In fact, some quick research suggests that multiple Swiss watchmakers had engineered quick-change watch straps before Apple... but you can definitely credit Apple for bringing it to the everyday consumer. I found an article[0] that predates the first Apple watch which mentions Hublot, Panerai and Cartier as innovators here.
In fact, one of the coolest things about the Cartier Santos is not only the quick-release system that frees the band from the watch but the hidden buttons that also allow you to resize the steel bracelet itself[1]! (Video shows a 2018 Santos, but nevertheless)
Regardless of who got it right first, I do hope that Apple's watch strap system becomes more ubiquitous in the watch world. Oftentimes watches are over-engineered for their 99% use case of casual wear in order to fulfill some fantasy of diving in the Caribbean or scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro, and so therefore many are screwed or fastened in some way that makes adjusting them a pain without tiny little tools and a clean surface.
For what it's worth, scaling the freestanding Mt. Kilimanjaro volcano is about as intense as a 4 day backpacking trip up up up to high altitude, little to no watch-risky technical climbing required for the common routes.
saiya-jin said a year ago:
Whiskey/cocacola routes take 7 days standard, at least in 2012 they both did. For good reasons, folks struggle with altitude and you have plenty of people who go up high first time in their lives, so taking time to acclimatize is smart for general groups. Even with this, success rate was not more than 50%.
I've personally struggled like hell on the top, almost hallucinated and so did rest of my team members. But we made a junior mistake of going too fast up on summit day. When I did ie Mont Damavand in Iran, which is just 250m lower after cca 3 years, no issues and roud trip was just 2 days. But I've trained and did some crazy stuff in between. Most folks don't do that kind of stuff.
jefftk said a year ago:
Sure, but none of that is hard on watches.
reaperducer said a year ago:
I do hope that Apple's watch strap system becomes more ubiquitous in the watch world. Oftentimes watches are over-engineered for their 99% use case of casual wear in order to fulfill some fantasy of diving in the Caribbean or scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro, and so therefore many are screwed or fastened in some way that makes adjusting them a pain without tiny little tools and a clean surface.
I agree, but for different reasons. I have several very nice dress watches that I keep for sentimental reasons that I'm not able to wear because the manufacturer used one-off straps for them. The mechanisms still work fine, but I can't wear them because the exact strap for that exact watch is no longer available.
Hey, EU — While you're forcing USB-C on everyone, how about picking a watch band standard, too?
reaperman said a year ago:
So, I'm a huge fan of regulation but the problem with over-regulation is that it will stop really fun products from being released in those markets.
Like, imagine a watch that has an inflatable cuff that can take your blood pressure. It may be unsightly, bulky, and very dorky. So maybe it wouldn't fit this new "EU Watch Band Standard" that was imagined for Apple Watch. So a very large company like Apple could lobby the EU to change the law and might even do that with enough lead time so it doesn't delay the product launch. But a small company, kickstarter, etc would be screwed because there's no way they could expect to get the legislators' attention for something like this.
And yes, the legislation could be written with sensible carveouts, but we all know it won't, or they'll either not be comprehensive enough, or they'll be a leaky sieve that lets every shady corporation say "oh yeah there's a standard watchband but our special watch falls under exemption 312(c)." Or you can have a government agency handle "exemption requests" without legislative action, but then the small kickstarter will go through 6 rounds and 18 months of records and documentation requests, if they even bother looking into the process at all and not just saying "oh fuck that."
yunohn said a year ago:
> imagine
Yes, so imaginative innovations for niche usecases can easily be exempted. The goal would be to enable mainstream mass-market devices to follow the standard. It’s not as complicated as you suggest, and works in almost every industry.
mynameisvlad said a year ago:
I mean, straight up no. If there is any sort of legislation, regardless of exemptions, time will have to be spent to figure out if the exemption applies, and generally will require some work to either apply for or defend the exemption as part of the development and release process.
This would stifle innovation in the long run. Why bother with this extra work when there are a other variations on the idea that would be quicker to launch?
jychang said a year ago:
I rarely see this mentioned, but why don’t people just support laws that expire? You can’t stifle innovation in the long run if the law doesn’t exist in the long run.
I’ve often espoused a law that requires USB-C to charge phones- that expires after 3-5 years. Just enough time to get everyone on the same standard and lock in a little, but not enough to kill innovation when the next big thing happens.
Worst case scenario, wait 3 years… but if it was really bad, the law would get repealed anyways.
This strategy would be great for many fields. Imagine if the world decided to make a law that expires in 3-5 years to require one specific electric car charging port. Or made an expiring law that required ebook sellers to use epub format in 2010 (I’m looking at you, Amazon, with your .mobi format). Or made an expiring law that unified every display cable under HDMI (ignoring patent issues).
I’m not saying that stuff like this should be enshrined in law forever, but a lot of stuff would be a lot easier if it was more socially/politically accepted to pass laws that expire.
Analemma_ said a year ago:
Because then laws that people rely on become bargaining chips held hostage when the expiration date comes. And this creates horrible perverse incentives where the more obviously good and uncontroversial the law is, the more valuable it is as a hostage, so the more likely it is to disappear, which is a complete inversion of democracy. Like clean air? Well, give $MY_FACTION a billion billion dollars or it goes away.
This isn't a hypothetical either, you see this in American politics all the damn time with temporary laws and allocations.
burntwater said a year ago:
Every innovation is niche, until it gets adopted by the mainstream. Many large companies have attempted to create mainstream products which have failed.
ImprovedSilence said a year ago:
You might not be able to get the exact strap, but there are certainly numerous aftermarket straps (from low to high end) you can easily get. The strap is more than likely held in by a spring bar, and the while there are various widths, they are standard widths, ie 20 or 22mm etc… especially any older mechanical watch, will absolutely have the ability to interchange the band. And if it’s not a spring bar but a solid fixed piece of metal, you can use a nato style strap or something similar.
reaperducer said a year ago:
You might not be able to get the exact strap, but there are certainly numerous aftermarket straps (from low to high end) you can easily get.
I've tried, and even brought them to several watch stores and jewelers in Seattle, Houston, and New York with no luck.
The problem isn't the spring bar, it's the shape of the watch where connection is made.
Spinnaker_ said a year ago:
I'm curious, which very nice dress watch manufacturer won't replace the band for you? They went out of business?
justsomehnguy said a year ago:
> the exact strap for that exact watch is no longer available.
Also too many reaper* nicknames in the thread
raverbashing said a year ago:
You want at a standard watch band? Don't look at the EU, look at... NATO
Really
high_priest said a year ago:
What the heck are people talking about with the quick swap bands being an innovation?
Literally all the watches I own, from grandfathers antiques, to modern Amazfits, all of them have the bands on a spring loaded bar. Like... I don't remember the last time I have seen a different mechanism.
There is a brief mention of this system as a "conventional" one in the article
```
Apple took the conventional spring bars of traditional watches, miniaturized them, turned them on their sides, and embedded them into the watch band.
```
Complicating a simple solution for the sake of a flashy "flush" finish, doesn't sound like an innovation.
pavon said a year ago:
The spring bars are a pain. Many of my extended family don't have the finger dexterity to operate them at all, and either take them to the jewelry counter to replace or bring them to me. The rest can change them, but hate the damn things and take several tries sometimes with the bar flying across the room and complain about it every time.
This isn't change for the sake of change, it is a genuine improvement.
dmz73 said a year ago:
How often do people change their watch straps?
I changed my strap exactly once, from original to easy adjustable magnetic.
The quick change straps are 100% marketing ploy to sell more straps.
Talking about 1st world problems...
labcomputer said a year ago:
Several times a day, for me. I have one band that I like for exercise, another for work (avoids inflaming carpel tunnel while typing) and a third for the aesthetics when walking around.
If the Apple bands were harder to switch I probably just wouldn’t wear a watch while working and exercising.
ubermonkey said a year ago:
On my traditional watches? Almost never, because it's a pain.
On my Apple watches? Often! I wear a nicer strap in dressier situations, but always change to one of the rubber straps for exercise or swimming, and I do those things a LOT.
The Apple innovation here is pretty slick.
NikolaNovak said a year ago:
The spring bars are not a quick swap and they are not easy or painless. I have a small watch collection and a larger strap collection :P, but I'd never call it easy or convenient.
Now, there are some straps, even in budget category, that have a small lever that manipulates the spring and it's fairly easy to switch - but only if all your straps have the same mechanism. This is then compounded by different widths and types and whatnots.
As ever, Apple reaps the benefits (as well as drawbacks) of the basically single hardware device - you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line.
Or to put it other way - any one of my friends or family can and do change apple watch straps. 96% of them would be either unable or unwilling or both to change a regular strap. Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.
somat said a year ago:
As a fellow convert to the church of the nato strap this made me lookup the situation for the apple watch. Unfortunately a real contentious nato strap is incompatible with the watch due to it's wrist sensors. So you end up with two piece nylon straps calling themselves nato bands. I guess if you were fine being classified dead by your watch you could probably put a nato band on one.
The casio g-shock has a problem with nato bands as well. the g-shock has a laughably small band pin width(16 mm). so to get a nato strap(24 mm) on one you need a band width adapter. which undoes most of the advantage of the nato strap. I am not really sure why they made it so small. My mechanical engineering is a bit weak does a small pin have less side load than a large pin?
asdgkasdngionio said a year ago:
>but only if all your straps have the same mechanism.
You might choose to replace all your bands if you want to use only captive spring bar mechanisms, but you must replace them if you buy an Apple watch.
A captive spring bar with a lever solves the problem entirely, and in a way strictly superior to Apple's approach. It is smaller and cheaper than the Apple solution. It will work with any watch from any manufacturer. It will allow you to keep your old bands if you choose.
