Hands-On Apple Watch Review Reveals Closer Look at Design Details [PICS]


Apple has granted A Blog to Watch, which calls itself “The World’s Most Popular Source for Watch Reviews, News & Admiration” a hands-on look at their latest smart watch. In this review, we see some gorgeous images and up close images of the Apple Watch other reviews haven’t shown (Update: Ariel clarified in an email to us “The watches we took pictures were mostly similar or the same as those they offered for handling at the launch event.”).

Author Ariel Adams mentions Apple has “dedicated a great deal of time to studying and surveying the watch industry, as well as engaging in copious amounts of research on websites dedicated to watches,” including their own.

Apple Watch is praised for its wearing experience, deemed “as good or better than most high-end timepieces, and operating the Apple Watch is very similar to how people might use their traditional timepieces.”

While watch lovers will be hard to be impressed by Apple Watch and its design compared to higher end traditional timepieces, the site predicts the general public “Without too much to compare it to, given that they don’t have years of high-end watch wearing experience, the Apple Watch is going to look stunning to most. For many people, it will likely be the most high-end timepiece they have ever worn; and I think they will love it.”

What about Apple Watch and how it compares to traditional Swiss watches?

In the world of mechanical Swiss watches, very little worth wearing for the serious enthusiast can be purchased for under $1,000. Some people might even suggest $5,000 or even $8,000 (or more) as the sweet spot for a good entry-level Swiss watch. With a starting price of $350, the Apple Watch Sport pretty much blows away everything else in the watch world at this price level – a sentiment that has been already mentioned by my colleagues.

Apple Watch is expected to have battery enough for a day’s usage and to be charged nightly. Meanwhile, the starting price of $350 may pale in comparison to the higher end steel (predicted at around $1000 by Adams) and solid 18K gold editions, predicted to cost anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000.

Below are a few of the images showing off how Apple Watch looks worn on the wrist:

Apple Watch 281

Apple Watch 271

Apple Watch 421

Apple Watch 16

Apple Watch 101

For another review of Apple Watch, check out this take by Hodinkee. Apple Watch is set to launch in “early 2015”, but the fact it has impressed watch reviewers is a good sign for all of us.

Check out the full Apple Watch review by clicking here. What Apple Watch version do you think looks the best?


  • Topsly

    I would go for the sport since the next versions are likely to have more batterie Time. I wouldn’t want to pay 1000$ for a watch that I will replace in a year. I want one, but 48h of batterie time would be better for me.

  • Yeah. I’m curious whether a battery replacement program would be in place and be–free. That would be changing the game.

  • Andrew

    If I have to spend a thousand dollar or more on a watch, I would buy a real watch like an Omega. A watch is more like a style or fashion than its functionalities. The nighty charging is another turn off.

  • Shameer Mulji

    not just the battery but also the S1 SoC. Apple’s website states this chip as being “modular.” So what if you could replace, not just the battery, but the chip to a newer, more powerful one? Now that would be game changer (at least on the really expensive ones).

  • Shameer Mulji

    When the first iPhone was introduced in 2007, users had to charge it every night, sometimes twice a day. But because it was enjoyable, and so powerful and so revolutionary, at the time, users had no issue charging it a lot because the positives of using the device far out-weighed the negatives of charging.

    That’s the initial trade-off of being an early adopter and getting to be part of history.

  • HooDatty

    This isn’t the first iphone though. It’s just another one of many, and late to the game at that. Plus it’s just a watch, which nowadays really is just a fashion accessory. If your going to spend that kind of cash, you might as well go with a known, well made brand. One that will at the very least retain its value over time, unlike this first gen device.

  • Shameer Mulji

    It is the first Apple Watch, and depending on your viewpoint, the first modern, or true smart watch.

  • WatDah

    Late to the game, although chronologically true, please remember it wasn’t until rumors of Apple working on a watch surfaced that others rushed to make one, just so they can say they did it first. All those 1st gen “smartwatches” were pretty useless for what they are. As a 1st gen from Apple, it is far more refined and functional then all that came before. As to a watch being “just an accessory”, yes, that is true to some degree. But that’s the whole idea behind the Apple Watch, to break the thinking that its “just an accessory”.

    Personally, I love watches and would (at this point) buy an actual watch over Apple Watch any day. I’ll give it maybe 2-3 generations before I’d even consider getting one. But I can almost see the shift towards that direction in technology already.

  • HooDatty

    Agreed. I think it’ll take closer to 5 years before I’ll consider it a useful expense. I’m already invested in analog variants, and I think it’ll take at least that long til they’ll be up to my usefulness requirement (performance, capability, and most importantly battery life). Plus the costs will most likely be a fair bit lower unless opting for precious metal styling.