But it isn't a minor compromise in functionality. It is major. You will be losing 30-40% of useable screen because of a round face. That will either make the watch incrediblily massive (like the Moto360) or incredibliy small usable area.
again compare the picture. Look how much BIGGER a round face would need to be to show the same data. IN a vacum you may like the round shape but it will come with a MUCH BIGGER sized watch.
That's comparing data formatted for a square display. If you do round data, the equivalent square display is bigger:
The 3rd image is if you have a reduced bezel, which doesn't look too bad, the far right image is trying to fit the same content from the round watch onto the screen size that Apple is currently using. The glass curvature might distort the image so that may explain why they've gone with such a large bezel. It will also be down to how a sharp corner looks when it's stretched into a curved corner:
vs
OLED allows them to turn off pixels so at least they can override this and turn the display panel into a rounded rectangle but they'd have to do it system-wide so that nothing could ever light those corner pixels or just design the panel that shape. They said they tried to do this clipping/vignetting during development because it doesn't look right when the display is fully lit. They must have just settled on squeezing it in.
If they make improvements like that, it will make the square format more usable for rounded content but will also reduce the value of the $10k+ models a lot. There's no way they'd disassemble the whole display panel and upgrade it for a reasonable price. They'd be building a whole new watch.
One important factor with the round shape is it makes the watch look unlike a computer. If you pause the following at 4:30 when the Rolex face lights up, it just looks like a really cool watch and not mini electronic gadget:
[VIDEO]
Sure the Moto 360 has the flat bit at the bottom for the light sensors and display driver and is the size of a mug coaster but that looks really nice as does this one:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Apple hasn't said they'll allow custom watch faces yet. They only give you 9 or so faces to choose from.
If they had a feature to change the watch style, they'd probably have to have an official store to curate any code but then they have to check for copyright designs. It would be better if they just had an offline API to install a face and let people share faces unofficially and then keep the code it can run very limited.
I think the Apple Watch needs to be considered as a fashion object. With fashion, peoples' priorities are different, hence the existence of square mechanical watches, despite the functional irrelevance of the squared off corners. So, while a round watch would be less practical from a purely utilitarian standpoint, it may be more practical for some people depending on their priorities (e.g. fits into their sense of style, sense of aesthetics, etc.).
This statement more proves my point than argues against it. You seem to be saying that practicality can be arbitrarily defined, which to me, only goes to my point that many don't consider the sources of their aesthetic preferences.
You seem to be saying that practicality can be arbitrarily defined, which to me, only goes to my point that many don't consider the sources of their aesthetic preferences.
This statement more proves my point than argues against it.
In fashion, practicality is defined by desirability. Thus, fashion is largely arbitrary (it it wasn't, we'd all be wearing the same thing, and there would be only two watch straps to chose from [e.g. flouroelasamer for sport utility, and a basic leather strap for comfort]). Thus, if we consider Apple Watch to be a fashion item, there is inherently going to be an aspect of its usefulness that is determined by arbitrary measures. One could argue that the gold option is arbitrary, since it confers no practical advantage over stainless steel. To me, this is what's so interesting about the Apple Watch, that it's venturing out into the vague world of fashion.*
*To this end, Apple is putting as much care into this aspect (fashion/desirability) as they would with the materials or packaging. Apple is promoting the watch more than any other product I have seen, which builds on one of its core functions as a fashion object, desirability. It's actually very logical
This statement more proves my point than argues against it.
In fashion, practicality is defined by desirability. Thus, fashion is largely arbitrary; it it wasn't, we'd all be wearing the same thing, and there would be only two watch straps to chose from (e.g. flouroelasamer for sport utility, and a basic leather strap for comfort). To me, this is what's so interesting about the Apple Watch, that it's venturing out into the vague world of fashion.
Practicality isn't a useful concept in a discussion of fashion, so it is your choice of this term that throws the discussion off. It's more useful to think of pure fashion as decoration. I prefer red, you prefer blue. We don't have to have a reason for our preferences, because I can have red and you can have blue, and neither preference has any bearing on how the object works, even assuming the object has more than a decorative purpose. Once function is added into the equation then you and I can't necessarily have our arbitrary preferences satisfied because form and function are inexorably linked.
In this case Apple is obviously aware of the decorative aspects of a product meant to be worn on the body and has accordingly offered quite a lot of variety where personal preference does not affect the function. They haven't (so far) offered variations that violate the functional integrity of the product because user experience is first and foremost, as it should be for a functional and not merely decorative product. Apple Watch will fail if it doesn't meet the user experience test, no matter how many shapes it comes in.
Fashion and function. To me the line they've drawn is bright, and logical. I can see why they've done what they've done.
