7 ms·

Finally they are focusing on making that thing thinner!! That watch is currently obnoxiously thick and can sometimes get caught on clothes and stuff.

esfandia 2y ago
But now it's also apparently larger! I'm sure I'm not the only person hoping for an Apple Watch that is reasonably thin and small.
- mistercheph 2y ago
  Monkey want big shiny rock, not stupid little rock
  - zombiwoof 2y ago
    You made my day
- geerlingguy 2y ago
  I'd love that old 38mm watch, but thinner. The problem is more little mini watch apps are adding more functionality / touchable area, to the point it's hard on my older 41mm (I think? Maybe 40?) watch to touch some of the touch areas. I'm guessing most devs use the giant size watches.
  - mikestew 2y ago
    Even Apple themselves are guilty of ridiculously small touch targets these days. Hold the side button until the emergency screen comes up. I defy you to hit the “power off” button on a 40mm watch on the first try. Hell, I have a hard enough time on my AW Ultra with these old eyes.
    - jjtheblunt 2y ago
      agreed : it's worse when your display has a hardware failure, you remember how to try turning it off, and you screw up and trigger an emergency instead, which i've done.
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  Can’t have as much ads, distractions and other “engagement” features on a small screen.
  - Carrok 2y ago
    I have had an Apple Watch for some time now, and have never once seen a single ad on it. As far as distractions I get only the notifications I want.
  - wilsonnb3 2y ago
    Even the biggest Apple Watch screen is still tiny by any reasonable metric. They aren't filling the extra space with "distractions", they are giving you space for an extra widget or two and making it marginally less painful to type.
- MBCook 2y ago
  The if you compare the 45mm series 8 from two years ago and the new 46mm series 10, it’s 1mm wider, 1mm taller, and 1mm thinner. Not much of a change on the other axis. The thickness is mostly notable because that’s about 10% gone.
WorldMaker 2y ago
Thick wrist watches are in style every few decades, nothing says "wealth" in just about any century quite like "big chonky arm jewelry". I personally wouldn't have minded more battery rather than thinner. 18 hours still seems far too short compared to competitors, especially with a growing emphasis on sleep tracking. (Though I appreciate that claims here that charging time went down even further with this thinner model.)
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Most of my friends with one would rather have longer battery life than have it be slimmer.
- bengale 2y ago
  That’s the ultra.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    Yeah but it's still not enough. Also the ultra is more money than anyone I know is willing to pay for an apple watch.
    - cududa 2y ago
      If 36 hours (Ultra 2) isn't enough battery life, then you and your friends aren't the target audience for a smart watch with a display.
      - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        I guess we yearn for a world long past where there weren't so many daily charging cycles because things were just either plugged in or not.
        dmix 2y ago
        It's partially the general UX of charging a watch. I find it easy to put my iPhone on a stand next to my bed every night, but for some reason I find it annoying to take off my watch and put it on the same stand. Both devices generally need the same amount of effort to charge but ones more of a burden. Maybe I just want to do it less because I'm wearing it not carrying it in a pocket or having it sit next to me somewhere.
        bengale 2y ago
selykg 2y ago
As a Garmin watch user, I don't mind the bulk, it's mostly the general _shape_ of the Apple Watch that kills me. It's shaped in such a way that it just sorta knocks into things in weird ways. I'm ultimately still very glad I ditched the Apple Watch in lieu of a more fitness oriented watch but still like to keep an eye on what they're doing. Looks like a decent upgrade for someone that hasn't upgraded in several generations.
- moneywoes 2y ago
  what garmin would you recommend, it seems they have a plethora of options
  - selykg 2y ago
    I think it depends entirely on what you want to do. Do you want a smart watch or fitness watch? I think if you want a real smart watch you're better off with something else, like an Apple Watch. If you're looking for fitness, I think the Forerunner series is a great starting point. What you'd want to do is look at what you _want_ to do and then go look at the specs for each watch. For example, if you want to see maps on your watch and get turn-by-turn, that's not available on all watches, and you'll have to move way up the range to get it. If you want to run, do strength training, monitor your heart rate all day, sleep score, HRV, etc. Those are usually available on all devices. Their training readiness is another interesting option, that's only available on the higher end watches. Same with endurance score, and a few others. I have an Instinct 2X because I really like the battery life (40 days just as a watch, I get around 30 or so with a workout every day). The 2X is a pretty big watch though, at 50mm. There are 2 and 2S models that are smaller though. Usually the sizing goes S for small, just a number for the middle range size, and X for larger size. With the Forerunner you get more features as you go up the number range. So 1xx, 2xx, and 9xx are the more common model ranges. I think for most people the 255/265 are pretty good starting points and can often be had at pretty nice prices on sale. I think I paid $250 for my Instinct on a sale recently, might have been $350. If the Enduro 3 was available at the time I might have gone with that. Another option is looking at Coros, I think bang for buck, they're the better option usually. The Pace 3 is a stellar watch at that price range. My only complaint with Coros is they don't do ANT+ and that's a feature I kind of want/need since I have a number of devices greater than the typical bluetooth stream count (usually they max out at 2 bluetooth connections simultaneously). But if Garmin ditches MIP displays, I'm switching to Coros. Edit: Also, based on Garmin's pricing for the Fenix 8 and Enduro 3, I'm really afraid to see the pricing for new models going forward. $800+ for a fitness watch is nuts. The other models are likely to come in under that, but, Enduro 3 went down in price (weirdly) but the Fenix 8 is up rather significantly over the Fenix 7 and Epix that it replaces.
etrautmann 2y ago
I completely disagree. I'd much rather have battery life than thinness.
Menu_Overview 2y ago
Yea, this was the one "feature" I've wanted. My S8 is still working just fine, so no upgrade this year, but I'm glad they're trimming it back after several years of slight increases.
steve_adams_86 2y ago
If the ultra wasn't so durable mine would be dust by now from all the random crap it knocks into. They're giant, blocky watches.
kif 2y ago
Interesting. I find the thinner S10 less appealing visually speaking.

