Circular shape is good for analogue watch, but IMO sucks for digital content.
Square, or at least square-ish watch, like Omega De Ville, would be the way to go. Still good for analogue watch simulation, and much more natural for digital content.
In my opinion, both circular and square designs are not suitable for digital content. This design goes hundreds years back when it was built around one function only - measuring time. Squeezing modern apps into this limited space can never work, it produces a problem called baby software. We've been here before pre-2007 with the first smartphones. Their small displays ran software with such limitations and poor operabilty which were acceptable only to a niche market of tech enthuziasts. This is not a mass market solution to a 21st century wearable device.
I believe Apple is asking the same questions as when they were developing the iPhone and coming with the solution to expand the screen at the expense of the buttons. Why do we have such a tiny screen and such large attachable bands? Do the bands bring more value for the user than a tiny display? Can one large flexible display replace the bands and at the same time work the same function as holding the device on your wrist (similar to - can iPhone's large screen work the same function as buttons?).
This is what Apple is working on, that's why they've been working on the device for so many years, that's why they have Bob, Johny, their entire all-star team and hundreds of others on this project. Because they're working on another product from the future, another revolution, just as they did with the iPhone. Companies who took the easy way, started with the legacy watch design and slapped a tiny display, sensors and connection onto it - they're already done because it's largely not too difficult. And we already know the market results - it sells to only an enthuziasts niche, just like the first smartphones.
If you want a smartwatch, this watch and connectivity crossover, it's already here. If you want a true 21st century wearable device, a true reinvention worthy of Apple's brand, just wait a little longer, it will be the iWatch. A category of its own.
Why do we have such a tiny screen and such large attachable bands? Do the bands bring more value for the user than a tiny display? Can one large flexible display replace the bands and at the same time work the same function as holding the device on your wrist (similar to - can iPhone's large screen work the same function as buttons?).
The bands aren't large. Here's a ladies watch:
Also, what's the point in powering a display on both sides of your wrist when you can only see one side at a time?
The watch used to be an essential accessory for people to know what time it was but it has become an item of jewellery and people like to personalize it with different straps made of gold and silver metal, chains of different styles, black, brown, white leather.
A large band that goes all the way round is like what Will.i.am has in the video above. It's far too bulky, it leaves a big gap inside because it's rigid and the display still can't go right round it.
The circular style allows the software to get more width without being bulky all the way round. The UI shown here looks fine:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
The problem comes from enabling that functionality. When you are wandering around, how does the watch get all that information about where you are and service info? If it's all via the phone in someone's pocket then it's just a second screen and non-essential. If you have to take the phone anyway then how would a digital watch + phone be better than say an Omega watch + phone? How can it last long on battery if it has an always-on cellular connection or wifi? Is daily charging something watch-wearers want to be doing? We do it with phones ok but we don't wear our phones.
If Apple is working on a watch at all, I think they will try to make it worth doing and not just do a Sony or Samsung half-assed attempt at shoe-horning a smartphone into a watch. Motorola's concept looks well thought-out but we'll have to wait and see what the execution is like. It's all very well showing a guy on a bus glancing at his watch and it showing a map of where he is but the reality is very different. How does the watch know he wants to see the map? How long does it take to triangulate his position, GPS, Wifi, cellular? It can't do continuous tracking. How does it even load the map? How do you access and launch the app you want (swipe, swipe, swipe is slow), speech for everything would be annoying in public. How do you add an app to the watch?
I would personally love a GPS watch with an offline map to show location-aware information (vector maps pre-cached when near a computer). This doesn't need cellular and doesn't use much battery. It would however be nice to have a persistent data connection of some kind. GPRS is slow but it would just be for text data. Having passes is cool - it would be good for example to be able to buy a bus ticket and then just swipe the watch from the barcode screen on the bus or show the pass to the driver. This would use a fingerprint for authentication on the side button. Still fairly gimmicky though and I wouldn't want to pay $300 for one, nor would I want to charge it every day.