Practicality isn't a useful concept in a discussion of fashion, so it is your choice of this term that throws the discussion off. It's more useful to think of pure fashion as decoration. I prefer red, you prefer blue. We don't have to have a reason for our preferences, because I can have red and you can have blue, and neither preference has any bearing on how the object works, even assuming the object has more than a decorative purpose. Once function is added into the equation then you and I can't necessarily have our arbitrary preferences satisfied because form and function are inexorably linked.
In this case Apple is obviously aware of the decorative aspects of a product meant to be worn on the body and has accordingly offered quite a lot of variety where personal preference does not affect the function. They haven't (so far) offered variations that violate the functional integrity of the product because user experience is first and foremost, as it should be for a functional and not merely decorative product. Apple Watch will fail if it doesn't meet the user experience test, no matter how many shapes it comes in.
Fashion and function. To me the line they've drawn is bright, and logical. I can see why they've done what they've done.
Edit: Basically my entire argument can be summed up by the underlined portions.
Point taken about the decoration not affecting function (although this is a tiny bit grey too, as stainless steel is a more practical material than gold). I guess what I'm saying is that because a round watch will appeal stylistically to a lot of people, it can be legitimately considered a value add to the watch platform, so long as the functionality is not compromised too much. Now, whether the pros of a round watch are able to balance out the cons, I don't think we can know for certain without a lot more information on how the watch will be used on a routine basis, as this will determine how much of a functional compromise there will be.
Just some food for thought, here's some functional (not decorative/fashion) things that I think would be better on a round face:
-viewing the analog style watch face
-navigating the home screen and contacts
-drawing messages to someone
-displaying activity level (as demonstrated by Marvin)
-better perspective for maps
Some of the cons:
-text not displayed as efficiently as a rectangle (this is obviously the biggest factor; if I got a lot of text, would I read through it on the watch, or pick up my phone? I have no idea at this point)
-looking at photos would be a bit awkward
I'm not holding my breath for a round Apple watch, but I think it could happen.
This entire debate is ridiculous. On the one hand you've got the tech-geek guys saying that there's only one correct way to display text, so there will only ever be square ?Watches.. On the other you have the watch-geek people saying round is the most aesthetic choice, and therefore the ?Watch will fail. Both are arguing the other is wrong, which is ironic because both arguments are wrong. They might as well be arguing which picture frame is better, round or square? The fact is both have their place in the world, both have merit, and both have drawbacks. The bottom line for me is that Apple has demonstrated time and time again, that if there's a market for a product and they can deliver Apple quality for that market they will. If theres a market for a round watch, Apple surely has the skill to deliver one every bit as functional as the square one, and will be just as eager to take their money.
This entire debate is ridiculous. On the one hand you've got the tech-geek guys saying that there's only one correct way to display text, so there will only ever be square ?Watches.. On the other you have the watch-geek people saying round is the most aesthetic choice, and therefore the ?Watch will fail. Both are arguing the other is wrong, which is ironic because both arguments are wrong. They might as well be arguing which picture frame is better, round or square? The fact is both have their place in the world, both have merit, and both have drawbacks. The bottom line for me is that Apple has demonstrated time and time again, that if there's a market for a product and they can deliver Apple quality for that market they will. If theres a market for a round watch, Apple surely has the skill to deliver one every bit as functional as the square one, and will be just as eager to take their money.
We definitely got pretty far into the weeds on that one. FWIW, in case you were referring to me, I'm not a watch person. I just think that the circle may still have a place in the post-smartwatch world. I pretty much agree with what you said, except I wouldn't characterize Apple as "eager to take their money." In spite of the fact that Apple is ridiculously wealthy, they seem to act with more integrity than any other organization that I can think of. So when they say, repeatedly, that their goal is to focus on and deliver the best products, I believe them. The fact that their competitors are incompetent, and cannot make products that sell well, is not Apple's problem.
We definitely got pretty far into the weeds on that one. FWIW, in case you were referring to me, I'm not a watch person. I just think that the circle may still have a place in the post-smartwatch world. I pretty much agree with what you said, except I wouldn't characterize Apple as "eager to take their money." In spite of the fact that Apple is ridiculously wealthy, they seem to act with more integrity than any other organization that I can think of. So when they say, repeatedly, that their goal is to focus on and deliver the best products, I believe them. The fact that their competitors are incompetent, and cannot make products that sell well, is not Apple's problem.
Not referring to you. Others have made the argument that "round" is the only acceptable watch shape, which is of course ridiculous, and then any of us with a more rational view of it, get tainted by that for even mentioning round as a future possibility.