If you can think of any advantage Apple's system has, I am all ears.
>you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line
Spring bars are also entirely predictable, controlled, singular, and homogeneous. You can buy a band in any standard width and be confident it would fit any watch. We had a far larger ecosystem before the fruit companies got involved.
This gives the lie to Apple's supposed genius. "Tight integration" is completely unnecessary when there are standards. They just want a monopoly.
>Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.
Completely incompatible with the Apple watch, of course.
jclardy said a year ago:
I have mechanical watches and an Apple Watch...I swap bands on my Apple Watch almost every day because it takes about 5 seconds. I've swapped bands on my mechanicals maybe once this year, because it is super finicky, the spring bar always launches into another dimension and you spend 10 minutes feeling around on the floor to find it. All while you risk scratching the finish on your watch as you try to push back a tiny metal spring with a tiny metal pick. And that is if you have a springbar tool available, which is the best case scenario.
delecti said a year ago:
I suspect people are downvoting because they're imagining the older style of watch band spring bars. The older ones like this [1] require a tool, dexterity, and also some luck that it doesn't go flying across the room.
Bands with the newer style like this [2] can easily be done without tools or any stellar dexterity, but are still a bit more fiddly than how it seems Apple watches are. I'm betting this is the type you're talking about, as it's the only kind I've had to deal with across my ~decade of smartwatch use.
Are you talking about the spring bars that you need a tool to remove?
jjoonathan said a year ago:
If your fingernail is the right size and you are willing to risk breaking it and impaling your fingertip and cracking the body of your watch with the leverage and the band isn't jammed to complicate the procedure, you can often make it work without tools.
Yeah, the swap button is a big improvement.
onli said a year ago:
Spring loaded with a button to move them easily to the side? Or spring loaded with the small rings to use a tool with?
My impression is that the button system did got more popular over the last years, but it certainly existed many years before. Hard to find sources though.
johnwalkr said a year ago:
Watches are jewelry, and regardless of who did it first, making a reliable, easy-to-use flush strap system is an innovation. I'd argue it's less complex for the user, it's certainly easier to use.
spiffytech said a year ago:
The new thing seems to be attaching bands with bars that can be removed with a fingernail, rather than a tiny screwdriver or other pointy tool.
yunohn said a year ago:
Spring bars are NOT easy to work with. They’re easy to lose, hard to attach/remove, and definitely not quick.
The Apple Watch release buttons are much better - takes barely 5s to replace bands.
Additionally, it detaches the part that holds the band, allowing for deeper customisation. This is the thing you normally need screwdrivers for.
babypuncher said a year ago:
I don't know about your grandfather's watches, but non-smart watches I've had that take standard bands require a screwdriver.
high_priest said a year ago:
Rugged watches, outdooring ones, garmins, sure. They have big bars which require a screwdriver. They are made to first tear out your hand and then "maybe" break.
panopticon said a year ago:
I think Garmin switched all of their watches to the QuickFit system at least 5 years ago.
jerlam said a year ago:
Quickfit is mostly concentrated on their larger/higher end watches, like Fenix and up. Their lower end watches (like the Forerunner 265) still have a quick release spring bar.
In contrast, Casio G-Shocks, which are specifically built to be rugged/fashionable, don't have any kind of quick change mechanism. The strap is integrated into the case that further protects the watch.
panopticon said a year ago:
> Quickfit is mostly concentrated on their larger/higher end watches, like Fenix and up. Their lower end watches (like the Forerunner 265) still have a quick release spring bar.
Ah, yeah. I was mostly addressing the "rugged watches" comment, but yes that's absolutely correct.
koyote said a year ago:
My Forerunner 245 took about 10 seconds to replace the strap and I did not need any tools. That's a 4+ year old budget watch.
ChuckNorris89 said a year ago:
Also even cheap Casios had the feature to infinitely adjust the strap they GP is talking about.
mynameisvlad said a year ago:
By using a tool to push out the pins? That's not even remotely what GP is talking about. Look at their posted video to understand the difference.
RandallBrown said a year ago:
The spring loaded bars are not very quick to swap.
ChrisMarshallNY said a year ago:
I have a whole boatload of straps -almost none, Apple straps.
You can buy all kinds of knockoff (and surprisingly high-quality) straps on Amazon, for $50 or less (many of mine were about $15).
Apple, on the other hand, charges eye-watering prices for fairly basic straps.
All that said, the last few years, I've just been getting the stainless steel variants of the Watch (I currently have an 8), and use a metal band that I got for about $25[0].
The Apple version of a similar band is ... slightly more expensive [1].
I would agree that third-party knockoffs of plastic or textile straps are great. The metal ones are just not worth it. Unless you like dirty wrists and peeling paint, I'd avoid them. just look at the reviews for the one you've posted [1]
Yup, but I just got the basic stainless steel one.
It can give my wrist a dark “shadow,” if I am sweating a lot, but otherwise, it’s been fine.
I have a ton of straps. Some of the non-metal ones are total garbage, and peel and crack.
If they had an “interim” variant, for around $100, I would consider that. I have a Junghans Apollo, that I got their full-fat strap for, and that was $150. That watch cost more than any of the (current) Apple Watches, and I haven’t worn it in years.
woobar said a year ago:
Yeah, I've meant "stainless steel" when I mentioned dirty wrists.
ChrisMarshallNY said a year ago:
Would not be at all surprised, if the Apple band did the same (my Junghans one does).
Not gonna drop $350, to find out.
It’s no big deal, and only happens occasionally.
woobar said a year ago:
I had few Amazon SS bands, and they all were leaving dark marks. Apple's Silver Milanese Loop is stain free. Also price difference is not that bad compared to knockoffs.
WA said a year ago:
I‘m usually in the camp of buying official Apple accessories, because the details matter and are better than in knockoffs. Stuff like the strength of the magnets in the stainless wristbands.
But: I have the silver Milanese that came with my Series 5 and noticed that it destroys the fabric of my long sleeve button shirts. Quite annoying that this apparently didn’t receive the same thoughtful care like other Apple products.
thundermuffin said a year ago:
I'm still rocking my Series 0 Milanese (but on a Series 5 watch), and I feel really lucky to only have lost a few arm hairs to the loop after your comment, haha. I wonder if they've changed something about their design or manufacturing over the years? It'd be interesting to get to see what this band looks like with each new generation to compare.
mirkules said a year ago:
It is mind-boggling to me that something so frivolous is a $1B industry. Watch straps to me are completely functional. Sure, I’ll pick a better-looking strap, but I would never pay extra - especially not the exorbitant amount Apple charges - for looking “pretty”.
Just goes to show that all my assumptions about what makes a product popular/profitable are wrong.
P.S. I do have the Apple watch anyway. My strap requirements are: breathable, can be removed easily, doesn’t pinch arm hair.
stouset said a year ago:
I find that the people who say things like this are the same folk who will spend extra on a gaming PC battlestation that has color-coordinated neon lighting from the chassis, monitor backlighting, and on their keyboard.
People value aesthetics. Not everything in life is purely functional. Maybe you don't personally appreciate the beauty of a nice wristwatch strap, and that's fine. But I can virtually guarantee that there's some area of your life where you have spent additional dollars on a widget to gain some additional aesthetic value above and beyond what was purely functional. You simply did so on objects you personally care about. You likely have even done so without being consciously aware of this decision! Someone else with different preferences could easily look at that purchase and boggle at how anyone could spend extra on something so pointless.
And if you really, truly, have never spent extra time, effort, or money on something you'd appreciated for its beauty? To me, that's… just kind of depressing.
mirkules said a year ago:
I think my comment was misinterpreted, judging by both comments to it.
What I meant to say, wrist straps were not even on my radar of aesthetics, and I was shocked to learn it’s a $1B business (for Apple alone?). So clearly, I missed how much they mean to people.
Obviously, I (and pretty much everyone else) do buy things at least partially influenced by aesthetics (clothing, sunglasses, furniture, to name a few). Wrist straps were a huge surprise for me, though. Another one is paying a premium for different colored phones (and I admit I was first in line to pay a premium for a jet black RAZR phone back in the day)
SenHeng said a year ago:
I was in a discussion about a decade ago on the topic of form following function. People were arguing that decorative bits were unnecessary and detract from the beautiful form of something that's functionally pure. A creative director that works with several name brands you've heard of ended the conversation there by replying that decoration serves a different kind of function, mainly communication. If engineers had their way, most products would have nothing but cubes and spheres. In this sense, decoration would be rounding the edges of a cube to communicate that the product is kid friendly, fun to play with and will not hurt if you step on it. Conversely, sharpening the overly round corners helps convey that the product is a serious tool for serious business.
I'm paraphrasing because here because this is so long ago but I hope you get the point. Apple doesn't make products that 'just look pretty', they also tend to be highly functional. (As long as you're not holding it wrong.)
unshavedyak said a year ago:
Related, can anyone recommend 3rd party straps they like? I used to have a wood strap and i loved it but it broke (wood and all). It was good quality, i'm just rough with them i think. Now that i'm back on the regular Apple strap.. i miss the nicer one.
Curious if anyone has recommendations.
(Sidenote, man i don't think i could buy that $25 metal strap.. i'd assume it was junk lol)
ChrisMarshallNY said a year ago:
> i'd assume it was junk lol
It's not. I've been using the same band for years. I am constantly taking it off, and putting it back on, so the butterfly latch gets lots of exercise.
The Apple band is nicer, but ... I got one that is likely an exact replica of it (including the quick-release buttons on the links -which is silly, because you only take them out once, unless you plan to gain a bunch of weight), for $60.
I don't even know if you can spend more than $60 on Amazon, for one of these things.
I have a bunch of wood bands (I literally have several dozen bands).
