Literally all the watches I own, from grandfathers antiques, to modern Amazfits, all of them have the bands on a spring loaded bar. Like... I don't remember the last time I have seen a different mechanism.

There is a brief mention of this system as a "conventional" one in the article

```

Apple took the conventional spring bars of traditional watches, miniaturized them, turned them on their sides, and embedded them into the watch band.

```

Complicating a simple solution for the sake of a flashy "flush" finish, doesn't sound like an innovation.

My impression is that the button system did got more popular over the last years, but it certainly existed many years before. Hard to find sources though.

In contrast, Casio G-Shocks, which are specifically built to be rugged/fashionable, don't have any kind of quick change mechanism. The strap is integrated into the case that further protects the watch.

Ah, yeah. I was mostly addressing the "rugged watches" comment, but yes that's absolutely correct.

This isn't change for the sake of change, it is a genuine improvement.

If the Apple bands were harder to switch I probably just wouldn’t wear a watch while working and exercising.

On my Apple watches? Often! I wear a nicer strap in dressier situations, but always change to one of the rubber straps for exercise or swimming, and I do those things a LOT.

The Apple innovation here is pretty slick.

Yeah, the swap button is a big improvement.

Now, there are some straps, even in budget category, that have a small lever that manipulates the spring and it's fairly easy to switch - but only if all your straps have the same mechanism. This is then compounded by different widths and types and whatnots.

As ever, Apple reaps the benefits (as well as drawbacks) of the basically single hardware device - you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line.

Or to put it other way - any one of my friends or family can and do change apple watch straps. 96% of them would be either unable or unwilling or both to change a regular strap. Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.

The casio g-shock has a problem with nato bands as well. the g-shock has a laughably small band pin width(16 mm). so to get a nato strap(24 mm) on one you need a band width adapter. which undoes most of the advantage of the nato strap. I am not really sure why they made it so small. My mechanical engineering is a bit weak does a small pin have less side load than a large pin?

You might choose to replace all your bands if you want to use only captive spring bar mechanisms, but you must replace them if you buy an Apple watch.

A captive spring bar with a lever solves the problem entirely, and in a way strictly superior to Apple's approach. It is smaller and cheaper than the Apple solution. It will work with any watch from any manufacturer. It will allow you to keep your old bands if you choose.

If you can think of any advantage Apple's system has, I am all ears.

>you can build a massive ecosystem around a predictable, controlled, singular, homogeneous product line

Spring bars are also entirely predictable, controlled, singular, and homogeneous. You can buy a band in any standard width and be confident it would fit any watch. We had a far larger ecosystem before the fruit companies got involved.

This gives the lie to Apple's supposed genius. "Tight integration" is completely unnecessary when there are standards. They just want a monopoly.

>Even myself, I prefer the Nato straps on my regular watches as they are easier to swap than conventional straps.

Completely incompatible with the Apple watch, of course.

The Apple Watch release buttons are much better - takes barely 5s to replace bands.

Additionally, it detaches the part that holds the band, allowing for deeper customisation. This is the thing you normally need screwdrivers for.

Bands with the newer style like this [2] can easily be done without tools or any stellar dexterity, but are still a bit more fiddly than how it seems Apple watches are. I'm betting this is the type you're talking about, as it's the only kind I've had to deal with across my ~decade of smartwatch use.

[1] https://www.bartonwatchbands.com/products/stainless-steel-sp...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B9FQ3PXF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

I've personally struggled like hell on the top, almost hallucinated and so did rest of my team members. But we made a junior mistake of going too fast up on summit day. When I did ie Mont Damavand in Iran, which is just 250m lower after cca 3 years, no issues and roud trip was just 2 days. But I've trained and did some crazy stuff in between. Most folks don't do that kind of stuff.

I agree, but for different reasons. I have several very nice dress watches that I keep for sentimental reasons that I'm not able to wear because the manufacturer used one-off straps for them. The mechanisms still work fine, but I can't wear them because the exact strap for that exact watch is no longer available.

Hey, EU — While you're forcing USB-C on everyone, how about picking a watch band standard, too?

Like, imagine a watch that has an inflatable cuff that can take your blood pressure. It may be unsightly, bulky, and very dorky. So maybe it wouldn't fit this new "EU Watch Band Standard" that was imagined for Apple Watch. So a very large company like Apple could lobby the EU to change the law and might even do that with enough lead time so it doesn't delay the product launch. But a small company, kickstarter, etc would be screwed because there's no way they could expect to get the legislators' attention for something like this.

And yes, the legislation could be written with sensible carveouts, but we all know it won't, or they'll either not be comprehensive enough, or they'll be a leaky sieve that lets every shady corporation say "oh yeah there's a standard watchband but our special watch falls under exemption 312(c)." Or you can have a government agency handle "exemption requests" without legislative action, but then the small kickstarter will go through 6 rounds and 18 months of records and documentation requests, if they even bother looking into the process at all and not just saying "oh fuck that."

Yes, so imaginative innovations for niche usecases can easily be exempted. The goal would be to enable mainstream mass-market devices to follow the standard. It’s not as complicated as you suggest, and works in almost every industry.

This would stifle innovation in the long run. Why bother with this extra work when there are a other variations on the idea that would be quicker to launch?

I’ve often espoused a law that requires USB-C to charge phones- that expires after 3-5 years. Just enough time to get everyone on the same standard and lock in a little, but not enough to kill innovation when the next big thing happens.

Worst case scenario, wait 3 years… but if it was really bad, the law would get repealed anyways.

This strategy would be great for many fields. Imagine if the world decided to make a law that expires in 3-5 years to require one specific electric car charging port. Or made an expiring law that required ebook sellers to use epub format in 2010 (I’m looking at you, Amazon, with your .mobi format). Or made an expiring law that unified every display cable under HDMI (ignoring patent issues).

I’m not saying that stuff like this should be enshrined in law forever, but a lot of stuff would be a lot easier if it was more socially/politically accepted to pass laws that expire.

This isn't a hypothetical either, you see this in American politics all the damn time with temporary laws and allocations.

I've tried, and even brought them to several watch stores and jewelers in Seattle, Houston, and New York with no luck.

The problem isn't the spring bar, it's the shape of the watch where connection is made.

Also too many reaper* nicknames in the thread

Really