I don't think Apple is being disingenuous when they tell us their goal is to bring the best products to market. I do think they can be arrogant and shortsighted in the positions they take sometimes, which have lead to seemingly hypocritical 180 degree reversals, leaving one to wonder if it's profit related or not. Apple is clearly in business to make money, and they surely aren't going to leave any on the table for their competitors, but it doesn't mean they won't do it with integrity. So I'm in complete agreement with you there.
What you round face lovers dont realize is that most people dont even wear watches. Most who are under 21 have never wore watches. Most 40 and under have not worn watches for almost a decade. Most of these people are not 'watch people'. They are not in love with the round face because they have never worn a round face watch for years. What they want is a mini-computer on their wrist that makes their life easier. If they just wanted a round face watch they would be wearing one already.
Apple is changing the game again. Tradition says 90% of watch wearers use round faces. But before the iPhone 90% of smartphones had physical keyboards. Things change. The Watch will change things. Design is important. But not if you need to sacrifice usablility. The bottom line is the apps that will be possible with a rectangle screen will be far more profound that with a round screen. I am sorry but man has been looking at rectangle shaped docments for centuries. Books are rectangle. Scrolls. Stone tablets. Computer screens Laptops. Cell phones. Tablets. Literally 99% of the worlds documents digital and physical are rectangular.
And there is a good reason why they are rectangle. Because a rectangle is the most efficent. And that is the way our brain works. Our brain does not work looking at something in a circular pattern. We start at the top of the rectangle, go to the right and work our way down to the bottom. We dont look at a point and then work on a circular pattern ending up in the center or the edge. Our brains just dont work that way.
The round face is not more beautiful. It is a remnant of the past. Just like how rotary phones have a look. That did not mean that when technology advanced we need to make smartphones look like rotary phones. From a pure fashion perspective things change. The hot dresses and styles of the 90's are not hot today. So why would be stuck with a style of watch (round face) that is literally HUNDREDS of years old? Bottom line we are not.
Lol @ "round watch lovers". Actually, I'm of the generation that never really needed a watch. The Apple Watch will be the first watch I've put on my wrist in a decade.
You bring up some really great points, and after watching how useful text-related functions are in those new walk through videos, I'm inclined to agree with you. But despite all that, I still wouldn't rule out a round Apple watch at some point in the future.
Are you watching 10 second movie clips? Are you looking at images for 10 seconds? Did it take you 10 seconds to write that one post? Do you spend 10 seconds reading a book or watching a movie?
Just hold up your wrist and elbow in the air and tap it until you feel it getting tired. It's under a minute. People use their computing devices and TVs for hours at a time.
The Watch is primarily a notification center like a bubble that pops up and gives you an alert or something with a basic control. It can only run the display for 2.5 hours straight while doing nothing. During an 18 hour timeframe, it will be off about 90% of the time.
But if you think the Watch is mostly about style than round is a possibility
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Model Christy Turlington, model Candice Swanepoel, Vogue fashion magazine, Flare fashion magazine, Elle fashion magazine, Angela Ahrendts CEO of British fashion label Burberry, Paul Deneve CEO of Yves Saint Laurent.
[VIDEO]
Stylin', while in
Livin’ it up in the city
Got Chucks on with Saint Laurent
Gotta kiss myself I’m so pretty
"Apple Store retail employees are getting trained on giving fashion advice ahead of the company’s Apple Watch launch next month. The fashionista crash course comes as part of a larger training process teaching employees how to sell the new device.
Prospective Apple Watch buyers will get 15 minutes of hands-on time with the new device while being guided by an Apple employee. Those employees are being asked to comment on the device’s appearance based on a customer’s outfit, saying things like “you seem to have a fun style. I think the Pink Sport band would make your style perfectly,” or “the white strap looks great on you.”"
"This is of course a matter of taste, but almost all of the major smartwatch makers and fashion gurus have now admitted that round watch faces look better than square ones."
As far as the watch faces go, Jony Ive's take on the fashion aspect:
"As soon as something is worn, we have expectations of choice," said Ive. Only "in prison," he joked, "do people all wear the same thing."
Their solution is to provide 9 watch faces where other smartwatches offer hundreds (unlimited really), people are even talking now about having to jailbreak to change their watch face. The edge-to-edge background on some watches gives much more freedom for customization. If you fill a heavily bezelled rectangle with a background, it doesn't look good, which is why they prefer to keep it black and wanted to vignette anything that did fill it.
[VIDEO]
The Apple Watch is better engineered than all the other smartwatches on the market, there's no question about it, it has a premium build quality and that shows even when it's not on a model:
A round one would have been just as sensible a design choice as the app screens I posted earlier show, given that the primary function of the watch is unlike computing devices and TVs. It's designed for minimal interaction - no games, no movies, no books, just a few seconds look at the time, read a text bubble, poke a button and it's away again.