Not the most comfortable, but it's fun to look at.
themadturk said a year ago:
My wife and I both have Fulmosa metal watch straps, $23.99 at Amazon [1]. Hers is blue, mine is black. Very comfortable, easy to put on and take off. Mine is starting to show a little wear in the paint on the links at the bottom of the wrist, but my wrist doesn't get dirty. The links are a pain to get off and on, of course, but they do provide a small toolkit.
Not cheap, but it actually looks better than the Apple $350 band.
quirino said a year ago:
> Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools.
Apple makes their watchband sound like the absolute pinnacle of engineering. I do agree Apple accessories are generally ridiculously expensive. Phone cases, chargers...
hinkley said a year ago:
People don’t buy a product, they buy a story, and that description you quote is definitely a story.
mikeyouse said a year ago:
What kills me is that you can't rely on them, even with all that engineering and cost. I was tired of 3rd party combo chargers failing for wireless charging + charging a watch -- Apple's costs $130 but I figured at least it was one thing I wouldn't have to worry about ever again. (https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MHXF3AM/A/magsafe-duo-cha...)
The piece of shit failed after maybe 3 months, it just wouldn't charge the phone and my spouse would wake up with a completely dead battery in the morning. Forums are littered with people with similar problems.
Same thing with their shitty expensive cases -- terrible peeling with moderate use. Drives me crazy you can pay so much for such a terrible quality 'premium' product.
bdcravens said a year ago:
I guess my wife and I have been lucky, as we each have the same charger, with no issues. Before that I had a Nomad wireless charger with a watch charger, and it worked well enough. I just wanted something that have full speed Magsafe charging, and was super portable. What did you switch to?
mikeyouse said a year ago:
Honestly just gave up on the wireless aspect -- still use the MagSafe one for the watch charger and then a corded phone charger.
manuelabeledo said a year ago:
I own a bunch of straps too. While I think that Apple charges a premium on their straps, I'm sure that the quality and durability is not comparable on average.
For example, I got a couple of knock off silicone bands for my wife. They almost immediately started to peel and broke after a few trips to the ocean. The original ones seem to retain the same soft touch feeling.
On the other hand, Apple silicone bands are quite bad compared to Nomad sport bands.
r0m4n0 said a year ago:
I bought the $20 metal Amazon dupe of the stainless steel link band that runs $349 from apple. 4 years in and the knockoff is still going strong
Bud said a year ago:
Apple's Sport Band, i.e. its "basic strap", is $49.
And it's well worth it. The bands I got way back in 2015 are still in great condition and working fine after a lot of heavy use.
As for Apple's stainless steel link bracelet being more expensive? Again, you get what you pay for: superior quality, an ingenious system that allows you to remove each link without any tools to adjust the size, a really wonderful clasp, etc.
garyfirestorm said a year ago:
>“Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option
I get it, they got bands and ecosystem and everything, but making it sound like no one swapped bands pre apple is a stretch
reaperducer said a year ago:
making it sound like no one swapped bands pre apple is a stretch
I suspect the author is too young or rural to remember when watch stores were common (stand-alone, in malls, in department stores, in airports, etc...), and you'd go in to have a battery changed, or pick a new strap from the hundreds on display.
icepat said a year ago:
Yes, a very odd take. I had watches ever since I was a child, and changing the watch band was a regular occurrence. Mostly because I would wear through them.
Kon-Peki said a year ago:
In more recent times, the Timex Weekender had a very large ecosystem of swappable bands. But it was designed such that you needed no tools and just slid the bands in and out.
The Apple system is really nice, in that you can quickly and easily change attached bands without tools.
icepat said a year ago:
Oh the Apple watch system is definitely nice! And I prefer it to having to fiddle around with small pins to shim my watch band off. But that's not so much the issue, the rather odd idea of "hardly anyone changing watch bands before Apple" is.
ghaff said a year ago:
What probably is true is that pre-Swatch (and maybe some other brands/lines), people certainly replaced watch bands. But it was more because the band was worn out as opposed to casually swapping them for fashion reasons.
icepat said a year ago:
Yep, I only swapped my band because it was trashed, and always to the exact same one as before.
justsomehnguy said a year ago:
> too young or rural to remember
>> Antonio G. Di Benedetto, a writer covering tech deals and The Verge’s Deals newsletter, buying guides, and gift guides. Previously, he spent 15 years in the photography industry.
He is on Twitter since 2009 so he is at least 35?
Probably just never paid any attention for the pocket watches. Or just "journalism".
matwood said a year ago:
Yeah, Shark watches were all the rage when I was a kid. They had lots of different straps, and early versions of complications (add-ons you could stick on the band).
However most people who were just rocking a basic Casio from Sprawl-Mart probably never even thought to swap their band.
What is really impressive about the Apple Watch is that it convinced a lot of people who really didn't care about watches to start dropping $200-$500 on them.
ghaff said a year ago:
By the time the strap is worse for wear on my cheap Timex, the battery is probably near-replacement, and the crystal is probably a bit banged up too. So easier to just spend $30 to replace the whole thing.
But I've certainly replaced watch bands in the past (or had it done). Never really been a watch person. I do have an Apple Watch which I wear mostly for hiking, etc. I like it but it's probably my most optional Apple device.
drivers99 said a year ago:
I wore the same Timex Triathlon for about 16 years. I replaced the watch band and the battery numerous times. Eventually the plastic button (the main one in the bottom left) wore out and it lost its water resistance and I finally switched watches. But to switch watches due to the replaceable parts (battery, watch band) seems unnecessary and wasteful.
larelli said a year ago:
The article goes to great lengths to describe the difficulties in manufacturing and assembling the mechanism in the band itself but then also mentions that there a large ecosystem of third-party bands available. How do all those get made? Does every manufacturer have to use the same high-precision machines?
elzbardico said a year ago:
I've got two third-party straps. Basically, only the middle button in the strap works and attaches to the middle notch. Most of the time this is enough to keep the strap in place. But it is not as nearly as secure as it is with the original Apple strap.
I use the original one when doing stuff like playing tennis or squash.
interpol_p said a year ago:
I had no idea that third party straps connected differently! Thanks for the info.
I have had two third party straps tear off, once during boxing and once while playing with my kids. The (much pricier) Apple ones never have, and so I only use those for sport as well.
kreetx said a year ago:
Surprised that you don't take the watch off during boxing, is that supported? (Not saying you can't do whatever you want with it, just that are they really that durable?)
interpol_p said a year ago:
There's a "boxing" workout, but yeah it tore apart the third-party band I was using. Since then I have used my older Apple bands for boxing workouts and it survives. The watch itself is totally fine
elzbardico said a year ago:
Once I had a third-party strap tearing off while I was cycling. I was lucky it happened during a break. Since then, I only use original apple straps for any sport.
microtherion said a year ago:
The strap side of the mechanism is much simpler than the watch side, and I suspect that for some styles of bands, you can even obtain fasteners from some wholesale manufacturer and attach them to your band, instead of fiddling with the dimensions yourself.
oatmeal1 said a year ago:
It's a shame a technology publication can't invest in someone to create a visualization of the mechanism in action. Words are a poor way to describe what is happening.
garyfirestorm said a year ago:
the typical mindset in many fields - purity!
'something along the lines, why should english majors learn to code or know 3D modeling'
this closed off mindset is prevalent even in higher ed.
sometimes even in engineering - many of my mechanical engg. friends looked down on writing basic python code or know anything about electronics and controls - 'thats not my problem!' they said.
musictubes said a year ago:
The stainless link bands are amazing too. I wondered why the Swiss hadn’t made resizing the band so easy. Then I realized that being forced to go to a jewelers/watch shop is a feature for them.
bombcar said a year ago:
The realization that anything over a $12 F-91W is more jewelry than a timepiece helps explain much of the watch market. Once you own more than one watch you're gonna get many of them, which is something some watchmakers count on.
rootusrootus said a year ago:
This is one area I think Apple has done a pretty good job in. They'll happily sell you a basic watch with a nice elastomer band for a few hundred bucks. This is the smartwatch equivalent of that F-91W. But Casio can't sell you a fancy F-91W that looks stylish and makes them an extra thousand bucks in profit.
rocketbop said a year ago:
Well you can actually buy a $4000 Casio GShock. They also have the Casio Oceanus line which are fancy and expensive. The $20 Casios are just the gateway drug and a lot of people with one Casio tend to have many.
bombcar said a year ago:
It has worked so well for Apple that I'm honestly surprised they haven't gone down the "bling route" with the iPhone, limited edition super-high end status symbol phones.
rootusrootus said a year ago:
That is a good point. I think the most expensive case you can buy for an iPhone from Apple is about $60. Even if you check off all available options you still can't break $2000 for a new iPhone. But there are third-party cases costing multiple thousands of dollars, so there must be some market for it. Though I suspect Apple knows more about the size of that market than I do. Still, I'm surprised they don't even try to sell an ugly Hermès multi color case for $600.
ghaff said a year ago:
Apple isn't really in the business of low volume luxury/status goods. Yeah, some people will mock Apple users as status-seeking. But, really, everything Apple sells may not be bargain goods but they're a pretty long throw from one of those many Vegas clothing etc. stores where, at least figuratively, I couldn't buy a single item--or at least wouldn't even consider it.
rootusrootus said a year ago:
But they do sell $600 Hermès watchbands. And the stainless steel watch, which is essentially a designer choice. So a designer phone case would be a decent analog to that. I'm actually surprised $59 is the most expensive case they sell.
BirAdam said a year ago:
The primary thing here is the Hermes band is made by Hermes and sold in Apple's stores. They don't actually make it.
Apple will make higher-end stuff if they continue to have trouble selling new hardware tho. I expect that they'd actually go both directions, more low-end and more high-end.
