Initial Apple Watch stock dries up in minutes, shipping times quickly jump to 4-6 weeks

18911131419

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 362
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





     but, say, you have to chose among several passes, credit cards, suggested answers to a notification, options ... For some things its hard to beat a scrolling list -- and, AFAIK, that's best done in a square format (you'd lose too much display space by imposing a round format).

    Again, I'm not arguing the validity of the square format. Obviously it's optimal for reading text. What I'm arguing is the value of reading text like that on a 1.5" display. Regardless, if one wants to, you simply put the square text box within the circle and problem solved. 

     

    As for having "several passes, credit cards", etc. I don't see why you can't still swipe left or right for multiple screens with circular presentation (just like on the iOS Home screen) ... scrolling seems unbelievably tedious for most tasks on an interface that small, so I'm suggesting that once people start using ?Watch, they will realize that if they need anything more than a glance, they will most likely respond via their iPhone anyway. It's no different on an iPhone, you get a notification on the lock screen that shows the first line or two of text. If you need to read more than that you open the app and read it in full context -- IF it's that important. I would contend people will stop reading and responding to as many e-mails once they start wearing the ?Watch -- if it means getting their phone out of their bag or pocket, maybe people will re-prioritize what's actually worth responding to.

     

    Nevertheless, to the extent scrolling text boxes are needed, there's no reason why they can't be effectively incorporated into a circular interface.

     

    And since you are a reasonable fellow, I'll further present my rationale -- Apple has gone to great pains to position the ?Watch as a fashion item. Ive has already said that 'when people wear something they have the expectation of choice'. "Ive said that the smart watch is ideal for casual glancing and lightweight interactions. However, it is not applicable to heavy reading, for obvious reasons", so this is even brings into question whether the device should be optimized for text. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19267/20141102/jony-ive-on-apple-watch-designing-apples-first-wearable-was-a-difficult-and-humbling-experience.htm

     

    While I completely agree that the first iteration of the watch being square makes the most sense for a product launch, that doesn't mean it will continue to be the best shape for information the ?Watch is actually used to present. Just like Apple said a 3.5" screen is the perfect size for an iPhone. Then they found a way to make it bigger. In the end, I'm suggesting that Apple is much more committed to the fashion variable than computer-on-a-wrist as a commodity. And since fashion likes both variety and round watches, then Apple will assuredly find a way to make a functional round watch for those customers looking for a choice based on fashion rather than tech. But I freely admit I could be wrong and Apple has no intent of catering any more to the fashion aspect of this watch beyond the initial product launch marketing campaign -- but do you really see Apple turning its back on the likes of Vogue and Vanity Fair, relationships they worked so hard to cultivate? Why risk a review two years from now about Apple's dated-looking design getting long in the tooth? I see them being as concerned about how the fashion world perceives their entry in to the wearables market as they appear to be now. What I won't be deterred from though, is that round is a perfectly acceptable shape on which to display text if done correctly. It's all subjective anyway -- my mom hates letterbox on her TV, she would rather watch a movie stretched or cropped to fill the screen, but I can't stand it. I don't see round or square any differently -- even if round is arguably not the best way to present text, it's a trade-off some people would prefer, to get what they like.

  • Reply 202 of 362
    Mmm ...

    Tim Cook visited the Palo Alto Store wearing a custom watch with a red crown ...

    I wonder if Apple is considering offering BTO options for the watch ... some possibilities there ... Especially BTO hardware and software, e.g. watch faces, options ...
  • Reply 203 of 362
    mac_128 wrote: »
     but, say, you have to chose among several passes, credit cards, suggested answers to a notification, options ... For some things its hard to beat a scrolling list -- and, AFAIK, that's best done in a square format (you'd lose too much display space by imposing a round format).
    Again, I'm not arguing the validity of the square format. Obviously it's optimal for reading text. What I'm arguing is the value of reading text like that on a 1.5" display. Regardless, if one wants to, you simply put the square text box within the circle and problem solved. 

    As for having "several passes, credit cards", etc. I don't see why you can't still swipe left or right for multiple screens with circular presentation (just like on the iOS Home screen) ... scrolling seems unbelievably tedious for most tasks on an interface that small, so I'm suggesting that once people start using ?Watch, they will realize that if they need anything more than a glance, they will most likely respond via their iPhone anyway. It's no different on an iPhone, you get a notification on the lock screen that shows the first line or two of text. If you need to read more than that you open the app and read it in full context -- IF it's that important. I would contend people will stop reading and responding to as many e-mails once they start wearing the ?Watch -- if it means getting their phone out of their bag or pocket, maybe people will re-prioritize what's actually worth responding to.