A round one would have been just as sensible a design choice as the app screens I posted earlier show, given that the primary function of the watch is unlike computing devices and TVs. It's designed for minimal interaction - no games, no movies, no books, just a few seconds look at the time, read a text bubble, poke a button and it's away again.
Thanks for digging up a lot of those quotes.
It's interesting the shapes used to convey a short amount of information -- ever seen a square campaign button?
Point taken about the decoration not affecting function (although this is a tiny bit grey too, as stainless steel is a more practical material than gold). I guess what I'm saying is that because a round watch will appeal stylistically to a lot of people, it can be legitimately considered a value add to the watch platform, so long as the functionality is not compromised too much. Now, whether the pros of a round watch are able to balance out the cons, I don't think we can know for certain without a lot more information on how the watch will be used on a routine basis, as this will determine how much of a functional compromise there will be.
This entire debate about round vs. rectangular seems so odd to me. I own a number of clocks and had never given a single thought to whether the dials were round or square, but when I looked, it turns out some are round, others are square, and others are round imposed on a square. Others have more fanciful designs that are neither round nor square. Some of the clocks in my home are recent, and others 100 or more years old. Thus it seems the inherent advantage argument in favor of round for a timepiece dial is both logical and historical hooey. Such conventions have simply never existed, so I have to wonder at the passionate debate the question seems to generate now. Even a tempest in a teapot looks like a typhoon compared to the substance of this debate.
What you round face lovers dont realize is that most people dont even wear watches. Most who are under 21 have never wore watches. Most 40 and under have not worn watches for almost a decade. Most of these people are not 'watch people'. They are not in love with the round face because they have never worn a round face watch for years. What they want is a mini-computer on their wrist that makes their life easier. If they just wanted a round face watch they would be wearing one already.
Apple is changing the game again. Tradition says 90% of watch wearers use round faces. But before the iPhone 90% of smartphones had physical keyboards. Things change. The Watch will change things. Design is important. But not if you need to sacrifice usablility. The bottom line is the apps that will be possible with a rectangle screen will be far more profound that with a round screen. I am sorry but man has been looking at rectangle shaped docments for centuries. Books are rectangle. Scrolls. Stone tablets. Computer screens Laptops. Cell phones. Tablets. Literally 99% of the worlds documents digital and physical are rectangular.
And there is a good reason why they are rectangle. Because a rectangle is the most efficent. And that is the way our brain works. Our brain does not work looking at something in a circular pattern. We start at the top of the rectangle, go to the right and work our way down to the bottom. We dont look at a point and then work on a circular pattern ending up in the center or the edge. Our brains just dont work that way.
The round face is not more beautiful. It is a remnant of the past. Just like how rotary phones have a look. That did not mean that when technology advanced we need to make smartphones look like rotary phones. From a pure fashion perspective things change. The hot dresses and styles of the 90's are not hot today. So why would be stuck with a style of watch (round face) that is literally HUNDREDS of years old? Bottom line we are not.
I am in total agreement with your first two paragraphs but have to beg to differ with some of your arguments in the second two.
First, in some cases, round is actually more suited to how our minds work. Studies in cognitive science established that round gages are easier to read and quickly understand than digital and linear gages. The Air Force got very interested in this question decades ago. Not that any of this really pertains to a watch.
Second, a round clock dial is not a remnant of anything. Makers of timepieces have employed any number of dial shapes over the centuries. This is not an area where the concepts of right and wrong apply.
I wear a Pebble. I have worn it daily since the original Kickstarter edition shipped to me.
Lately, in public I've had people ask "Hey, is that the Apple watch?" and act interested.
Square smartwatches will become visually identifiable as Apple watch just as for years all slab touch smartphones were seen as iPhones. (I once overheard "I have a Samsung iPhone" in conversation)
So good business sense for Apple to make a watch which announces itself to the viewer as an Apple watch.
Apple is confident to embue the product with its true form, not hide its behind a traditional analogue watch facade.
Some of the mock ups posted above showing Apple watch chronograph on a round physical watch are missing something: the complications. In the round analogue watch world complications get obstructed by the hands at times. On Apple watch, you have a round watch face visible and the corners can be used for complications that are always visible. It's a better idea than having the temperature obstructed by a minute hand once an hour.
Some of the mock ups posted above showing Apple watch chronograph on a round physical watch are missing something: the complications. In the round analogue watch world complications get obstructed by the hands at times. On Apple watch, you have a round watch face visible and the corners can be used for complications that are always visible. It's a better idea than having the temperature obstructed by a minute hand once an hour.