There is a 7$ watch link remover on amazon with prime one-day shipping where i'm at, apple's no-tool bands cost $350+. there isn't some sorta collusion between watchmakers and jewelers when bands are designed with a simple pin link mechanism.
frantathefranta said a year ago:
I've been hanging on to my original band from when I bought my Series 7 watch, partly because I'm not sure I trust amazon bands that seem to cost a fraction of the price of the OEM bands. If they fail, I'll get a ding on the watch at best or a broken screen at worst.
This did make me trust the off-brand bands a little more, since they seem to require a better mechanism that my previous swappable-band watch had.
browningstreet said a year ago:
I’ve long wondered why Swatch didn’t get into the Apple Watch band business.
alt227 said a year ago:
Its an Apple proprietary system and as such there will be a large licensing cost, including most likely a per unit payment designed to let the 3rd party make the most paper thin of margins.
CharlesW said a year ago:
> Its an Apple proprietary system and as such there will be a large licensing cost…
Developers and manufacturers of non-electronic accessories, including non-MagSafe cases and Apple Watch bands
I apologise for my previous incorrect statements.
reaperducer said a year ago:
most likely a per unit payment designed to let the 3rd party make the most paper thin of margins.
Swatch doesn't make $20 disposable watches anymore. I was in a Swatch store a couple of weeks ago, and the majority were in the $150-$200 range, with some going for $500 or more.
Swatch can afford to license the connector.
alt227 said a year ago:
The point is not that they cant afford the license its that when they are selling their own products for hundreds of dollers, probably with $50 or more profit margin per unit, then making $2 profit per unit on a strap after licensing costs is not worth the manufacturing investment for such a big company.
reaperducer said a year ago:
I can just imagine Maude Flanders: "Oh, won't somebody think of the profits!"
not worth the manufacturing investment for such a big company.
Isn't the whole point of being a big company that you can make big investments that a small company can't?
sokoloff said a year ago:
Being a big company may help in a lot of ways: easier/cheaper to re-use existing expertise, ability to make a larger number of speculative investments, often greater brand awareness, ability to sell products to an existing customer base, and others.
It doesn't help nearly as much to overcome fundamentally unattractive unit economics (unless scale can make them later become attractive).
ghaff said a year ago:
It's complicated.
You can make larger investments. But, while you may have economies of scale for certain things, you probably also have overheads up and down and across the company for everything you do.
zhte415 said a year ago:
HP ink for my printer.
Apple licensed strap for my watch.
Next... Nike licensed shoelaces for my shoes?
browningstreet said a year ago:
And yet there are tons of official watch band makers.
alt227 said a year ago:
Yes there are plenty of companies out there who will happily run their business with quantity of sales over quality of margin, however larger companies such as Swatch usually need a larger slice of the pie to make it worthwhile.
B1FF_PSUVM said a year ago:
Probably because they also don't have very good bands either.
I have a 20+ year old Swatch Skin which I like mostly because I have to look at my wrist to know if I'm wearing it. A thin unimposing plastic thing, "did it come in a cereal box?" as a wit once asked at lunch.
The Swatch leather-like bands get grungy and break in months, I've worn out a few. My local supplier closed, and the Ali Express replacement I finally got is wearing much better.
varenc said a year ago:
Swatch primarily makes money selling watches, so they probably think it’d be a bad look if they made watches for another brand, tacitly endorsing it.
browningstreet said a year ago:
True, but volume growth has taken a hit. High end Swiss watch sales are climbing but overall watch sales are down. Swatch has the moon watches and such, but their pop watch market could reasonably be at risk against smart watches.
rocketbop said a year ago:
Swatch Group is so huge with so many brands like Omega, Longines, Hamilton, etc, I’m sure they look at the market holistically.
ericabiz said a year ago:
I have owned Apple Watches since the Series 2. (Currently on an SE 2) I have always used third-party watch bands I get off Aliexpress--much cheaper than Amazon if you're patient with shipping. Zero issues with the latch mechanism.
stronglikedan said a year ago:
Proprietary? Fitbits have had these buttons since forever. And my Samsung has something similar, but in the pins, but just as easy to manipulate. This isn't an Apple thing, lol.
dzikimarian said a year ago:
At least weekly, there has to be article about Apple. It must describe something that, in case of other company, would be met with a shrug at most. It will be on the front page.
That's the law.
graypegg said a year ago:
Surprised there isn’t a MFI program for 3rd party Apple Watch bands that provides the connectors only. (At some inflated unit price of course)
Or maybe 3rd party bands are only viable in the low cost side of the market, and apple just owns the high side.
ant6n said a year ago:
I find these descriptions incomprehensible. Its like explanations written for ppl who already know the thing.
Some labelled images or videos or before/after comparisons might help.
Tempest1981 said a year ago:
Agreed. I'm having trouble visualizing the layout of buttons 1, 2, and 3. I wonder if the author actually understands it well enough to explain, vs simply repeating what he was told.
And is the spring part of the band? That's how I read this:
> showing the band and its internal spring and tooth system mounted within the band slot.
_Microft said a year ago:
Even an image that clearly labels the buttons with one to three would have been an improvement already.
falcolas said a year ago:
Ironically enough, I've picked up some adapters so I can use regular watch bands with my Apple Watch. There are just more options (that I like) using regular watch bands, and most decent (i.e. >= $20) watch bands now use quick release spring bars, making them stupidly simple to change (and not lose said bars).
JustSomeNobody said a year ago:
> Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option
Hmmm... what's this little springy thing on my Garmin watch? Oh! check that out! I can replace the bands!
Apple makes cool stuff, I even have some of it, but stop suckin' their butts.
mikestew said a year ago:
The Garmins I've had before the Apple Watch was first released involved getting out an Allen/Torx wrench to change the band. It wasn't until after the Apple Watch came out that I noticed Garmin had quick-release bands. So, though there were arguably quick-release bands before the Apple Watch, you picked a poor example.
arek_nawo said a year ago:
> Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option.
Although Apple has a history of simplifying and popularising various things, I thinks it's a bit of an overstatement. Could it be that people were influenced by marketing and "fashionable" image of various bands that they began collecting and switching them as desired?
For me at least, a few of my older watches and smartwatches had an option to change bands, though I never used them. With my first and current AW 7 I only used this "feature" to first change the default band and after that only recently once my previous one got worn out.
amelius said a year ago:
Anyone else noticed that looking at the top of your wrist for a prolonged time is difficult because the joints that turn the wrist are near an extreme point?
I think a more natural orientation of the screen is slightly more down on the wrist.
jerlam said a year ago:
There was a period of time where manufacturers tried to solve this problem, at least for athletes. There was the Timex OVA (Optimum Viewing Angle) where the watch face was located at the top of the wrist, using a very rigid strap:
Both of these were phased out probably due to their weirdness. And also because watches, even for athletes, play a role as jewelry, especially in the social media age.
It's common in the military to wear your watch on the inside of your wrist, where it's more visible but also less prone to damage.
wccrawford said a year ago:
I actually find that turning the top of my wrist up is more taxing than the top. Looking at the top of my wrist feels a lot more natural to me.
OTOH, in doing it right now, I noticed that I also stick my elbow out to make that happen, which isn't necessary for the bottom of the wrist, so perhaps that's the difference. Without sticking my elbow out, the watch would be at the wrong angle to view, though, in either situation. (It'd be 90 degrees out.)
namdnay said a year ago:
The underside of your wrist is far more natural, but it means it’s harder to show off :)
KennyBlanken said a year ago:
> “The number of people who lived in the factory getting these machines up and running, 24/7 sleeping bags on the floor, is not zero. People’s whole lives to get that one slot perfect.”
Why do companies brag about this sort of thing? That's not something to be proud of. Hell, in my state, that would be a workplace violation (one mandatory day of rest every 7 days, and I believe mandatory minimum rest between shifts, 10 hours I think?)
That 24/7 nonsense with sleeping bags on the floor wasn't to get that one slot perfect....it was to get the slot perfect on an unrealistic schedule set by management.
rootusrootus said a year ago:
> Why do companies brag about this sort of thing?
I don't think Apple has made any such claims. This is "ex-engineers" as quoted by The Verge. I take everything in the article with a grain of salt, I expect it has been embellished.
BirAdam said a year ago:
I had a moment of discomfort when reading that as well, and I had a very similar thought. Why is this a brag-worthy thing? Why are people valuing that level of dedication to a megacorp? A decent amount of this is cultural in the USA; at least, it is in my experience. A certain percentage of Americans tend to value extremely hard work as well as the willingness to sacrifice for that hard work without any context or equivocation. Putting in 80 to 90 hour weeks to make billionaires a little bit richer? Absolutely! "I did it, and look how awesome I am! You should do it too!" Meanwhile, on their death beds, many Americans show regret for spending so much time at work and so little time with their families.
hinkley said a year ago:
When a masochist gets seniority or becomes management, they become a sadist.
seanalltogether said a year ago:
Is there an animation of this in action, I don't think I'm getting a real understanding of whats happening from just the text and pictures.
Maxburn said a year ago:
You push the button and the band is released to slide out the side in either direction. Slide it in from the side and it locks automatically.
Except for a few "dress" watches I've switched all others to nato-style. One of his arguments is it's "easier". I don't know, nato-style is pretty much idiot proof.