esfandia 2y ago

But now it's also apparently larger! I'm sure I'm not the only person hoping for an Apple Watch that is reasonably thin and small.

mistercheph 2y ago
Monkey want big shiny rock, not stupid little rock
- zombiwoof 2y ago
  You made my day
geerlingguy 2y ago
I'd love that old 38mm watch, but thinner. The problem is more little mini watch apps are adding more functionality / touchable area, to the point it's hard on my older 41mm (I think? Maybe 40?) watch to touch some of the touch areas. I'm guessing most devs use the giant size watches.
- mikestew 2y ago
  Even Apple themselves are guilty of ridiculously small touch targets these days. Hold the side button until the emergency screen comes up. I defy you to hit the “power off” button on a 40mm watch on the first try. Hell, I have a hard enough time on my AW Ultra with these old eyes.
  - jjtheblunt 2y ago
    agreed : it's worse when your display has a hardware failure, you remember how to try turning it off, and you screw up and trigger an emergency instead, which i've done.
Nextgrid 2y ago
Can’t have as much ads, distractions and other “engagement” features on a small screen.
- Carrok 2y ago
  I have had an Apple Watch for some time now, and have never once seen a single ad on it. As far as distractions I get only the notifications I want.
- wilsonnb3 2y ago
  Even the biggest Apple Watch screen is still tiny by any reasonable metric. They aren't filling the extra space with "distractions", they are giving you space for an extra widget or two and making it marginally less painful to type.
MBCook 2y ago
The if you compare the 45mm series 8 from two years ago and the new 46mm series 10, it’s 1mm wider, 1mm taller, and 1mm thinner. Not much of a change on the other axis. The thickness is mostly notable because that’s about 10% gone.

WorldMaker 2y ago

Thick wrist watches are in style every few decades, nothing says "wealth" in just about any century quite like "big chonky arm jewelry". I personally wouldn't have minded more battery rather than thinner. 18 hours still seems far too short compared to competitors, especially with a growing emphasis on sleep tracking. (Though I appreciate that claims here that charging time went down even further with this thinner model.)