While caring about beautiful design, primary function of every Apple device is enabling great software and services through revolutionary hardware. From this point of view, a large display holds much higher value than attachable bands. The shown ladies watch's primary function is jewelery and that's not a business Apple competes or wants to compete in. Still, I can see an iWatch and a piece of jewelery worn at the same time, it's common for ladies to have several bracelets.
Also, what's the point in powering a display on both sides of your wrist when you can only see one side at a time?
A huge benefit of AMOLED displays is they can power individual pixels, not the whole screen. The biggest advantage of the interactive bracelet concept is that you can easily see context ie apart from eg today's fitness data, you also see yesterday's and the day before data. Same with app icons. This is not possible on the classic watch form factor and it is crucial for proper software. Another advantage is that you can see your data from any angle and position, however you hold your wrist, it can simply rotate to always be in your eye sight. This also holds a crucial wow factor, so important for marketing and capturing eg teen market's attention. I still remember the amazement of rotating my first iPhone to change the portrait and landscape views.
The watch used to be an essential accessory for people to know what time it was but it has become an item of jewellery and people like to personalize it with different straps made of gold and silver metal, chains of different styles, black, brown, white leather.
I believe fashion customization through software and downloadable skins is the next big thing. This is Apple's domain, not leather bands and employing sawing machines.
A large band that goes all the way round is like what Will.i.am has in the video above. It's far too bulky, it leaves a big gap inside because it's rigid and the display still can't go right round it.
If this can be realized by a musican's start-up, than wait for the product from the biggest and best electronics company on the planet :-) Also, watch out for the news on flexible technology, it's the 2014's buzz word. Just as Apple brought multitouch screens to mass market in 2007, they will do the same for flexible technology in 2014. That is why Apple has taken so much time with iWatch, that's where a lot of their engineering and billions went.
As to Moto 360 - it's a rather nice niche product. Reminds me of 2006 Blackberries - nice niche phones. Then the iPhone came and we never looked back. And while the iPhone provided a unique design and business template for future products and categories, no one really learned and the same mistakes are repeated over and over again.
Otherwise you raise some fair points. Look forward to iWatch, you'll be blown away. I already am and I have only seen a couple of Apple patents.
Comments
In my opinion, both circular and square designs are not suitable for digital content. This design goes hundreds years back when it was built around one function only - measuring time. Squeezing modern apps into this limited space can never work, it produces a problem called baby software. We've been here before pre-2007 with the first smartphones. Their small displays ran software with such limitations and poor operabilty which were acceptable only to a niche market of tech enthuziasts. This is not a mass market solution to a 21st century wearable device.
I believe Apple is asking the same questions as when they were developing the iPhone and coming with the solution to expand the screen at the expense of the buttons. Why do we have such a tiny screen and such large attachable bands? Do the bands bring more value for the user than a tiny display? Can one large flexible display replace the bands and at the same time work the same function as holding the device on your wrist (similar to - can iPhone's large screen work the same function as buttons?).
This is what Apple is working on, that's why they've been working on the device for so many years, that's why they have Bob, Johny, their entire all-star team and hundreds of others on this project. Because they're working on another product from the future, another revolution, just as they did with the iPhone. Companies who took the easy way, started with the legacy watch design and slapped a tiny display, sensors and connection onto it - they're already done because it's largely not too difficult. And we already know the market results - it sells to only an enthuziasts niche, just like the first smartphones.
If you want a smartwatch, this watch and connectivity crossover, it's already here. If you want a true 21st century wearable device, a true reinvention worthy of Apple's brand, just wait a little longer, it will be the iWatch. A category of its own.
The bands aren't large. Here's a ladies watch:
Also, what's the point in powering a display on both sides of your wrist when you can only see one side at a time?
The watch used to be an essential accessory for people to know what time it was but it has become an item of jewellery and people like to personalize it with different straps made of gold and silver metal, chains of different styles, black, brown, white leather.
A large band that goes all the way round is like what Will.i.am has in the video above. It's far too bulky, it leaves a big gap inside because it's rigid and the display still can't go right round it.