I do have a "pin" tool which makes it easy, but I'd rather buy a simple tool then buy into an expensive closed ecosystem.
m3kw9 said a year ago:
Yeah this is pretty cool, when I first checked out my watch I was fascinated by how it worked, and I knew there was some mechanical trickery as it didn’t make sense if you just looked at it.
its-summertime said a year ago:
The complication sounds somewhat like a soft DRM for hardware: Requiring third parties to potentially have a looser fit etc if they can't get the mechanism right
Kirby64 said a year ago:
It's apparently not particularly hard. There's oodles of vendors selling sub-$10 straps that have a very tight fit, in my view. I've got an actual Apple band that is 'loose' in comparison (very small amount of side-to-side motion).
king_magic said a year ago:
Some of us watch enthusiasts enjoy the occasional challenge of swapping watch bands :)
dom96 said a year ago:
I was today years old when I learned about these buttons...
tantalor said a year ago:
These aren't buttons
Maxburn said a year ago:
Springbars with quick release are far easier to use and more compatible.
I've always thought that the apple design adds a LOT of size to the watch head with the way they intrude inside the case. If they didn't do that and had the standard horns/lugs that every other watch has the watch head could be smaller. Also occurs to me that might be a desired result though so they can have a bigger display.
Bud said a year ago:
Springbars are manifestly not easier to use at all. They're more fragile and far more difficult to use.
151 Comments:
In fact, some quick research suggests that multiple Swiss watchmakers had engineered quick-change watch straps before Apple... but you can definitely credit Apple for bringing it to the everyday consumer. I found an article[0] that predates the first Apple watch which mentions Hublot, Panerai and Cartier as innovators here.
In fact, one of the coolest things about the Cartier Santos is not only the quick-release system that frees the band from the watch but the hidden buttons that also allow you to resize the steel bracelet itself[1]! (Video shows a 2018 Santos, but nevertheless)
Regardless of who got it right first, I do hope that Apple's watch strap system becomes more ubiquitous in the watch world. Oftentimes watches are over-engineered for their 99% use case of casual wear in order to fulfill some fantasy of diving in the Caribbean or scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro, and so therefore many are screwed or fastened in some way that makes adjusting them a pain without tiny little tools and a clean surface.
0. https://www.thewatchbox.com/blog/gone-60-seconds-quick-chang...
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWv4QBJyz78&t=103s
For what it's worth, scaling the freestanding Mt. Kilimanjaro volcano is about as intense as a 4 day backpacking trip up up up to high altitude, little to no watch-risky technical climbing required for the common routes.
Whiskey/cocacola routes take 7 days standard, at least in 2012 they both did. For good reasons, folks struggle with altitude and you have plenty of people who go up high first time in their lives, so taking time to acclimatize is smart for general groups. Even with this, success rate was not more than 50%.
I've personally struggled like hell on the top, almost hallucinated and so did rest of my team members. But we made a junior mistake of going too fast up on summit day. When I did ie Mont Damavand in Iran, which is just 250m lower after cca 3 years, no issues and roud trip was just 2 days. But I've trained and did some crazy stuff in between. Most folks don't do that kind of stuff.
Sure, but none of that is hard on watches.
I do hope that Apple's watch strap system becomes more ubiquitous in the watch world. Oftentimes watches are over-engineered for their 99% use case of casual wear in order to fulfill some fantasy of diving in the Caribbean or scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro, and so therefore many are screwed or fastened in some way that makes adjusting them a pain without tiny little tools and a clean surface.
I agree, but for different reasons. I have several very nice dress watches that I keep for sentimental reasons that I'm not able to wear because the manufacturer used one-off straps for them. The mechanisms still work fine, but I can't wear them because the exact strap for that exact watch is no longer available.
Hey, EU — While you're forcing USB-C on everyone, how about picking a watch band standard, too?
So, I'm a huge fan of regulation but the problem with over-regulation is that it will stop really fun products from being released in those markets.
Like, imagine a watch that has an inflatable cuff that can take your blood pressure. It may be unsightly, bulky, and very dorky. So maybe it wouldn't fit this new "EU Watch Band Standard" that was imagined for Apple Watch. So a very large company like Apple could lobby the EU to change the law and might even do that with enough lead time so it doesn't delay the product launch. But a small company, kickstarter, etc would be screwed because there's no way they could expect to get the legislators' attention for something like this.
And yes, the legislation could be written with sensible carveouts, but we all know it won't, or they'll either not be comprehensive enough, or they'll be a leaky sieve that lets every shady corporation say "oh yeah there's a standard watchband but our special watch falls under exemption 312(c)." Or you can have a government agency handle "exemption requests" without legislative action, but then the small kickstarter will go through 6 rounds and 18 months of records and documentation requests, if they even bother looking into the process at all and not just saying "oh fuck that."
> imagine
Yes, so imaginative innovations for niche usecases can easily be exempted. The goal would be to enable mainstream mass-market devices to follow the standard. It’s not as complicated as you suggest, and works in almost every industry.
I mean, straight up no. If there is any sort of legislation, regardless of exemptions, time will have to be spent to figure out if the exemption applies, and generally will require some work to either apply for or defend the exemption as part of the development and release process.
This would stifle innovation in the long run. Why bother with this extra work when there are a other variations on the idea that would be quicker to launch?
I rarely see this mentioned, but why don’t people just support laws that expire? You can’t stifle innovation in the long run if the law doesn’t exist in the long run.
I’ve often espoused a law that requires USB-C to charge phones- that expires after 3-5 years. Just enough time to get everyone on the same standard and lock in a little, but not enough to kill innovation when the next big thing happens.
Worst case scenario, wait 3 years… but if it was really bad, the law would get repealed anyways.
This strategy would be great for many fields. Imagine if the world decided to make a law that expires in 3-5 years to require one specific electric car charging port. Or made an expiring law that required ebook sellers to use epub format in 2010 (I’m looking at you, Amazon, with your .mobi format). Or made an expiring law that unified every display cable under HDMI (ignoring patent issues).
I’m not saying that stuff like this should be enshrined in law forever, but a lot of stuff would be a lot easier if it was more socially/politically accepted to pass laws that expire.
Because then laws that people rely on become bargaining chips held hostage when the expiration date comes. And this creates horrible perverse incentives where the more obviously good and uncontroversial the law is, the more valuable it is as a hostage, so the more likely it is to disappear, which is a complete inversion of democracy. Like clean air? Well, give $MY_FACTION a billion billion dollars or it goes away.
This isn't a hypothetical either, you see this in American politics all the damn time with temporary laws and allocations.
Every innovation is niche, until it gets adopted by the mainstream. Many large companies have attempted to create mainstream products which have failed.
You might not be able to get the exact strap, but there are certainly numerous aftermarket straps (from low to high end) you can easily get. The strap is more than likely held in by a spring bar, and the while there are various widths, they are standard widths, ie 20 or 22mm etc… especially any older mechanical watch, will absolutely have the ability to interchange the band. And if it’s not a spring bar but a solid fixed piece of metal, you can use a nato style strap or something similar.
You might not be able to get the exact strap, but there are certainly numerous aftermarket straps (from low to high end) you can easily get.
I've tried, and even brought them to several watch stores and jewelers in Seattle, Houston, and New York with no luck.
The problem isn't the spring bar, it's the shape of the watch where connection is made.
I'm curious, which very nice dress watch manufacturer won't replace the band for you? They went out of business?
> the exact strap for that exact watch is no longer available.
Also too many reaper* nicknames in the thread
You want at a standard watch band? Don't look at the EU, look at... NATO
Really
What the heck are people talking about with the quick swap bands being an innovation?
Literally all the watches I own, from grandfathers antiques, to modern Amazfits, all of them have the bands on a spring loaded bar. Like... I don't remember the last time I have seen a different mechanism.
There is a brief mention of this system as a "conventional" one in the article
```
Apple took the conventional spring bars of traditional watches, miniaturized them, turned them on their sides, and embedded them into the watch band.
```
Complicating a simple solution for the sake of a flashy "flush" finish, doesn't sound like an innovation.
The spring bars are a pain. Many of my extended family don't have the finger dexterity to operate them at all, and either take them to the jewelry counter to replace or bring them to me. The rest can change them, but hate the damn things and take several tries sometimes with the bar flying across the room and complain about it every time.
This isn't change for the sake of change, it is a genuine improvement.
How often do people change their watch straps? I changed my strap exactly once, from original to easy adjustable magnetic. The quick change straps are 100% marketing ploy to sell more straps. Talking about 1st world problems...
Several times a day, for me. I have one band that I like for exercise, another for work (avoids inflaming carpel tunnel while typing) and a third for the aesthetics when walking around.
If the Apple bands were harder to switch I probably just wouldn’t wear a watch while working and exercising.
On my traditional watches? Almost never, because it's a pain.
On my Apple watches? Often! I wear a nicer strap in dressier situations, but always change to one of the rubber straps for exercise or swimming, and I do those things a LOT.
The Apple innovation here is pretty slick.
The spring bars are not a quick swap and they are not easy or painless. I have a small watch collection and a larger strap collection :P, but I'd never call it easy or convenient.
Now, there are some straps, even in budget category, that have a small lever that manipulates the spring and it's fairly easy to switch - but only if all your straps have the same mechanism. This is then compounded by different widths and types and whatnots.
As ever, Apple reaps the benefits (as well as drawbacks) of the basically single hardware device - you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line.
Or to put it other way - any one of my friends or family can and do change apple watch straps. 96% of them would be either unable or unwilling or both to change a regular strap. Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.
As a fellow convert to the church of the nato strap this made me lookup the situation for the apple watch. Unfortunately a real contentious nato strap is incompatible with the watch due to it's wrist sensors. So you end up with two piece nylon straps calling themselves nato bands. I guess if you were fine being classified dead by your watch you could probably put a nato band on one.
The casio g-shock has a problem with nato bands as well. the g-shock has a laughably small band pin width(16 mm). so to get a nato strap(24 mm) on one you need a band width adapter. which undoes most of the advantage of the nato strap. I am not really sure why they made it so small. My mechanical engineering is a bit weak does a small pin have less side load than a large pin?
