying or have a defective Watch.
Who would waste money on this to use with your iPhone just to get half the functionality of an Apple Watch?
My AW2 lasts a full 3 days. When I'm doing workouts/jogging it drops to 2 full days. So yes, workouts (with constant heart rate tracking) do use more power. But if anyone claims it only lasts a single day they're either lying or have a defective Watch.
Did you intend to post this thread? It's been dead for several months.
Who would waste money on this to use with your iPhone just to get half the functionality of an Apple Watch?
My AW2 lasts a full 3 days. When I'm doing workouts/jogging it drops to 2 full days. So yes, workouts (with constant heart rate tracking) do use more power. But if anyone claims it only lasts a single day they're either lying or have a defective Watch.
Did you intend to post this thread? It's been dead for several months.
Didn't even see the dates. At CES 2017 Samsung just announced this is officially available (previously only beta), so when I saw the link come up in a search I assumed it was about this story and a current article. I'm sure it'll show up as a new story shortly.
Who would waste money on this to use with your iPhone just to get half the functionality of an Apple Watch?
My AW2 lasts a full 3 days. When I'm doing workouts/jogging it drops to 2 full days. So yes, workouts (with constant heart rate tracking) do use more power. But if anyone claims it only lasts a single day they're either lying or have a defective Watch.
Did you intend to post this thread? It's been dead for several months.
Didn't even see the dates. At CES 2017 Samsung just announced this is officially available (previously only beta), so when I saw the link come up in a search I assumed it was about this story and a current article. I'm sure it'll show up as a new story shortly.
That's what I thought it might be. I saw the same story earlier today.
Comments
Are the "lugs" the metal that protrudes for connecting the leather watch bands? If so, then I don't see why that's an argument to be added to it's size, unless you qualify it to only be an additional length if and only if a leather band is being utilized; otherwise, the fluoroelastomer, woven, and metal bands all attach inside the top and bottom cavities of the watch. Additionally, I'd like to hear a valid argument as to why the leather band connecters need to be counted as "lug lengths" since these are permanent parts of the bands, not the watch.
And yes, you need to post the "lug" page as well. The Samsung watch includes the equivalent "lug" measurements in its dimensions (as they aren't removable on that watch), so the Watch must too, since they are a practical part of the watch unless you plan to stick it onto your wrist with double stick tape. It's disingenuous to claim the Watch is significantly smaller than the Samsung, but exclude the corresponding measurements on the Watch due to technicalities. As for the flourolastimer bands, those don't apply since the comparison is with a watch with traditionally attached bands as are the Apple leather straps. If you want to post the measurements with the flourolastimer bands feel free, but then it's no longer a 1:1 comparison. Also, the metal bands absolutely have an equivalent inflexible "lug" space before the links effectively allow a bend, so they most definitely increase the height of the watch.
By the way, I'm not ignoring 2/3 of the bands, since the Milanese and link bracelets both have fixed inflexible metal segments that protrude from the watch, before the bands begin to bend around, parts that would be attached to any other watch. The only watch bands that don't have these rigid segments are the "Sport" bands, which are an unfair comparison, since that's not the kind of watch the Samsung is. Apple publishes marketing specs, which are clearly different than the technical specs. And the fact that they can technically exclude parts of the watch in the measurements because they are attached to the bands is dishonest. So you just keep spinning your web of misrepresentation.
I won't be engaging with you further. Welcome to my block list.
My AW2 lasts a full 3 days. When I'm doing workouts/jogging it drops to 2 full days. So yes, workouts (with constant heart rate tracking) do use more power. But if anyone claims it only lasts a single day they're either lying or have a defective Watch.
Didn't even see the dates. At CES 2017 Samsung just announced this is officially available (previously only beta), so when I saw the link come up in a search I assumed it was about this story and a current article. I'm sure it'll show up as a new story shortly.