Apple retracts two wrong specs on Titanium Apple Watch weight

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 13
When Apple announced Apple Watch Series 5 lineup at its September media event it caused confusion by advertising the titanium version as being lighter than the stainless steel model, but quoted both models as having the same weight on a tech specs page.

Apple Watch Series 5


Apple had originally said that the titanium Apple Watch would be 45% lighter than the stainless version. At the same time, it said that titanium Apple Watch would weigh as much as stainless steel -- with neither specification right. Apple has since updated the information with the correct weights, and has stricken percentages from marketing materials online.

The 44mm titanium Series 5 model weighs 35.1 grams, with the 44mm model weighing in at 41.7 grams, or roughly 13% lighter than the stainless steel models.

The ceramic Series 5 models weigh in at 39.7 grams for the 40mm model and 46.7 grams for the 44mm model, making them somewhat lighter than the ceramic Series 3 Apple Watches. The 40mm and 44mm Series 5 aluminum Apple Watch models weigh approximately the same as the Series 4 models, at 30.8 and 36.5 grams respectively.

Those who preordered the Apple Watch series 5 can expect it to show up on Friday, September 20, along with the new iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro. Apple has also created a new Apple Watch Studio, giving users the chance to pair their Apple Watch with whatever band they like. Apple Watch Studio is available both at Apple's online store, as well as in retail locations.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,518member
    'Tiffany, get my lawyer on the phone! Everybody, this calls for a class action suit, and vilifying press for Apple. I smell money, people!'


    gutengelMplsPviclauyycAppleExposedSolilkruppStrangeDayschiamacxpressFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 2 of 18
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,672unconfirmed, member
    #SpecGate LMFAOOOO!!!!

    Tim Cook get fired!! Apple so stupid greedy company!!
    viclauyycmacgui
  • Reply 3 of 18
    robjnrobjn Posts: 246member
    You write: “Apple had originally said that the titanium Apple Watch would be 45% lighter.”

    This is is incorrect, both at the event and on the webpage they said that “titanium is 45% lighter than steel”.

    They did not say the watch was 45% lighter, just that the material “titanium” is lighter.

    Very roughly Titanium has about twice the mass of aluminum and about half that of steel.

    It’s exceptional quality is NOT being light, it is being strong for it’s weight.

    The weight of the titanium watch case falls about half way between the aluminum and steel models.
    edited September 13 SoundJudgmentgregoriusmAppleExposednetmagemacguiqwerty52chasmfelix01randominternetperson
  • Reply 4 of 18
    Actually, is there a typo in this article? It lists two weights for the titanium model, both 44mm. It would be more helpful to place the correct info into a chart for comparison.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 5 of 18
    robjnrobjn Posts: 246member
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    arthurbajonagoldmacgui
  • Reply 6 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,725member
    macgui said:
    'Tiffany, get my lawyer on the phone! Everybody, this calls for a class action suit, and vilifying press for Apple. I smell money, people!'


    The sad thing is, you may be right. Virtually no one gives a damn if the weight is off by a few grams, but the lawyers will have a hay day with it 
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 7 of 18
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.


    netmagefelix01
  • Reply 8 of 18
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,356member
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    This is was both my hope and fear for an Apple Watch using a titanium ally. My hope that it would allow for more internal space which thereby allowing for a larger battery and/or more features, and my fear because it would be harder to turn it down since it's no longer just a cosmetic option.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,672unconfirmed, member
    berndog said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.



    Which reminds me. Does Series 5 have a flat bottom? I was expecting Apple to flatten the bottom this gen.

    Example:


  • Reply 10 of 18
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,446member
    All your titanium are belong to us, including your Apple Card.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    berndog said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.
    Making those changes for one material would be way more work than it’s worth. AW already gets great battery, I can get two days on it, which is moot since I have to charge my phone nightly anyway. 
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 12 of 18
    No comparison of the steel Watch 5 versus 4 or 3?
  • Reply 13 of 18
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    berndog said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.



    Which reminds me. Does Series 5 have a flat bottom? I was expecting Apple to flatten the bottom this gen.

    Example:


    Sensor accuracy is better with the rounded bottom. The reason is that the sensor fits more snugly. A flat bottom watch would move around more leading to times when the sensor might not be in complete contact with the wrist. Apple’s readings, as I can personally attest to, are very accurate. Maybe someday they can figure out a way to make a flat back, but it would take some effort.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 14 of 18
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member

    Soli said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    This is was both my hope and fear for an Apple Watch using a titanium ally. My hope that it would allow for more internal space which thereby allowing for a larger battery and/or more features, and my fear because it would be harder to turn it down since it's no longer just a cosmetic option.
    There is no way that Apple is going to have a special design for each watch case material.

    i’ll tell you something, having owned a number of high end watches over the years. Watch case materials are all for cosmetics. There is no other reason. Titanium is no better a case material than anything else. Neither is gold, ceramic or even SS. Some of the most expensive watches use some variant of polymer for a case. It doesn’t matter. It’s all about the looks and feeling.

    some people hate lightweight watches. Some hate heavy watches. Some want small, thin watches, and others want the opposite. There are those who want a rectangular watch, and some who think a watch must only be round. We still have people who think the only real watch is a mechanical one. There is no right or wrong to it.

    you decide what you like, and buy it. That’s really all there is to it.
    edited September 13 randominternetpersonblurpbleepbloop
  • Reply 15 of 18
    berndog said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.


    Yes, a bigger battery would have been a possibility.

    Milling our more space in the case may cause a number of practical problems to do with the ways internal parts are mounted into the case. I doubt Apple would have been very enthusiastic about having to customizing certain internal parts to fit a different internal case geometry for one model.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 16 of 18
    macguimacgui Posts: 1,518member
    robjn said:
    I doubt Apple would have been very enthusiastic about having to customizing certain internal parts to fit a different internal case geometry for one model.
    I think another, possibly bigger factor is Apple wanting the same battery run time for all of the series, Editions included. It wouldn't do to have the $1300 Ceramic have less battery life than the $800 Ti. That would spark a major #Whinefest.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    roakeroake Posts: 668member
    Posted in error.
    edited September 14
  • Reply 18 of 18
    McPhallusMcPhallus Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    berndog said:
    robjn said:
    Apple said on the webpage that titanium is highly sought after for its high strength to weight ratio.

    They could have taken advantage of this attribute and made the titanium watch lighter than the aluminum one. Doing so would have involved milling out much more material to give the case much thinner walls.

    They apparently did not bother to do this. They just used it as a cosmetic option. If it does not have thinner walls the titanium case has way more strength and mass than necessary. This is a little sad from an engineering point of view and as for marketing; why call attention to the high strength to weight ratio of the material if you are not taking advantage of it?
    And putting more battery into the space could give the titanium watch enough battery to make a true 24 hour day battery life.
    Making those changes for one material would be way more work than it’s worth. AW already gets great battery, I can get two days on it, which is moot since I have to charge my phone nightly anyway. 
    And wouldn't make sense from a product positioning standpoint.  The pricier ceramic and Hermes models would have the same battery as the steel models.
Sign In or Register to comment.