>but only if all your straps have the same mechanism.
You might choose to replace all your bands if you want to use only captive spring bar mechanisms, but you must replace them if you buy an Apple watch.
A captive spring bar with a lever solves the problem entirely, and in a way strictly superior to Apple's approach. It is smaller and cheaper than the Apple solution. It will work with any watch from any manufacturer. It will allow you to keep your old bands if you choose.
If you can think of any advantage Apple's system has, I am all ears.
>you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line
Spring bars are also entirely predictable, controlled, singular, and homogeneous. You can buy a band in any standard width and be confident it would fit any watch. We had a far larger ecosystem before the fruit companies got involved.
This gives the lie to Apple's supposed genius. "Tight integration" is completely unnecessary when there are standards. They just want a monopoly.
>Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.
Completely incompatible with the Apple watch, of course.
I have mechanical watches and an Apple Watch...I swap bands on my Apple Watch almost every day because it takes about 5 seconds. I've swapped bands on my mechanicals maybe once this year, because it is super finicky, the spring bar always launches into another dimension and you spend 10 minutes feeling around on the floor to find it. All while you risk scratching the finish on your watch as you try to push back a tiny metal spring with a tiny metal pick. And that is if you have a springbar tool available, which is the best case scenario.
I suspect people are downvoting because they're imagining the older style of watch band spring bars. The older ones like this [1] require a tool, dexterity, and also some luck that it doesn't go flying across the room.
Bands with the newer style like this [2] can easily be done without tools or any stellar dexterity, but are still a bit more fiddly than how it seems Apple watches are. I'm betting this is the type you're talking about, as it's the only kind I've had to deal with across my ~decade of smartwatch use.
[1] https://www.bartonwatchbands.com/products/stainless-steel-sp...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B9FQ3PXF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
Are you talking about the spring bars that you need a tool to remove?
If your fingernail is the right size and you are willing to risk breaking it and impaling your fingertip and cracking the body of your watch with the leverage and the band isn't jammed to complicate the procedure, you can often make it work without tools.
Yeah, the swap button is a big improvement.
Spring loaded with a button to move them easily to the side? Or spring loaded with the small rings to use a tool with?
My impression is that the button system did got more popular over the last years, but it certainly existed many years before. Hard to find sources though.
Watches are jewelry, and regardless of who did it first, making a reliable, easy-to-use flush strap system is an innovation. I'd argue it's less complex for the user, it's certainly easier to use.
The new thing seems to be attaching bands with bars that can be removed with a fingernail, rather than a tiny screwdriver or other pointy tool.
Spring bars are NOT easy to work with. They’re easy to lose, hard to attach/remove, and definitely not quick.
The Apple Watch release buttons are much better - takes barely 5s to replace bands.
Additionally, it detaches the part that holds the band, allowing for deeper customisation. This is the thing you normally need screwdrivers for.
I don't know about your grandfather's watches, but non-smart watches I've had that take standard bands require a screwdriver.
Rugged watches, outdooring ones, garmins, sure. They have big bars which require a screwdriver. They are made to first tear out your hand and then "maybe" break.
I think Garmin switched all of their watches to the QuickFit system at least 5 years ago.
Quickfit is mostly concentrated on their larger/higher end watches, like Fenix and up. Their lower end watches (like the Forerunner 265) still have a quick release spring bar.
In contrast, Casio G-Shocks, which are specifically built to be rugged/fashionable, don't have any kind of quick change mechanism. The strap is integrated into the case that further protects the watch.
> Quickfit is mostly concentrated on their larger/higher end watches, like Fenix and up. Their lower end watches (like the Forerunner 265) still have a quick release spring bar.
Ah, yeah. I was mostly addressing the "rugged watches" comment, but yes that's absolutely correct.
My Forerunner 245 took about 10 seconds to replace the strap and I did not need any tools. That's a 4+ year old budget watch.
Also even cheap Casios had the feature to infinitely adjust the strap they GP is talking about.
By using a tool to push out the pins? That's not even remotely what GP is talking about. Look at their posted video to understand the difference.
The spring loaded bars are not very quick to swap.
I have a whole boatload of straps -almost none, Apple straps.
You can buy all kinds of knockoff (and surprisingly high-quality) straps on Amazon, for $50 or less (many of mine were about $15).
Apple, on the other hand, charges eye-watering prices for fairly basic straps.
All that said, the last few years, I've just been getting the stainless steel variants of the Watch (I currently have an 8), and use a metal band that I got for about $25[0].
The Apple version of a similar band is ... slightly more expensive [1].
[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09JWLYLG5/
[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MUHJ2AM/A/38mm-silver-lin...
I would agree that third-party knockoffs of plastic or textile straps are great. The metal ones are just not worth it. Unless you like dirty wrists and peeling paint, I'd avoid them. just look at the reviews for the one you've posted [1]
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1TW5ISDWA84PV/re...
Yup, but I just got the basic stainless steel one.
It can give my wrist a dark “shadow,” if I am sweating a lot, but otherwise, it’s been fine.
I have a ton of straps. Some of the non-metal ones are total garbage, and peel and crack.
If they had an “interim” variant, for around $100, I would consider that. I have a Junghans Apollo, that I got their full-fat strap for, and that was $150. That watch cost more than any of the (current) Apple Watches, and I haven’t worn it in years.
Yeah, I've meant "stainless steel" when I mentioned dirty wrists.
Would not be at all surprised, if the Apple band did the same (my Junghans one does).
Not gonna drop $350, to find out.
It’s no big deal, and only happens occasionally.
I had few Amazon SS bands, and they all were leaving dark marks. Apple's Silver Milanese Loop is stain free. Also price difference is not that bad compared to knockoffs.
I‘m usually in the camp of buying official Apple accessories, because the details matter and are better than in knockoffs. Stuff like the strength of the magnets in the stainless wristbands.
But: I have the silver Milanese that came with my Series 5 and noticed that it destroys the fabric of my long sleeve button shirts. Quite annoying that this apparently didn’t receive the same thoughtful care like other Apple products.
I'm still rocking my Series 0 Milanese (but on a Series 5 watch), and I feel really lucky to only have lost a few arm hairs to the loop after your comment, haha. I wonder if they've changed something about their design or manufacturing over the years? It'd be interesting to get to see what this band looks like with each new generation to compare.
It is mind-boggling to me that something so frivolous is a $1B industry. Watch straps to me are completely functional. Sure, I’ll pick a better-looking strap, but I would never pay extra - especially not the exorbitant amount Apple charges - for looking “pretty”.
Just goes to show that all my assumptions about what makes a product popular/profitable are wrong.
P.S. I do have the Apple watch anyway. My strap requirements are: breathable, can be removed easily, doesn’t pinch arm hair.
I find that the people who say things like this are the same folk who will spend extra on a gaming PC battlestation that has color-coordinated neon lighting from the chassis, monitor backlighting, and on their keyboard.
People value aesthetics. Not everything in life is purely functional. Maybe you don't personally appreciate the beauty of a nice wristwatch strap, and that's fine. But I can virtually guarantee that there's some area of your life where you have spent additional dollars on a widget to gain some additional aesthetic value above and beyond what was purely functional. You simply did so on objects you personally care about. You likely have even done so without being consciously aware of this decision! Someone else with different preferences could easily look at that purchase and boggle at how anyone could spend extra on something so pointless.
And if you really, truly, have never spent extra time, effort, or money on something you'd appreciated for its beauty? To me, that's… just kind of depressing.
I think my comment was misinterpreted, judging by both comments to it.
What I meant to say, wrist straps were not even on my radar of aesthetics, and I was shocked to learn it’s a $1B business (for Apple alone?). So clearly, I missed how much they mean to people.
Obviously, I (and pretty much everyone else) do buy things at least partially influenced by aesthetics (clothing, sunglasses, furniture, to name a few). Wrist straps were a huge surprise for me, though. Another one is paying a premium for different colored phones (and I admit I was first in line to pay a premium for a jet black RAZR phone back in the day)
I was in a discussion about a decade ago on the topic of form following function. People were arguing that decorative bits were unnecessary and detract from the beautiful form of something that's functionally pure. A creative director that works with several name brands you've heard of ended the conversation there by replying that decoration serves a different kind of function, mainly communication. If engineers had their way, most products would have nothing but cubes and spheres. In this sense, decoration would be rounding the edges of a cube to communicate that the product is kid friendly, fun to play with and will not hurt if you step on it. Conversely, sharpening the overly round corners helps convey that the product is a serious tool for serious business.
I'm paraphrasing because here because this is so long ago but I hope you get the point. Apple doesn't make products that 'just look pretty', they also tend to be highly functional. (As long as you're not holding it wrong.)
Related, can anyone recommend 3rd party straps they like? I used to have a wood strap and i loved it but it broke (wood and all). It was good quality, i'm just rough with them i think. Now that i'm back on the regular Apple strap.. i miss the nicer one.
Curious if anyone has recommendations.
(Sidenote, man i don't think i could buy that $25 metal strap.. i'd assume it was junk lol)
> i'd assume it was junk lol
It's not. I've been using the same band for years. I am constantly taking it off, and putting it back on, so the butterfly latch gets lots of exercise.
The Apple band is nicer, but ... I got one that is likely an exact replica of it (including the quick-release buttons on the links -which is silly, because you only take them out once, unless you plan to gain a bunch of weight), for $60.
I don't even know if you can spend more than $60 on Amazon, for one of these things.
I have a bunch of wood bands (I literally have several dozen bands).
However, the ones I like the most are "hybrid" ones: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B071NV2GF4/
I got that, five years ago (I still have it, and it's fine). I don't know if they make the same one, anymore.