With digital control, you can remove the front watch hands to see complications if you needed to or even use some kind of parallax effect to see behind them. One feature I really liked is being able to use a watch as an alarm clock, automatic updating means it keeps the right time:
An iPhone sits flat so it's not as easy to setup like that and there's an easy snooze button there. The Apple Watch can sit sideways with an alarm but Apple would have to add this. I really hope they let 3rd parties make custom watch faces.
I feel certain Apple will allow 3rd party watch faces as they've said native watch apps are coming. Roll out is similar to that of the first iphone; only very basic 3rd party web apps shipped before the AppStore.
I am personally uninterested in exact digital copies of real watches but I'd like some skeuomorphic cogs visible beneath the 'face'
Comments
That's comparing data formatted for a square display. If you do round data, the equivalent square display is bigger:
The 3rd image is if you have a reduced bezel, which doesn't look too bad, the far right image is trying to fit the same content from the round watch onto the screen size that Apple is currently using. The glass curvature might distort the image so that may explain why they've gone with such a large bezel. It will also be down to how a sharp corner looks when it's stretched into a curved corner:
OLED allows them to turn off pixels so at least they can override this and turn the display panel into a rounded rectangle but they'd have to do it system-wide so that nothing could ever light those corner pixels or just design the panel that shape. They said they tried to do this clipping/vignetting during development because it doesn't look right when the display is fully lit. They must have just settled on squeezing it in.
If they make improvements like that, it will make the square format more usable for rounded content but will also reduce the value of the $10k+ models a lot. There's no way they'd disassemble the whole display panel and upgrade it for a reasonable price. They'd be building a whole new watch.
One important factor with the round shape is it makes the watch look unlike a computer. If you pause the following at 4:30 when the Rolex face lights up, it just looks like a really cool watch and not mini electronic gadget:
[VIDEO]
Sure the Moto 360 has the flat bit at the bottom for the light sensors and display driver and is the size of a mug coaster but that looks really nice as does this one:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Apple hasn't said they'll allow custom watch faces yet. They only give you 9 or so faces to choose from.
https://www.apple.com/watch/timekeeping/
If they had a feature to change the watch style, they'd probably have to have an official store to curate any code but then they have to check for copyright designs. It would be better if they just had an offline API to install a face and let people share faces unofficially and then keep the code it can run very limited.
I think the Apple Watch needs to be considered as a fashion object. With fashion, peoples' priorities are different, hence the existence of square mechanical watches, despite the functional irrelevance of the squared off corners. So, while a round watch would be less practical from a purely utilitarian standpoint, it may be more practical for some people depending on their priorities (e.g. fits into their sense of style, sense of aesthetics, etc.).
This statement more proves my point than argues against it. You seem to be saying that practicality can be arbitrarily defined, which to me, only goes to my point that many don't consider the sources of their aesthetic preferences.
You seem to be saying that practicality can be arbitrarily defined, which to me, only goes to my point that many don't consider the sources of their aesthetic preferences.
This statement more proves my point than argues against it.
In fashion, practicality is defined by desirability. Thus, fashion is largely arbitrary (it it wasn't, we'd all be wearing the same thing, and there would be only two watch straps to chose from [e.g. flouroelasamer for sport utility, and a basic leather strap for comfort]). Thus, if we consider Apple Watch to be a fashion item, there is inherently going to be an aspect of its usefulness that is determined by arbitrary measures. One could argue that the gold option is arbitrary, since it confers no practical advantage over stainless steel. To me, this is what's so interesting about the Apple Watch, that it's venturing out into the vague world of fashion.*
*To this end, Apple is putting as much care into this aspect (fashion/desirability) as they would with the materials or packaging. Apple is promoting the watch more than any other product I have seen, which builds on one of its core functions as a fashion object, desirability. It's actually very logical
This statement more proves my point than argues against it.
In fashion, practicality is defined by desirability. Thus, fashion is largely arbitrary; it it wasn't, we'd all be wearing the same thing, and there would be only two watch straps to chose from (e.g. flouroelasamer for sport utility, and a basic leather strap for comfort). To me, this is what's so interesting about the Apple Watch, that it's venturing out into the vague world of fashion.
Practicality isn't a useful concept in a discussion of fashion, so it is your choice of this term that throws the discussion off. It's more useful to think of pure fashion as decoration. I prefer red, you prefer blue. We don't have to have a reason for our preferences, because I can have red and you can have blue, and neither preference has any bearing on how the object works, even assuming the object has more than a decorative purpose. Once function is added into the equation then you and I can't necessarily have our arbitrary preferences satisfied because form and function are inexorably linked.
