For better or worse, Apple is pushing on with their smartwatch endeavors in the form of the Apple Watch Series 2. For the most part I would say that there isn’t a ton that can be said about the new watch in the context of a hands-on, but I figured that at least some discussion of the new ceramic casing would be interesting to see.

For those that are unaware of what this finish entails, the ceramic casing is much stiffer than stainless steel which makes it much harder to scratch and impervious to corrosion. It’s going to feel a lot more like glass rather than steel. However similar to glass, the ductility and malleability of ceramic is fairly low and if you really do something to damage the case it’s likely that it will shatter altogether rather than bend and deform.

In the hand, the ceramic casing of the Apple Watch Series 2 feels a lot like glass. It has a high-gloss finish like everything but the Apple Watch Sport, so it picks up your fingerprints and other sebaceous matter fairly easily and shows it quite obviously, but the white ceramic color does make it harder to see this sort of thing.

Other than the new casing, it’s hard to really see any of the new features of Apple Watch Series 2 unless you rely on canned demos, so I’ll refrain from making any comments here until we can actually test one for usability. The one interesting feature I found while playing with the Apple Watch was the ability to manually enable the water clearing speaker system, and when you do so it makes you turn the digital crown to activate the speakers and clear water from within the watch.

Other than this the changes to the watch are hard to see and when watchOS 3 hasn’t launched for the original Apple Watch it doesn’t make sense to compare the two together given the major changes in performance across OS versions.

The Apple Watch Series 2 goes on preorder starting September 9, and goes on sale September 16. Prices start at 369 USD with the usual bands with a choice of aluminum, stainless steel, and ceramic casings.

POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    It looks pretty chunky and large in the photos. If there's anyplace that making things thinner would be helpful, it'd be here with wrist-based computing devices. Reply
  • aliasfox - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    Yes, but if there's any place that needs longer battery life right now, it'd be here with wrist-based computing devices. Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    Agreed completely. Watches, phones, tablets, pretty much all those devices would benefit from longer battery life. Cost effective energy storage hasn't seen much improvement which, as you're implying, is probably responsible for much of the Watch's thickness.

    It'd almost make sense to link an under-wrist battery to an over-wrist interface/processor via wiring in the straps. That'd distribute the Watch's bulk across a larger area though it wouldn't exactly fit our perceptions of wrist watches.
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    -- It'd almost make sense to link an under-wrist battery to an over-wrist interface/processor via wiring in the straps.

    there are already (unapproved) battery straps. http://reservestrap.com/
    well, there used to be. :) the soul of Steve lives on.
    Reply
  • hughlle - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    It looks utterly absurd in those last 2 photo's. Reply
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    I think that's more a result of the subject's (presumably Josh) arm and the slight offset of the Watch in the last photo. A lighter bone structure would make the Watch seem relatively larger. It's something I'm actually glad was photographed and shared because while most men will end up okay, slimmer women are more likely to notice a bulky device like the Watch. Basically, people with lighter bone structures or less body fat around their forearms many have to reconsider the Watch because of how it will look when worn. Like it or not, watches are still a fashion statement and the last thing you'd want to do is put on a large, awkward looking object in an attempt to make that statement. Reply
  • dsraa - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    I dunno....Alot of women/metrosexual men buy these apple watches....and they ALL have small arms because they just do....so honestly....it looks f-ing huge compared to a LG or Moto watch. Reply
  • Flunk - Thursday, September 08, 2016 - link

    The original Apple Watch came in two sizes, is that not the case with the new one? Reply
  • WinterCharm - Sunday, September 18, 2016 - link

    It is. 38mm and 42mm.

    The problem is people shop for it like it's a tech product, and not a watch. I see a bunch of people getting the 42mm watch when its way too big for their wrists.

    I'm a guy and I have the 38mm watch, and it looks PERFECT on my wrist. Small, classy, and not chunky or obtrusive.
    Reply
  • WinterCharm - Sunday, September 18, 2016 - link

    The problem is people shop for it like it's a tech product, and not a watch. I see a bunch of people getting the 42mm watch because "it has a bigger screen" when its way too big for their wrists.

    I'm a guy and I have the 38mm watch, and it looks PERFECT on my wrist. Small, classy, and not chunky or obtrusive. I've had so many people comment that that they wish they'd gone with a smaller one when they see mine.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now