I've purchased a few from Nyloon I've been happy with. The canvas ones do take a little bit to break in.
I've also only recently discovered the Etsy category from somewhere in this post.
https://www.nyloon.net/
I just started wearing this one: https://mobyfox.com/products/sega-genesis-3d-smartwatch-band
Not the most comfortable, but it's fun to look at.
My wife and I both have Fulmosa metal watch straps, $23.99 at Amazon [1]. Hers is blue, mine is black. Very comfortable, easy to put on and take off. Mine is starting to show a little wear in the paint on the links at the bottom of the wrist, but my wrist doesn't get dirty. The links are a pain to get off and on, of course, but they do provide a small toolkit.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B096M9BQY5/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
I've had good luck with bands from Barton & Nomad.
For a while I was doing the < $15 on amazon path, but switched to some of the above and never looked back.
Hm... This looks good:
https://nomadgoods.com/products/metal-band-steel-silver-44mm
Not cheap, but it actually looks better than the Apple $350 band.
> Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools.
Apple makes their watchband sound like the absolute pinnacle of engineering. I do agree Apple accessories are generally ridiculously expensive. Phone cases, chargers...
People don’t buy a product, they buy a story, and that description you quote is definitely a story.
What kills me is that you can't rely on them, even with all that engineering and cost. I was tired of 3rd party combo chargers failing for wireless charging + charging a watch -- Apple's costs $130 but I figured at least it was one thing I wouldn't have to worry about ever again. (https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MHXF3AM/A/magsafe-duo-cha...)
The piece of shit failed after maybe 3 months, it just wouldn't charge the phone and my spouse would wake up with a completely dead battery in the morning. Forums are littered with people with similar problems.
Same thing with their shitty expensive cases -- terrible peeling with moderate use. Drives me crazy you can pay so much for such a terrible quality 'premium' product.
I guess my wife and I have been lucky, as we each have the same charger, with no issues. Before that I had a Nomad wireless charger with a watch charger, and it worked well enough. I just wanted something that have full speed Magsafe charging, and was super portable. What did you switch to?
Honestly just gave up on the wireless aspect -- still use the MagSafe one for the watch charger and then a corded phone charger.
I own a bunch of straps too. While I think that Apple charges a premium on their straps, I'm sure that the quality and durability is not comparable on average.
For example, I got a couple of knock off silicone bands for my wife. They almost immediately started to peel and broke after a few trips to the ocean. The original ones seem to retain the same soft touch feeling.
On the other hand, Apple silicone bands are quite bad compared to Nomad sport bands.
I bought the $20 metal Amazon dupe of the stainless steel link band that runs $349 from apple. 4 years in and the knockoff is still going strong
Apple's Sport Band, i.e. its "basic strap", is $49.
And it's well worth it. The bands I got way back in 2015 are still in great condition and working fine after a lot of heavy use.
As for Apple's stainless steel link bracelet being more expensive? Again, you get what you pay for: superior quality, an ingenious system that allows you to remove each link without any tools to adjust the size, a really wonderful clasp, etc.
>“Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option
I get it, they got bands and ecosystem and everything, but making it sound like no one swapped bands pre apple is a stretch
making it sound like no one swapped bands pre apple is a stretch
I suspect the author is too young or rural to remember when watch stores were common (stand-alone, in malls, in department stores, in airports, etc...), and you'd go in to have a battery changed, or pick a new strap from the hundreds on display.
Yes, a very odd take. I had watches ever since I was a child, and changing the watch band was a regular occurrence. Mostly because I would wear through them.
In more recent times, the Timex Weekender had a very large ecosystem of swappable bands. But it was designed such that you needed no tools and just slid the bands in and out.
The Apple system is really nice, in that you can quickly and easily change attached bands without tools.
Oh the Apple watch system is definitely nice! And I prefer it to having to fiddle around with small pins to shim my watch band off. But that's not so much the issue, the rather odd idea of "hardly anyone changing watch bands before Apple" is.
What probably is true is that pre-Swatch (and maybe some other brands/lines), people certainly replaced watch bands. But it was more because the band was worn out as opposed to casually swapping them for fashion reasons.
Yep, I only swapped my band because it was trashed, and always to the exact same one as before.
> too young or rural to remember
>> Antonio G. Di Benedetto, a writer covering tech deals and The Verge’s Deals newsletter, buying guides, and gift guides. Previously, he spent 15 years in the photography industry.
He is on Twitter since 2009 so he is at least 35?
Probably just never paid any attention for the pocket watches. Or just "journalism".
Yeah, Shark watches were all the rage when I was a kid. They had lots of different straps, and early versions of complications (add-ons you could stick on the band).
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a-definitive-deep-dive-on-...
Watch people, sure.
However most people who were just rocking a basic Casio from Sprawl-Mart probably never even thought to swap their band.
What is really impressive about the Apple Watch is that it convinced a lot of people who really didn't care about watches to start dropping $200-$500 on them.
By the time the strap is worse for wear on my cheap Timex, the battery is probably near-replacement, and the crystal is probably a bit banged up too. So easier to just spend $30 to replace the whole thing.
But I've certainly replaced watch bands in the past (or had it done). Never really been a watch person. I do have an Apple Watch which I wear mostly for hiking, etc. I like it but it's probably my most optional Apple device.
I wore the same Timex Triathlon for about 16 years. I replaced the watch band and the battery numerous times. Eventually the plastic button (the main one in the bottom left) wore out and it lost its water resistance and I finally switched watches. But to switch watches due to the replaceable parts (battery, watch band) seems unnecessary and wasteful.
The article goes to great lengths to describe the difficulties in manufacturing and assembling the mechanism in the band itself but then also mentions that there a large ecosystem of third-party bands available. How do all those get made? Does every manufacturer have to use the same high-precision machines?
I've got two third-party straps. Basically, only the middle button in the strap works and attaches to the middle notch. Most of the time this is enough to keep the strap in place. But it is not as nearly as secure as it is with the original Apple strap. I use the original one when doing stuff like playing tennis or squash.
I had no idea that third party straps connected differently! Thanks for the info.
I have had two third party straps tear off, once during boxing and once while playing with my kids. The (much pricier) Apple ones never have, and so I only use those for sport as well.
Surprised that you don't take the watch off during boxing, is that supported? (Not saying you can't do whatever you want with it, just that are they really that durable?)
There's a "boxing" workout, but yeah it tore apart the third-party band I was using. Since then I have used my older Apple bands for boxing workouts and it survives. The watch itself is totally fine
Once I had a third-party strap tearing off while I was cycling. I was lucky it happened during a break. Since then, I only use original apple straps for any sport.
The strap side of the mechanism is much simpler than the watch side, and I suspect that for some styles of bands, you can even obtain fasteners from some wholesale manufacturer and attach them to your band, instead of fiddling with the dimensions yourself.
It's a shame a technology publication can't invest in someone to create a visualization of the mechanism in action. Words are a poor way to describe what is happening.
the typical mindset in many fields - purity! 'something along the lines, why should english majors learn to code or know 3D modeling' this closed off mindset is prevalent even in higher ed. sometimes even in engineering - many of my mechanical engg. friends looked down on writing basic python code or know anything about electronics and controls - 'thats not my problem!' they said.
The stainless link bands are amazing too. I wondered why the Swiss hadn’t made resizing the band so easy. Then I realized that being forced to go to a jewelers/watch shop is a feature for them.
The realization that anything over a $12 F-91W is more jewelry than a timepiece helps explain much of the watch market. Once you own more than one watch you're gonna get many of them, which is something some watchmakers count on.
This is one area I think Apple has done a pretty good job in. They'll happily sell you a basic watch with a nice elastomer band for a few hundred bucks. This is the smartwatch equivalent of that F-91W. But Casio can't sell you a fancy F-91W that looks stylish and makes them an extra thousand bucks in profit.
Well you can actually buy a $4000 Casio GShock. They also have the Casio Oceanus line which are fancy and expensive. The $20 Casios are just the gateway drug and a lot of people with one Casio tend to have many.
It has worked so well for Apple that I'm honestly surprised they haven't gone down the "bling route" with the iPhone, limited edition super-high end status symbol phones.
That is a good point. I think the most expensive case you can buy for an iPhone from Apple is about $60. Even if you check off all available options you still can't break $2000 for a new iPhone. But there are third-party cases costing multiple thousands of dollars, so there must be some market for it. Though I suspect Apple knows more about the size of that market than I do. Still, I'm surprised they don't even try to sell an ugly Hermès multi color case for $600.
Apple isn't really in the business of low volume luxury/status goods. Yeah, some people will mock Apple users as status-seeking. But, really, everything Apple sells may not be bargain goods but they're a pretty long throw from one of those many Vegas clothing etc. stores where, at least figuratively, I couldn't buy a single item--or at least wouldn't even consider it.
But they do sell $600 Hermès watchbands. And the stainless steel watch, which is essentially a designer choice. So a designer phone case would be a decent analog to that. I'm actually surprised $59 is the most expensive case they sell.
The primary thing here is the Hermes band is made by Hermes and sold in Apple's stores. They don't actually make it.
Apple will make higher-end stuff if they continue to have trouble selling new hardware tho. I expect that they'd actually go both directions, more low-end and more high-end.
from Apple.
Burberry will happily charge you $410 for a case. https://us.burberry.com/checkleather-iphone-14-pro-case-p807...
They've tried it with their watches.
https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-hermes/ https://www.techradar.com/news/why-apple-gave-up-on-its-18-k...
There is a 7$ watch link remover on amazon with prime one-day shipping where i'm at, apple's no-tool bands cost $350+. there isn't some sorta collusion between watchmakers and jewelers when bands are designed with a simple pin link mechanism.