In this case Apple is obviously aware of the decorative aspects of a product meant to be worn on the body and has accordingly offered quite a lot of variety where personal preference does not affect the function. They haven't (so far) offered variations that violate the functional integrity of the product because user experience is first and foremost, as it should be for a functional and not merely decorative product. Apple Watch will fail if it doesn't meet the user experience test, no matter how many shapes it comes in.
Fashion and function. To me the line they've drawn is bright, and logical. I can see why they've done what they've done.
Practicality isn't a useful concept in a discussion of fashion, so it is your choice of this term that throws the discussion off. It's more useful to think of pure fashion as decoration. I prefer red, you prefer blue. We don't have to have a reason for our preferences, because I can have red and you can have blue, and neither preference has any bearing on how the object works, even assuming the object has more than a decorative purpose. Once function is added into the equation then you and I can't necessarily have our arbitrary preferences satisfied because form and function are inexorably linked.
In this case Apple is obviously aware of the decorative aspects of a product meant to be worn on the body and has accordingly offered quite a lot of variety where personal preference does not affect the function. They haven't (so far) offered variations that violate the functional integrity of the product because user experience is first and foremost, as it should be for a functional and not merely decorative product. Apple Watch will fail if it doesn't meet the user experience test, no matter how many shapes it comes in.
Fashion and function. To me the line they've drawn is bright, and logical. I can see why they've done what they've done.
Edit: Basically my entire argument can be summed up by the underlined portions.
Point taken about the decoration not affecting function (although this is a tiny bit grey too, as stainless steel is a more practical material than gold). I guess what I'm saying is that because a round watch will appeal stylistically to a lot of people, it can be legitimately considered a value add to the watch platform, so long as the functionality is not compromised too much. Now, whether the pros of a round watch are able to balance out the cons, I don't think we can know for certain without a lot more information on how the watch will be used on a routine basis, as this will determine how much of a functional compromise there will be.
Just some food for thought, here's some functional (not decorative/fashion) things that I think would be better on a round face:
-viewing the analog style watch face
-navigating the home screen and contacts
-drawing messages to someone
-displaying activity level (as demonstrated by Marvin)
-better perspective for maps
Some of the cons:
-text not displayed as efficiently as a rectangle (this is obviously the biggest factor; if I got a lot of text, would I read through it on the watch, or pick up my phone? I have no idea at this point)
-looking at photos would be a bit awkward
I'm not holding my breath for a round Apple watch, but I think it could happen.
This entire debate is ridiculous. On the one hand you've got the tech-geek guys saying that there's only one correct way to display text, so there will only ever be square ?Watches.. On the other you have the watch-geek people saying round is the most aesthetic choice, and therefore the ?Watch will fail. Both are arguing the other is wrong, which is ironic because both arguments are wrong. They might as well be arguing which picture frame is better, round or square? The fact is both have their place in the world, both have merit, and both have drawbacks. The bottom line for me is that Apple has demonstrated time and time again, that if there's a market for a product and they can deliver Apple quality for that market they will. If theres a market for a round watch, Apple surely has the skill to deliver one every bit as functional as the square one, and will be just as eager to take their money.
^^
This entire debate is ridiculous. On the one hand you've got the tech-geek guys saying that there's only one correct way to display text, so there will only ever be square ?Watches.. On the other you have the watch-geek people saying round is the most aesthetic choice, and therefore the ?Watch will fail. Both are arguing the other is wrong, which is ironic because both arguments are wrong. They might as well be arguing which picture frame is better, round or square? The fact is both have their place in the world, both have merit, and both have drawbacks. The bottom line for me is that Apple has demonstrated time and time again, that if there's a market for a product and they can deliver Apple quality for that market they will. If theres a market for a round watch, Apple surely has the skill to deliver one every bit as functional as the square one, and will be just as eager to take their money.
We definitely got pretty far into the weeds on that one. FWIW, in case you were referring to me, I'm not a watch person. I just think that the circle may still have a place in the post-smartwatch world. I pretty much agree with what you said, except I wouldn't characterize Apple as "eager to take their money." In spite of the fact that Apple is ridiculously wealthy, they seem to act with more integrity than any other organization that I can think of. So when they say, repeatedly, that their goal is to focus on and deliver the best products, I believe them. The fact that their competitors are incompetent, and cannot make products that sell well, is not Apple's problem.
I don't think Apple is being disingenuous when they tell us their goal is to bring the best products to market. I do think they can be arrogant and shortsighted in the positions they take sometimes, which have lead to seemingly hypocritical 180 degree reversals, leaving one to wonder if it's profit related or not. Apple is clearly in business to make money, and they surely aren't going to leave any on the table for their competitors, but it doesn't mean they won't do it with integrity. So I'm in complete agreement with you there.