    Nevertheless, to the extent scrolling text boxes are needed, there's no reason why they can't be effectively incorporated into a circular interface.

    And since you are a reasonable fellow, I'll further present my rationale -- Apple has gone to great pains to position the ?Watch as a fashion item. Ive has already said that 'when people wear something they have the expectation of choice'. While I completely agree that the first iteration of the watch being square makes the most sense for a product launch, that doesn't mean it will continue to be the best shape for information the ?Watch is actually used to present. Just like Apple said a 3.5" screen is the perfect size for an iPhone. Then they found a way to make it bigger. In the end, I'm suggesting that Apple is much more committed to the fashion variable than computer-on-a-wrist as a commodity. And since fashion likes both variety and round watches, then Apple will assuredly find a way to make a functional round watch for those customers looking for a choice based on fashion rather than tech. But I freely admit I could be wrong and Apple has no intent of catering any more to the fashion aspect of this watch beyond the initial product launch marketing campaign -- but do you really see Apple turning its back on the likes of Vogue and Vanity Fair, relationships they worked so hard to cultivate? Why risk a review two years from now about Apple's dated-looking design getting long in the tooth? I see them being as concerned about how the fashion world perceives their entry in to the wearables market as they appear to be now. What I won't be deterred from though, is that round is a perfectly acceptable shape on which to display text if done correctly. It's all subjective anyway -- my mom hates letterbox on her TV, she would rather watch a movie stretched or cropped to fill the screen, but I can't stand it. I don't see round or square any differently -- even if round is arguably not the best way to present text, it's a trade-off some people would prefer, to get what they like.

    You need to review your geometry -- you lose too much area in a rectangle circumscribed by a circle.

    Your other points are reasonable.
  • Reply 204 of 362
    Ordered mine at 12:01 PST. Space gray 42mm black band. Used Apple Store app with favorite I had stored. April 24th was my date.
  • Reply 205 of 362
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    You need to review your geometry -- you lose too much area in a rectangle circumscribed by a circle.



    I don't agree.  There are two factors, design of the watch case to achieve a particular dimension, and the constraints it places on the screen. The graphic below clearly shows a rectangle can easily fit within the round watch as is. There's no reason why for a round watch the text display can't be more square to maintain relative text size. This is no different than when developers had to support both the 3.5" and 4" iPhones. The fact there are already 38mm watches compromising the size of the display for some to no great concern, suggests the display could be even smaller. I know when my company bought a new 13" MacBook Pro, everyone in the office has been struggling with the tiny text in the native resolution. This display resolution, however, would not have been possible without the Retina display which makes it tolerable, though many still use a lower resolution to better read the text. Since the watch suffers from the same issues, if the text box within the circle is a millimeter smaller on a round face, will that really make the display any less legible? I fully expect Apple will eventually offer more feminine styles in a smaller dimension yet -- perhaps that's where round watches get limited, but for now, I don't see it as a problem.

     

  • Reply 206 of 362
    mac_128 wrote: »
    You need to review your geometry -- you lose too much area in a rectangle circumscribed by a circle.


    I don't agree.  There are two factors, design of the watch case to achieve a particular dimension, and the constraints it places on the screen. The graphic below clearly shows a rectangle can easily fit within the round watch as is. There's no reason why for a round watch the text display can't be more square to maintain relative text size. This is no different than when developers had to support both the 3.5" and 4" iPhones. The fact there are already 38mm watches compromising the size of the display for some to no great concern, suggests the display could be even smaller. I know when my company bought a new 13" MacBook Pro, everyone in the office has been struggling with the tiny text in the native resolution. This display resolution, however, would not have been possible without the Retina display which makes it tolerable, though many still use a lower resolution to better read the text. Since the watch suffers from the same issues, if the text box within the circle is a millimeter smaller on a round face, will that really make the display any less legible? I fully expect Apple will eventually offer more feminine styles in a smaller dimension yet -- perhaps that's where round watches get limited, but for now, I don't see it as a problem.

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="57783" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57783/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 402px">

    The bottom right image disproves your point ... Despite a much larger (more pixels), and more expensive display, the round screen has a much smaller usable rectangular display area -- ~ 1/2 the pixels of the round display are wasted.
     