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

Most of my friends with one would rather have longer battery life than have it be slimmer.

bengale 2y ago
That’s the ultra.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Yeah but it's still not enough. Also the ultra is more money than anyone I know is willing to pay for an apple watch.
  - cududa 2y ago
    If 36 hours (Ultra 2) isn't enough battery life, then you and your friends aren't the target audience for a smart watch with a display.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      I guess we yearn for a world long past where there weren't so many daily charging cycles because things were just either plugged in or not.
      - dmix 2y ago
        It's partially the general UX of charging a watch. I find it easy to put my iPhone on a stand next to my bed every night, but for some reason I find it annoying to take off my watch and put it on the same stand. Both devices generally need the same amount of effort to charge but ones more of a burden. Maybe I just want to do it less because I'm wearing it not carrying it in a pocket or having it sit next to me somewhere.
        bengale 2y ago

selykg 2y ago

As a Garmin watch user, I don't mind the bulk, it's mostly the general _shape_ of the Apple Watch that kills me. It's shaped in such a way that it just sorta knocks into things in weird ways. I'm ultimately still very glad I ditched the Apple Watch in lieu of a more fitness oriented watch but still like to keep an eye on what they're doing. Looks like a decent upgrade for someone that hasn't upgraded in several generations.

moneywoes 2y ago
what garmin would you recommend, it seems they have a plethora of options
- selykg 2y ago
  I think it depends entirely on what you want to do. Do you want a smart watch or fitness watch? I think if you want a real smart watch you're better off with something else, like an Apple Watch. If you're looking for fitness, I think the Forerunner series is a great starting point. What you'd want to do is look at what you _want_ to do and then go look at the specs for each watch. For example, if you want to see maps on your watch and get turn-by-turn, that's not available on all watches, and you'll have to move way up the range to get it. If you want to run, do strength training, monitor your heart rate all day, sleep score, HRV, etc. Those are usually available on all devices. Their training readiness is another interesting option, that's only available on the higher end watches. Same with endurance score, and a few others. I have an Instinct 2X because I really like the battery life (40 days just as a watch, I get around 30 or so with a workout every day). The 2X is a pretty big watch though, at 50mm. There are 2 and 2S models that are smaller though. Usually the sizing goes S for small, just a number for the middle range size, and X for larger size. With the Forerunner you get more features as you go up the number range. So 1xx, 2xx, and 9xx are the more common model ranges. I think for most people the 255/265 are pretty good starting points and can often be had at pretty nice prices on sale. I think I paid $250 for my Instinct on a sale recently, might have been $350. If the Enduro 3 was available at the time I might have gone with that. Another option is looking at Coros, I think bang for buck, they're the better option usually. The Pace 3 is a stellar watch at that price range. My only complaint with Coros is they don't do ANT+ and that's a feature I kind of want/need since I have a number of devices greater than the typical bluetooth stream count (usually they max out at 2 bluetooth connections simultaneously). But if Garmin ditches MIP displays, I'm switching to Coros. Edit: Also, based on Garmin's pricing for the Fenix 8 and Enduro 3, I'm really afraid to see the pricing for new models going forward. $800+ for a fitness watch is nuts. The other models are likely to come in under that, but, Enduro 3 went down in price (weirdly) but the Fenix 8 is up rather significantly over the Fenix 7 and Epix that it replaces.

etrautmann 2y ago

I completely disagree. I'd much rather have battery life than thinness.

Menu_Overview 2y ago

Yea, this was the one "feature" I've wanted. My S8 is still working just fine, so no upgrade this year, but I'm glad they're trimming it back after several years of slight increases.

steve_adams_86 2y ago

If the ultra wasn't so durable mine would be dust by now from all the random crap it knocks into. They're giant, blocky watches.

kif 2y ago

Interesting. I find the thinner S10 less appealing visually speaking.