What you round face lovers dont realize is that most people dont even wear watches. Most who are under 21 have never wore watches. Most 40 and under have not worn watches for almost a decade. Most of these people are not 'watch people'. They are not in love with the round face because they have never worn a round face watch for years. What they want is a mini-computer on their wrist that makes their life easier. If they just wanted a round face watch they would be wearing one already.
Apple is changing the game again. Tradition says 90% of watch wearers use round faces. But before the iPhone 90% of smartphones had physical keyboards. Things change. The Watch will change things. Design is important. But not if you need to sacrifice usablility. The bottom line is the apps that will be possible with a rectangle screen will be far more profound that with a round screen. I am sorry but man has been looking at rectangle shaped docments for centuries. Books are rectangle. Scrolls. Stone tablets. Computer screens Laptops. Cell phones. Tablets. Literally 99% of the worlds documents digital and physical are rectangular.
And there is a good reason why they are rectangle. Because a rectangle is the most efficent. And that is the way our brain works. Our brain does not work looking at something in a circular pattern. We start at the top of the rectangle, go to the right and work our way down to the bottom. We dont look at a point and then work on a circular pattern ending up in the center or the edge. Our brains just dont work that way.
The round face is not more beautiful. It is a remnant of the past. Just like how rotary phones have a look. That did not mean that when technology advanced we need to make smartphones look like rotary phones. From a pure fashion perspective things change. The hot dresses and styles of the 90's are not hot today. So why would be stuck with a style of watch (round face) that is literally HUNDREDS of years old? Bottom line we are not.
Lol @ "round watch lovers". Actually, I'm of the generation that never really needed a watch. The Apple Watch will be the first watch I've put on my wrist in a decade.
You bring up some really great points, and after watching how useful text-related functions are in those new walk through videos, I'm inclined to agree with you. But despite all that, I still wouldn't rule out a round Apple watch at some point in the future.
Name all the computing devices you know that are designed to be interacted with for at most 10 seconds:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/06/apple-watch-apps-limited-to-10-second-use-developers-say
Are you watching 10 second movie clips? Are you looking at images for 10 seconds? Did it take you 10 seconds to write that one post? Do you spend 10 seconds reading a book or watching a movie?
Just hold up your wrist and elbow in the air and tap it until you feel it getting tired. It's under a minute. People use their computing devices and TVs for hours at a time.
The Watch is primarily a notification center like a bubble that pops up and gives you an alert or something with a basic control. It can only run the display for 2.5 hours straight while doing nothing. During an 18 hour timeframe, it will be off about 90% of the time.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Model Christy Turlington, model Candice Swanepoel, Vogue fashion magazine, Flare fashion magazine, Elle fashion magazine, Angela Ahrendts CEO of British fashion label Burberry, Paul Deneve CEO of Yves Saint Laurent.
[VIDEO]
Stylin', while in
Livin’ it up in the city
Got Chucks on with Saint Laurent
Gotta kiss myself I’m so pretty
http://fortune.com/2015/03/25/apple-store-fashion/
"Apple Store retail employees are getting trained on giving fashion advice ahead of the company’s Apple Watch launch next month. The fashionista crash course comes as part of a larger training process teaching employees how to sell the new device.
Prospective Apple Watch buyers will get 15 minutes of hands-on time with the new device while being guided by an Apple employee. Those employees are being asked to comment on the device’s appearance based on a customer’s outfit, saying things like “you seem to have a fun style. I think the Pink Sport band would make your style perfectly,” or “the white strap looks great on you.”"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/watch/11452406/Apple-Watch-the-six-worst-features.html
"This is of course a matter of taste, but almost all of the major smartwatch makers and fashion gurus have now admitted that round watch faces look better than square ones."
As far as the watch faces go, Jony Ive's take on the fashion aspect:
"As soon as something is worn, we have expectations of choice," said Ive. Only "in prison," he joked, "do people all wear the same thing."
Their solution is to provide 9 watch faces where other smartwatches offer hundreds (unlimited really), people are even talking now about having to jailbreak to change their watch face. The edge-to-edge background on some watches gives much more freedom for customization. If you fill a heavily bezelled rectangle with a background, it doesn't look good, which is why they prefer to keep it black and wanted to vignette anything that did fill it.
[VIDEO]
The Apple Watch is better engineered than all the other smartwatches on the market, there's no question about it, it has a premium build quality and that shows even when it's not on a model:
A round one would have been just as sensible a design choice as the app screens I posted earlier show, given that the primary function of the watch is unlike computing devices and TVs. It's designed for minimal interaction - no games, no movies, no books, just a few seconds look at the time, read a text bubble, poke a button and it's away again.