  • Reply 207 of 362
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    The bottom right image disproves your point ... Despite a much larger (more pixels), and more expensive display, the round screen has a much smaller usable rectangular display area -- ~ 1/2 the pixels of the round display are wasted.

     



    I don't know where that graphic came from, or what the numbers are intended to mean, but to my eye they look identical. I guess I'll just have to get busy and create my own graphics in photoshop. 

     

    That said, why are half the pixels wasted? I see it as there are more pixels on a higher resolution display than on the square format -- it's not like letterbox on a TV. And they wouldn't be wasted, to the contrary they will display information like the time and date, which currently reduces the amount of text which can be displayed in the square format.

  • Reply 208 of 362
    alandailalandail Posts: 755member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thompr View Post

     

    Demand is certainly high, but not high enough to exhaust 1-2 million units in under 5 minutes.  That's what I observed online.  Literally, within mere minutes (the model I purchased was at 4-6 weeks within 30 seconds, so I checked others too) the majority of models got knocked out of 4/24 delivery and into 4-6 weeks.  No way they moved that many in 5 minutes.  So I doubt that Apple had anywhere near that number ready to go, for whatever reason other folks want to dream up.




    If they had 2 million units, they didn't sell all 2 million units in under 5 minutes.  They sold out of some SKUs that quickly, others were still showing delivery on the 24th an hour later.  The blue band and white band of the 42mm sport model depleted at different rates.  The space grey sport depleted before the others.

     

    And, again, how could you possibly know what the number could have been.  I again use my analogy to a pop concert selling out 20,000 seat venues in minutes.  If they can do that for a single city, why couldn't apple sell 200-500k of a single SKU of watches in a matter of minutes when their customer base has learned that if you don't buy it at launch you could have a long wait.

     

    And for the US launch we are talking about the preallocated share of the world wide expected total launch day availability.  What we saw is some models went from launch day to 4-6 weeks very quickly while others took longer. We also the same thing happen for how long it took different models to say June.  What I saw is apple quickly adjusted their plans because quoted delivery times on some models were shorter in the morning when I got up than they were at 4am.  

     

    This was especially true of the Edition watches, at least one of which showed August at 4am (42 mm yellow gold black sport band) which now shows June.  This would suggest that the Edition watches were ordered faster than Apple forecast, but that it was a pretty easy change to adjust manufacturing plans to increase what was likely a very low expected volume.  Yet each one of these brings in the revenue of 30 sport watches.

     

    We'll find out if Apple announces launch numbers.  We also may see on April 24th.  Presumably there will be some available to buy at the stores on launch day, if so, we can see how long the lines are.

  • Reply 209 of 362
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alandail View Post

     



    If they had 2 million units, they didn't sell all 2 million units in under 5 minutes.  They sold out of some SKUs that quickly, others were still showing delivery on the 24th an hour later.  The blue band and white band of the 42mm sport model depleted at different rates.  The space grey sport depleted before the others.

     

    And, again, how could you possibly know what the number could have been.  I again use my analogy to a pop concert selling out 20,000 seat venues in minutes.  If they can do that for a single city, why couldn't apple sell 200-500k of a single SKU of watches in a matter of minutes when their customer base has learned that if you don't buy it at launch you could have a long wait.

     

    And for the US launch we are talking about the preallocated share of the world wide expected total launch day availability.  What we saw is some models went from launch day to 4-6 weeks very quickly while others took longer. We also the same thing happen for how long it took different models to say June.  What I saw is apple quickly adjusted their plans because quoted delivery times on some models were shorter in the morning when I got up than they were at 4am.  

     

    This was especially true of the Edition watches, at least one of which showed August at 4am (42 mm yellow gold black sport band) which now shows June.  This would suggest that the Edition watches were ordered faster than Apple forecast, but that it was a pretty easy change to adjust manufacturing plans to increase what was likely a very low expected volume.  Yet each one of these brings in the revenue of 30 sport watches.

     

    We'll find out if Apple announces launch numbers.  We also may see on April 24th.  Presumably there will be some available to buy at the stores on launch day, if so, we can see how long the lines are.




    I don't expect Apple to announce numbers on a new product launch. That would just give ammunition to their competitors.

  • Reply 210 of 362
    mac_128 wrote: »
    The bottom right image disproves your point ... Despite a much larger (more pixels), and more expensive display, the round screen has a much smaller usable rectangular display area -- ~ 1/2 the pixels of the round display are wasted.

