Recently, Apple sparked a little bit of confusion when they announced that every Apple Watch Sport would contain two separate bands. People interpreted that to mean that it shipped with two complete bands: one for small and medium wrists, and one for large wrists. But the truth is more complicated. Bad news for swappers.
The confusion over the Apple Watch Sport band stems from the fact that Apple explains on its online stores that Sport Bands are available for both small and medium wrists, and medium and large wrists.
Apple also posted that two bands would be in the Apple Watch Sport box, so people naturally assumed that two bands = two bands: an S/M, and an M/L band that comes with Apple Watch Sport.
So popular was this assumption that a third-party website called Bandswapper was actually set up, specifically to allow people to swap their spare bands with each other (for another color, for example).
Sadly, this doesn’t look like it will be possible. Techcrunch reports:
You see, Apple Sport Watch models technically do come with two bands, but in practice, it’s not two full bands, but rather three pieces. There’s one piece that attaches to one end of the watch with the fastener, and then two additional bands (the side with the holes) that attach to the other side of the watch. These two bands come in two different lengths – a S/M size for smaller wrists and an M/L size for larger wrists.
In other words, you won’t have an entire extra band to swap.
Of course, Bandswapper might survive by being a way for people to swap the bands they’ve changed their minds about, but it’ll have to be a one for one exchange. There will be no spares that can be subbed instead.
Source: Techcrunch
John Brownlee is a writer for Fast Company, and a contributing writer here at CoM. He has also written for Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, VentureBeat, and Gizmodo. He lives in Boston with his wife and two parakeets. You can follow him here on Twitter.
22 responses to “Apple Watch Sport ships with a weird tri-sectioned band”
title of article is strange: the approach that apple is taking is not “weird”. its practical. economical. and ethically conserves resources. ultimately reducing cost for the consumer. why is that “weird”?
Does it really? As the article sates having 2 bands would mean people could share them with others. That would actually be practical and conserve resources since now all you have is half a band that might as well be tossed in the trash because it it useless without its mate.
It highly possible Apple will sell the buckle side individually ultimately increasing the cost to the consumer.
“make it segmented and you can cut off the excess”
When was the last time you bought an Apple product you had to cut off the excess from? This was a smart way of having both sizes with three pieces instead of four (Saving the consumer money). You can still swap the third piece for another in your size if you really need to?
To be honest, saving the consumer money is never high on Apples list of priorities.
They could have saved resources by not including the 3rd segment and just adding SKU’s or not included a band at all and made that an accessory purchase. Both would have been more economical and saved resources which is the point I was making.
This would make sense since you can’t buy the watch in stores but have to order it online anyway which allows you to pick and choose any size or style you want and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the process.
Or as I said, put their almighty design team to work to create a band that is a universal fit like most watches have already (including the Moto 360). Instead they actually created a watch band with exactly the opposite of a practical design that required the need to waste resources including a segment you don’t need.
They at least got it right with the milanese loop.
You couldn’t be more incorrect. From an inventory perspective, without knowing demand, it would be difficult to hold both watches with either one of the other, ultimately one model will run out first, leaving consumers annoyed that apple were “Restricting” stock. Selling them separately would increase the packaging and logistics costs. Having a band that “Fits all” would end up with something that doesn’t feel a perfect fit, which is what apple is aiming for here. In future, once they know demand, they may change the packing method, but its hardly the end of the world is it? How thin is that air up on that high horse of yours?
I just don’t understand Apple apologists. The point I was trying to make with the original poster is that his excuses for Apple’s choices didn’t make sense and neither do yours. Apple is not making decisions based on passing the savings on to the consumer.
Are you actually saying they couldn’t make a band that fits all? The milanese band is a pretty cool design allowing for universal and perfect fit. I also think that the traditional buckle/hole watch band does a good job as well. You can try to spin it anyway you want but the truth is that Apple designed a watch band that is actually wasteful, not the other way around.
Apple would not have to restrict stock if they initially sold everything separate, which would make sense since it is online sales only right now and like you said, after they have the numbers and manufacturing up to speed they would have a better idea of demand and in the future could bundle the watches with the most popular SKU’s to put on the shelves .
What Apple chooses to do doesn’t affect me at all as I’m not going to buy an Apple watch. I just think its odd people come to Apple’s defense with absurd ideas of their motives when its clear, Apple drops the ball from time to time. Its the thin air on the high horse Apple apologists are breathing that I’m calling out.
I don’t understand Apple haters. You’re really stretching this band issue to slam Apple. I mean really, over half a rubber watch band? That they’re not charging for? And your only acceptable solution is add more holes, or somehow make a two piece band work like a one piece milanese band. And if they followed your advice there would be no stock restrictions?
I call bovine waste. (To be polite.)
I actually prefer having an ongoing choice on band size. I prefer a loose fit in the winter, and I like having a more versatile size range if I want to sell it later.
There are a lot of true issues to slam Apple for, like the high cost of buying additional Apple ram.
Don’t be so lazy, find a real issue.
It is an entirely bovine waste argument for sure because it isn’t about the band at all. I’m not slamming Apple, I’m using the band issue to slam the original poster for not being a very good Apple apologist.
Defending Apple by saying they are ethically saving resources and the consumer money is a lazy argument, that is what I took offense to.
A good argument would have been, unlike the leather or milanese loop, the Apple Sport watch band is purposely designed to be able to handle rigorous activity without coming loose or falling off while maintaining a tight enough fit to provide an accurate reading from the heart rate sensor. It is a design feature that the strap wraps under the band so there are no dangling bits to catch on things and because of that, it was necessary to provide a shorter band for smaller wrists.
“But the truth is more complicated. Bad news for swappers” Nothing complicated about it, or “weird”. Geesh
Swappers can get another half band in their size… Which was the point. The bloggers misunderstood the point of swapping, and now they are embarrassed and angry.
Am I the only one that thought this would be how they did the two size bands?
It doesn’t sound like it makes much practical difference, but it’s so typical of Apple’s fastidiousness. They saw a chance to get rid of something and they took it.
Ugh. All this tells me is that my band clasp won’t ever be centered. Shame on me for having a large wrist, right?
During try ons I noticed that the leather loop was designed similarly (short loop end with different sizes for sizing strap). I tried both medium and large. Placement of the seemed fine for both. Trust Apple’s designers. I’m sure there are several reasons for this.
I tried on the large sports band yesterday, I was worried as I have a pebble at the moment, that it would be that same “sticky” rubber that pulls my arm hair. It was actually a pretty nice fit and feel.
All watches with a buckle have one side shorter than the other.
Nom mart company, especially Apple, would give up so much revenue opportunity by giving away something they can charge for, why give a second complete band that customers wI’ll trade for free, rather than buy from them?
I guess I’m showing my age when I think it would be cool to have two different colors on your wristband.
Is fine
lol dorks paradise
Uh-oh. I smell a class action suit. ‘I was promised two bands and I only got one.’
Which is honestly what I expected. I assume it’s the same case if you ordered a Watch with a metal or leather band, and bought an add-on sport band. Which is what we did.
Darn. A little disappointed.
This should be interesting for me. My wrist size is right at the ‘sweet spot’ making it possible for me to wear either band. Or should I say either size of band…
I went to try on Watch Sport today and asked about the two band, one band controversy. The Apple employee told me the Watch Sport come with two bands…. Two different sizes. Furthermore, if you check the sport band that comes with the stainless models, it only says one band in the box.