The circular style allows the software to get more width without being bulky all the way round. The UI shown here looks fine:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
The problem comes from enabling that functionality. When you are wandering around, how does the watch get all that information about where you are and service info? If it's all via the phone in someone's pocket then it's just a second screen and non-essential. If you have to take the phone anyway then how would a digital watch + phone be better than say an Omega watch + phone? How can it last long on battery if it has an always-on cellular connection or wifi? Is daily charging something watch-wearers want to be doing? We do it with phones ok but we don't wear our phones.
If Apple is working on a watch at all, I think they will try to make it worth doing and not just do a Sony or Samsung half-assed attempt at shoe-horning a smartphone into a watch. Motorola's concept looks well thought-out but we'll have to wait and see what the execution is like. It's all very well showing a guy on a bus glancing at his watch and it showing a map of where he is but the reality is very different. How does the watch know he wants to see the map? How long does it take to triangulate his position, GPS, Wifi, cellular? It can't do continuous tracking. How does it even load the map? How do you access and launch the app you want (swipe, swipe, swipe is slow), speech for everything would be annoying in public. How do you add an app to the watch?
I would personally love a GPS watch with an offline map to show location-aware information (vector maps pre-cached when near a computer). This doesn't need cellular and doesn't use much battery. It would however be nice to have a persistent data connection of some kind. GPRS is slow but it would just be for text data. Having passes is cool - it would be good for example to be able to buy a bus ticket and then just swipe the watch from the barcode screen on the bus or show the pass to the driver. This would use a fingerprint for authentication on the side button. Still fairly gimmicky though and I wouldn't want to pay $300 for one, nor would I want to charge it every day.
Hi Marvin
The bands aren't large. Here's a ladies watch:
While caring about beautiful design, primary function of every Apple device is enabling great software and services through revolutionary hardware. From this point of view, a large display holds much higher value than attachable bands. The shown ladies watch's primary function is jewelery and that's not a business Apple competes or wants to compete in. Still, I can see an iWatch and a piece of jewelery worn at the same time, it's common for ladies to have several bracelets.
Also, what's the point in powering a display on both sides of your wrist when you can only see one side at a time?
A huge benefit of AMOLED displays is they can power individual pixels, not the whole screen. The biggest advantage of the interactive bracelet concept is that you can easily see context ie apart from eg today's fitness data, you also see yesterday's and the day before data. Same with app icons. This is not possible on the classic watch form factor and it is crucial for proper software. Another advantage is that you can see your data from any angle and position, however you hold your wrist, it can simply rotate to always be in your eye sight. This also holds a crucial wow factor, so important for marketing and capturing eg teen market's attention. I still remember the amazement of rotating my first iPhone to change the portrait and landscape views.
The watch used to be an essential accessory for people to know what time it was but it has become an item of jewellery and people like to personalize it with different straps made of gold and silver metal, chains of different styles, black, brown, white leather.
I believe fashion customization through software and downloadable skins is the next big thing. This is Apple's domain, not leather bands and employing sawing machines.
A large band that goes all the way round is like what Will.i.am has in the video above. It's far too bulky, it leaves a big gap inside because it's rigid and the display still can't go right round it.
If this can be realized by a musican's start-up, than wait for the product from the biggest and best electronics company on the planet :-) Also, watch out for the news on flexible technology, it's the 2014's buzz word. Just as Apple brought multitouch screens to mass market in 2007, they will do the same for flexible technology in 2014. That is why Apple has taken so much time with iWatch, that's where a lot of their engineering and billions went.
As to Moto 360 - it's a rather nice niche product. Reminds me of 2006 Blackberries - nice niche phones. Then the iPhone came and we never looked back. And while the iPhone provided a unique design and business template for future products and categories, no one really learned and the same mistakes are repeated over and over again.
Otherwise you raise some fair points. Look forward to iWatch, you'll be blown away. I already am and I have only seen a couple of Apple patents.