     


    I don't know where that graphic came from, or what the numbers are intended to mean, but to my eye they look identical. I guess I'll just have to get busy and create my own graphics in photoshop. 

    That said, why are half the pixels wasted? I see it as there are more pixels on a higher resolution display than on the square format -- it's not like letterbox on a TV. And they wouldn't be wasted, to the contrary they will display information like the time and date, which currently reduces the amount of text which can be displayed in the square format.


    My algebra and geometry is rusty ... The example below, determines the area of a circle circumscribing a square of side 4 (units).
    square is inscribed in a circle...?
    A square is inscribed in a circle (or in other words a square is inside a circle).. If the length of the side of the square is 4, what is the area and circumference of the circle?
    .
    .
    .
    In order for the square to be inscribed in the circle it must touch the circle at 4 points. The center of the square and circle are in the same point.
    You need to find the radius of the circle to answer the question. knowing the length of the square sides you can find the radius. by geometry
    a^2 + b^2 = c^2
    a and b are two sides of the square, c is the line drawn from one end of the side to the opposite side (this is also the diameter of the circle):
    4^2 + 4^2 = c^2 , 16 + 16 = c^2 , c^2 = 32 , so c = 4 * sqrt (2)

    So radius is half diameter = 2 * sqrt(2) = 11.313

    Area of circle = pi * r^2 = 25.132

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100122090503AA39bY1


    The area of the square is 4 x 4 == 16 units

    So:

    25 == Area of circle (above formulae)
    16 == Area of inscribed square (given)

    9/25 is unused (wasted) area of circle

    ... By eye, I SWAGed that ~ 1/2 the pixels would be unused (wasted) -- I was off by a bit ... I'll leave it to you to check the math.
  • Reply 210 of 362
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    mac_128 wrote: »

    I don't know where that graphic came from, or what the numbers are intended to mean, but to my eye they look identical. I guess I'll just have to get busy and create my own graphics in photoshop. 

    That said, why are half the pixels wasted? I see it as there are more pixels on a higher resolution display than on the square format -- it's not like letterbox on a TV. And they wouldn't be wasted, to the contrary they will display information like the time and date, which currently reduces the amount of text which can be displayed in the square format.
    The pixels aren't "wasted" anyway. That's not how Android Wear displays info on a round display, assuming the developer followed guidelines.A round display would actually have more left to right space for notifications I believe. Presumably Mr Applebaum just hasn't taken the time to look at how it's being done on actual devices instead of someone's mockup.
  • Reply 212 of 362
    alandailalandail Posts: 755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    The pixels aren't "wasted" anyway. That's not how Android Wear displays info on a round display, assuming the developer followed guidelines. Mr Applebaum just hasn't taken the time to look at it presumably.



    a much larger device is require to have the same primary rectangular area for a device that has to fit on a person's wrist.  A circle the same eight as the apple watch rectangular screen gives you less usable space.  Even with the bigger device you showed, had it been the same height, but shaped rectangular, it would have more usable space while simultaneously requiring less wrist space since it doesn't have to be as wide as it is tall like the circular design.

  • Reply 213 of 362
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    Nope, this is what I likened Apple's tight control of the supply chain to ...:
    Clearly not a claim that they were now a BTO company.

    are you even aware of your own copious bullshit? here's what you said:

    "Apple is essentially a build to order company"

    ...follow all the quotes back and boom, there it is. glad to see you've flip flopped on at least that stance.
  • Reply 214 of 362
    alandailalandail Posts: 755member

    if/when numbers are released, it's going to be interesting to see how analysts spin the numbers.  The entire smart watch market was around 4 million units sold in all of 2014 (this includes sport bands like fitbit).  The market leader, Samsung, sold 1.2 million.  I suspect sometime on launch weekend Apple will become the installed base leader and that analysts will compare the sales to smart phones instead of to smart watches.

  • Reply 215 of 362
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    You need to review your geometry -- you lose too much area in a rectangle circumscribed by a circle.

    It's not technically lost, it just has to be used differently. A 42mm square would have 1764mm^2 area, a circle inside that would have 1385mm^2 (?r^2) and a square inside that would have 882mm^2 (diameter^2/2), which is half the original square. The shapes wouldn't be this way though. A comparable circular shape would be slightly wider and slightly shorter than rectangular.

