Yesterday, I posted a graphic comparing the thickness of the newly-announced Apple Watch Series 3 to its predecessors. With each generation (from the first gen Watch to Series 2 and from Series 2 to 3), the Watch has grown thicker. It’s not hard to see why; the power demands of GPS (for the Series 2) and a cellular radio (for the Series 3) required larger battery sizes.[1]
But what if physics didn’t apply? If internal component size weren’t a constraint, how thin would you want the Apple Watch to be? In prepping the comparison above, I made a few assumptions:
- Again, this is fantasy land. I ignored the problematic stagnance of lithium-ion battery tech. My ‘ideal’ Watch wouldn’t last you through the day. It might not even make it to lunchtime.
- The various external Watch components (band grooves, side button, and Digital Crown) retain their current dimensions. I’ve adjusted the band groove angles to reflect a shallower attachment angle, which might break legacy band compatibility.
- You could shave off another millimeter or so without shrinking the Digital Crown. But I worried about potential friction between the Crown and the user’s skin, hence the extra depth on bottom.
Suddenly (and unfairly), the Series 3 looks a bit chunky, doesn’t it? ■
-
The 42mm Series 2 Watch has a 34% larger battery than the 1st generation (2015) version. ↩
If physics didn't apply, how thin would you make the Apple Watch? https://t.co/wEQJagF2VI pic.twitter.com/lV8u0U7J3Z
— Matt Hauger (@matthauger) September 16, 2017
Matt Hauger 