I've been hanging on to my original band from when I bought my Series 7 watch, partly because I'm not sure I trust amazon bands that seem to cost a fraction of the price of the OEM bands. If they fail, I'll get a ding on the watch at best or a broken screen at worst. This did make me trust the off-brand bands a little more, since they seem to require a better mechanism that my previous swappable-band watch had.
I’ve long wondered why Swatch didn’t get into the Apple Watch band business.
Its an Apple proprietary system and as such there will be a large licensing cost, including most likely a per unit payment designed to let the 3rd party make the most paper thin of margins.
> Its an Apple proprietary system and as such there will be a large licensing cost…
That's incorrect. https://developer.apple.com/accessories/watch-bands/
Fair enough, I dug further into it and the bands are one of 2 apple technologies which do not require licensing. Cases and watch bands.
https://mfi.apple.com/en/who-should-join
Who does not need to join:
Developers and manufacturers of non-electronic accessories, including non-MagSafe cases and Apple Watch bands
I apologise for my previous incorrect statements.
most likely a per unit payment designed to let the 3rd party make the most paper thin of margins.
Swatch doesn't make $20 disposable watches anymore. I was in a Swatch store a couple of weeks ago, and the majority were in the $150-$200 range, with some going for $500 or more.
Swatch can afford to license the connector.
The point is not that they cant afford the license its that when they are selling their own products for hundreds of dollers, probably with $50 or more profit margin per unit, then making $2 profit per unit on a strap after licensing costs is not worth the manufacturing investment for such a big company.
I can just imagine Maude Flanders: "Oh, won't somebody think of the profits!"
not worth the manufacturing investment for such a big company.
Isn't the whole point of being a big company that you can make big investments that a small company can't?
Being a big company may help in a lot of ways: easier/cheaper to re-use existing expertise, ability to make a larger number of speculative investments, often greater brand awareness, ability to sell products to an existing customer base, and others.
It doesn't help nearly as much to overcome fundamentally unattractive unit economics (unless scale can make them later become attractive).
It's complicated.
You can make larger investments. But, while you may have economies of scale for certain things, you probably also have overheads up and down and across the company for everything you do.
HP ink for my printer.
Apple licensed strap for my watch.
Next... Nike licensed shoelaces for my shoes?
And yet there are tons of official watch band makers.
Yes there are plenty of companies out there who will happily run their business with quantity of sales over quality of margin, however larger companies such as Swatch usually need a larger slice of the pie to make it worthwhile.
Probably because they also don't have very good bands either.
I have a 20+ year old Swatch Skin which I like mostly because I have to look at my wrist to know if I'm wearing it. A thin unimposing plastic thing, "did it come in a cereal box?" as a wit once asked at lunch.
The Swatch leather-like bands get grungy and break in months, I've worn out a few. My local supplier closed, and the Ali Express replacement I finally got is wearing much better.
Swatch primarily makes money selling watches, so they probably think it’d be a bad look if they made watches for another brand, tacitly endorsing it.
True, but volume growth has taken a hit. High end Swiss watch sales are climbing but overall watch sales are down. Swatch has the moon watches and such, but their pop watch market could reasonably be at risk against smart watches.
Swatch Group is so huge with so many brands like Omega, Longines, Hamilton, etc, I’m sure they look at the market holistically.
I have owned Apple Watches since the Series 2. (Currently on an SE 2) I have always used third-party watch bands I get off Aliexpress--much cheaper than Amazon if you're patient with shipping. Zero issues with the latch mechanism.
Proprietary? Fitbits have had these buttons since forever. And my Samsung has something similar, but in the pins, but just as easy to manipulate. This isn't an Apple thing, lol.
At least weekly, there has to be article about Apple. It must describe something that, in case of other company, would be met with a shrug at most. It will be on the front page.
That's the law.
Surprised there isn’t a MFI program for 3rd party Apple Watch bands that provides the connectors only. (At some inflated unit price of course)
Or maybe 3rd party bands are only viable in the low cost side of the market, and apple just owns the high side.
I find these descriptions incomprehensible. Its like explanations written for ppl who already know the thing. Some labelled images or videos or before/after comparisons might help.
Agreed. I'm having trouble visualizing the layout of buttons 1, 2, and 3. I wonder if the author actually understands it well enough to explain, vs simply repeating what he was told.
And is the spring part of the band? That's how I read this:
> showing the band and its internal spring and tooth system mounted within the band slot.
Even an image that clearly labels the buttons with one to three would have been an improvement already.
Ironically enough, I've picked up some adapters so I can use regular watch bands with my Apple Watch. There are just more options (that I like) using regular watch bands, and most decent (i.e. >= $20) watch bands now use quick release spring bars, making them stupidly simple to change (and not lose said bars).
> Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option
Hmmm... what's this little springy thing on my Garmin watch? Oh! check that out! I can replace the bands!
Apple makes cool stuff, I even have some of it, but stop suckin' their butts.
The Garmins I've had before the Apple Watch was first released involved getting out an Allen/Torx wrench to change the band. It wasn't until after the Apple Watch came out that I noticed Garmin had quick-release bands. So, though there were arguably quick-release bands before the Apple Watch, you picked a poor example.
> Most watch users don’t know how to change the strap and I bet pre-Apple Watch, many didn’t realize that was an option.
Although Apple has a history of simplifying and popularising various things, I thinks it's a bit of an overstatement. Could it be that people were influenced by marketing and "fashionable" image of various bands that they began collecting and switching them as desired?
For me at least, a few of my older watches and smartwatches had an option to change bands, though I never used them. With my first and current AW 7 I only used this "feature" to first change the default band and after that only recently once my previous one got worn out.
Anyone else noticed that looking at the top of your wrist for a prolonged time is difficult because the joints that turn the wrist are near an extreme point?
I think a more natural orientation of the screen is slightly more down on the wrist.
There was a period of time where manufacturers tried to solve this problem, at least for athletes. There was the Timex OVA (Optimum Viewing Angle) where the watch face was located at the top of the wrist, using a very rigid strap:
https://kr.aving.net/news/articleViewAmp.html?idxno=10025
I had one. It looked strange, but the face was much more visible. However, it also meant that the watch face had to be a lot smaller.
There was also the Nike Triax which rotated the screen 45 degrees:
https://www.gq.com/story/nike-triax-watch
Both of these were phased out probably due to their weirdness. And also because watches, even for athletes, play a role as jewelry, especially in the social media age.
It's common in the military to wear your watch on the inside of your wrist, where it's more visible but also less prone to damage.
I actually find that turning the top of my wrist up is more taxing than the top. Looking at the top of my wrist feels a lot more natural to me.
OTOH, in doing it right now, I noticed that I also stick my elbow out to make that happen, which isn't necessary for the bottom of the wrist, so perhaps that's the difference. Without sticking my elbow out, the watch would be at the wrong angle to view, though, in either situation. (It'd be 90 degrees out.)
The underside of your wrist is far more natural, but it means it’s harder to show off :)
> “The number of people who lived in the factory getting these machines up and running, 24/7 sleeping bags on the floor, is not zero. People’s whole lives to get that one slot perfect.”
Why do companies brag about this sort of thing? That's not something to be proud of. Hell, in my state, that would be a workplace violation (one mandatory day of rest every 7 days, and I believe mandatory minimum rest between shifts, 10 hours I think?)
That 24/7 nonsense with sleeping bags on the floor wasn't to get that one slot perfect....it was to get the slot perfect on an unrealistic schedule set by management.
> Why do companies brag about this sort of thing?
I don't think Apple has made any such claims. This is "ex-engineers" as quoted by The Verge. I take everything in the article with a grain of salt, I expect it has been embellished.
I had a moment of discomfort when reading that as well, and I had a very similar thought. Why is this a brag-worthy thing? Why are people valuing that level of dedication to a megacorp? A decent amount of this is cultural in the USA; at least, it is in my experience. A certain percentage of Americans tend to value extremely hard work as well as the willingness to sacrifice for that hard work without any context or equivocation. Putting in 80 to 90 hour weeks to make billionaires a little bit richer? Absolutely! "I did it, and look how awesome I am! You should do it too!" Meanwhile, on their death beds, many Americans show regret for spending so much time at work and so little time with their families.
When a masochist gets seniority or becomes management, they become a sadist.
Is there an animation of this in action, I don't think I'm getting a real understanding of whats happening from just the text and pictures.
You push the button and the band is released to slide out the side in either direction. Slide it in from the side and it locks automatically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8b_MzNyHmE
Except for a few "dress" watches I've switched all others to nato-style. One of his arguments is it's "easier". I don't know, nato-style is pretty much idiot proof.
I do have a "pin" tool which makes it easy, but I'd rather buy a simple tool then buy into an expensive closed ecosystem.
Yeah this is pretty cool, when I first checked out my watch I was fascinated by how it worked, and I knew there was some mechanical trickery as it didn’t make sense if you just looked at it.
The complication sounds somewhat like a soft DRM for hardware: Requiring third parties to potentially have a looser fit etc if they can't get the mechanism right
It's apparently not particularly hard. There's oodles of vendors selling sub-$10 straps that have a very tight fit, in my view. I've got an actual Apple band that is 'loose' in comparison (very small amount of side-to-side motion).
Some of us watch enthusiasts enjoy the occasional challenge of swapping watch bands :)
I was today years old when I learned about these buttons...
These aren't buttons
Springbars with quick release are far easier to use and more compatible.
I've always thought that the apple design adds a LOT of size to the watch head with the way they intrude inside the case. If they didn't do that and had the standard horns/lugs that every other watch has the watch head could be smaller. Also occurs to me that might be a desired result though so they can have a bigger display.
Springbars are manifestly not easier to use at all. They're more fragile and far more difficult to use.