    If we take the Apple Watch dimensions of 42mm x 36mm,

    Apple Watch area without bezel and ignoring rounded corners = 1512mm^2
    Apple Watch display area = 720mm^2 (Apple Watch display panel is significantly smaller than the area of the Watch)
    circle with diameter of 10% wider on each side than rectangle width = 43mm, area = 1452mm^2
    square area inside this circle would be = 924mm^2

    So the square area inside a comparably sized circular watch is larger than the display panel Apple currently uses on their rectangular watch. Once you add in some bezel, they'll come out fairly even, you can see the Apple display inside a circular shape:

    1000

    That's about the dimensions of the Huawei watch:

    1000

    The maximum possible rectangular area Apple can get = 35mmx30mm = 1050mm^2, which is shown as an overlay and they'll never make a display panel like that, they'd have to curve the corners.

    Even if the round one was smaller, it's not such a huge difference as to be unworkable when the UI is tailored to the shape. Vertical lists of cards for example could use something like the Dock Zoom or Coverflow style layouts to scale/fade at the edges.
  • Reply 216 of 362
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    mac_128 wrote: »

    I don't agree.  There are two factors, design of the watch case to achieve a particular dimension, and the constraints it places on the screen. The graphic below clearly shows a rectangle can easily fit within the round watch as is. There's no reason why for a round watch the text display can't be more square to maintain relative text size. This is no different than when developers had to support both the 3.5" and 4" iPhones. The fact there are already 38mm watches compromising the size of the display for some to no great concern, suggests the display could be even smaller. I know when my company bought a new 13" MacBook Pro, everyone in the office has been struggling with the tiny text in the native resolution. This display resolution, however, would not have been possible without the Retina display which makes it tolerable, though many still use a lower resolution to better read the text. Since the watch suffers from the same issues, if the text box within the circle is a millimeter smaller on a round face, will that really make the display any less legible? I fully expect Apple will eventually offer more feminine styles in a smaller dimension yet -- perhaps that's where round watches get limited, but for now, I don't see it as a problem.

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="57783" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57783/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 402px">

    so in a round watch that's bigger than the 48mm AW, you can on,y squeeze in the equivalent square of the 38mm AW? no deal, I just used them today and the 38 is a petite watch. no way would I saddle myself with a hockey puck just to see a square of content the size of the 38.
  • Reply 217 of 362
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    alandail wrote: »

    a much larger device is require to have the same primary rectangular area for a device that has to fit on a person's wrist.  A circle the same eight as the apple watch rectangular screen gives you less usable space.  Even with the bigger device you showed, had it been the same height, but shaped rectangular, it would have more usable space while simultaneously requiring less wrist space since it doesn't have to be as wide as it is tall like the circular design.
    700
    700

    700
    700

    Isn't this more informative than some of the guesses of what someone thinks it MIGHT look like? They're not that hard to find and it doesn't take more than a few minutes to do. Heck those make-believe mockups took longer than finding the real stuff.
  • Reply 218 of 362
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    "Apple's tight control of the supply chain . . . "

    Not to single you out so much, but to all the inventory-control proponents here, who want to apply a strategy suitable to ongoing production of an established device, here is Steve Jobs' answer to an email accusing Apple of inventory tinkering with the iPad:launch:

    "Are you nuts? We are doing the best we can. We need enough units to have a responsible and great launch."

    This was cited by poster 8CoreWhore at MacRumors yesterday.
  • Reply 219 of 362
    alandailalandail Posts: 755member

    ^ I'm not sure what you're trying to show me with those.  The first picture, the round watch isn't as tall as the rectangular watch while the rectangular watch has a larger area of display.

     

    What I said earlier is simple geometry.

     

    The area of a circle is ?r^2

    The area of a rectangle is h*w

     

    For the apple watch, width is hight * 0.85.

     

    A round watch of height 2 has an area of 3.14 units squared

    A rectangular watch of height 2 has an area of 3.28 units squared

     

    The units don't matter, for a given height the ratio will stay the same.

     

    Besides the display area, the usable area differs.  For most things, rectangular displays make sense. The odd case is displaying a clock as an analog clock.  In that case, the areas outside of the circle can be used to display other data that all goes away when you change to a different function.  For pretty much any other app, the rectangular case makes sense for the primary area.

  • Reply 220 of 362
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Zenwatch (the rectangular one) - 1.63” AMOLED
    Moto 360 - 1.5" IPS LCD

    Depending on the content the data presented is larger on the smaller Moto 360 tho, so perhaps easier/faster to see at a glance than on a rectangular display.

    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57791/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Sign In or Register to comment.