Thanks for digging up a lot of those quotes.
It's interesting the shapes used to convey a short amount of information -- ever seen a square campaign button?
How about this classic comic book conveyance:
Point taken about the decoration not affecting function (although this is a tiny bit grey too, as stainless steel is a more practical material than gold). I guess what I'm saying is that because a round watch will appeal stylistically to a lot of people, it can be legitimately considered a value add to the watch platform, so long as the functionality is not compromised too much. Now, whether the pros of a round watch are able to balance out the cons, I don't think we can know for certain without a lot more information on how the watch will be used on a routine basis, as this will determine how much of a functional compromise there will be.
This entire debate about round vs. rectangular seems so odd to me. I own a number of clocks and had never given a single thought to whether the dials were round or square, but when I looked, it turns out some are round, others are square, and others are round imposed on a square. Others have more fanciful designs that are neither round nor square. Some of the clocks in my home are recent, and others 100 or more years old. Thus it seems the inherent advantage argument in favor of round for a timepiece dial is both logical and historical hooey. Such conventions have simply never existed, so I have to wonder at the passionate debate the question seems to generate now. Even a tempest in a teapot looks like a typhoon compared to the substance of this debate.
What you round face lovers dont realize is that most people dont even wear watches. Most who are under 21 have never wore watches. Most 40 and under have not worn watches for almost a decade. Most of these people are not 'watch people'. They are not in love with the round face because they have never worn a round face watch for years. What they want is a mini-computer on their wrist that makes their life easier. If they just wanted a round face watch they would be wearing one already.
Apple is changing the game again. Tradition says 90% of watch wearers use round faces. But before the iPhone 90% of smartphones had physical keyboards. Things change. The Watch will change things. Design is important. But not if you need to sacrifice usablility. The bottom line is the apps that will be possible with a rectangle screen will be far more profound that with a round screen. I am sorry but man has been looking at rectangle shaped docments for centuries. Books are rectangle. Scrolls. Stone tablets. Computer screens Laptops. Cell phones. Tablets. Literally 99% of the worlds documents digital and physical are rectangular.
And there is a good reason why they are rectangle. Because a rectangle is the most efficent. And that is the way our brain works. Our brain does not work looking at something in a circular pattern. We start at the top of the rectangle, go to the right and work our way down to the bottom. We dont look at a point and then work on a circular pattern ending up in the center or the edge. Our brains just dont work that way.
The round face is not more beautiful. It is a remnant of the past. Just like how rotary phones have a look. That did not mean that when technology advanced we need to make smartphones look like rotary phones. From a pure fashion perspective things change. The hot dresses and styles of the 90's are not hot today. So why would be stuck with a style of watch (round face) that is literally HUNDREDS of years old? Bottom line we are not.
I am in total agreement with your first two paragraphs but have to beg to differ with some of your arguments in the second two.
First, in some cases, round is actually more suited to how our minds work. Studies in cognitive science established that round gages are easier to read and quickly understand than digital and linear gages. The Air Force got very interested in this question decades ago. Not that any of this really pertains to a watch.
Second, a round clock dial is not a remnant of anything. Makers of timepieces have employed any number of dial shapes over the centuries. This is not an area where the concepts of right and wrong apply.
Lately, in public I've had people ask "Hey, is that the Apple watch?" and act interested.
Square smartwatches will become visually identifiable as Apple watch just as for years all slab touch smartphones were seen as iPhones. (I once overheard "I have a Samsung iPhone" in conversation)
So good business sense for Apple to make a watch which announces itself to the viewer as an Apple watch.
Apple is confident to embue the product with its true form, not hide its behind a traditional analogue watch facade.
Some of the mock ups posted above showing Apple watch chronograph on a round physical watch are missing something: the complications. In the round analogue watch world complications get obstructed by the hands at times. On Apple watch, you have a round watch face visible and the corners can be used for complications that are always visible. It's a better idea than having the temperature obstructed by a minute hand once an hour.
With digital control, you can remove the front watch hands to see complications if you needed to or even use some kind of parallax effect to see behind them. One feature I really liked is being able to use a watch as an alarm clock, automatic updating means it keeps the right time:
An iPhone sits flat so it's not as easy to setup like that and there's an easy snooze button there. The Apple Watch can sit sideways with an alarm but Apple would have to add this. I really hope they let 3rd parties make custom watch faces.
I am personally uninterested in exact digital copies of real watches but I'd like some skeuomorphic cogs visible beneath the 'face'