Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
>Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.
That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation" review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too common).
Yeah, but I think "watch fans" are quite different than photographers in that respect.
Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal functionality.
I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not quite as acceptable to admit that. Even if someone really bought that expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great pictures and helps their photography style...
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.