Way more people are choosing the Apple Watch Series 9 over the Ultra or the SE

[iMore.com]

While the Apple Watch Ultra and Apple Watch SE are there for the enthusiast and the budget-conscious, the Apple Watch Series 9 is the default for most consumers.

Way more people are choosing the Apple Watch Series 9 over the Ultra or the SE : Read more

 

[Just_Me_D]

Come on. You’re talking a two to three hundred dollar price difference, with the exception of the Stainless Steel version. Of course ‘more’ people will choose the Series 9 on price alone.

I do not need my Watch Ultra 2. It truly is overkill for ‘me’, however, I’m so glad I bought its larger is definitely blessing to my aging eyes…

 

[Wotchered]

Come on. You’re talking a two to three hundred dollar price difference, with the exception of the Stainless Steel version. Of course ‘more’ people will choose the Series 9 on price alone.

I do not need my Watch Ultra 2. It truly is overkill for ‘me’, however, I’m so glad I bought its larger is definitely blessing to my aging eyes…

Two or three hun ... What !
I have never spent that amount on a watch and I've had them last twenty years !

 

[HowardBrazee]

I keep being tempted by the battery size of the Ultra (and have my golf app last for a whole round), but then I put one on my wrist, and get turned off by the size).

 

[Just_Me_D]

Two or three hun ... What !
I have never spent that amount on a watch and I've had them last twenty years !

Up until my mid-twenties, I had never spent more than $25 on a watch, and back then I wore either Timex or Casio. After my career and marriage begin, I started buying the more expensive watches. They all lasted a long time.

With that being said, I’ve not worn a traditional watch since the introduction of the first Watch and I’ve been wearing an Watch ever since.

Anyway, back to the ‘Two or three hundred dollar difference’ comment. I was rationalizing why more people would opted for the non-Ultra model.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I keep being tempted by the battery size of the Ultra (and have my golf app last for a whole round), but then I put one on my wrist, and get turned off by the size).

I see so many people (men and women) here in the Orlando area wearing an Watch Ultra/Ultra 2 to where its size is simply normal. Besides, it pales in comparison some of the Invicta watches I’ve seen over the years.

 

[FFR]

I keep being tempted by the battery size of the Ultra (and have my golf app last for a whole round), but then I put one on my wrist, and get turned off by the size).

You can try it with a non Apple Watch Ultra strap, still looks good and takes away most of the bulk.

The Apple Watch Ultra actually looks elegant with a Hermes strap, or any slim leather strap for that matter.

 

[HowardBrazee]

Up until my mid-twenties, I had never spent more than $25 on a watch, and back then I wore either Timex or Casio. After my career and marriage begin, I started buying the more expensive watches. They all lasted a long time.

With that being said, I’ve not worn a traditional watch since the introduction of the first Watch and I’ve been wearing an Watch ever since.

Anyway, back to the ‘Two or three hundred dollar difference’ comment. I was rationalizing why more people would opted for the non-Ultra model.

After I got out of the USAF (where I was required to wear a watch), I didn't wear a watch until my Apple Watch. I don't need a watch to keep time, especially if I am carrying an iPhone.

 

[Just_Me_D]

After I got out of the USAF (where I was required to wear a watch), I didn't wear a watch until my Apple Watch. I don't need a watch to keep time, especially if I am carrying an iPhone.

I hear you. I’ve worn a watch since I was about 7 years old. In fact, I could be looking at the display on my iPhone and I’ll still look at my Watch for the time. It’s a habit I know I’ll never break.

During the few times I’ve left my Watch home, I would look at my wrist for the time and then get irritated even though my iPhone is in my possession. Yep…that’s Just Me … D