The data presented is larger on the smaller Moto 360 tho.
The image height on the right is smaller than the image height on the left. That's a function of the amount of unused space around the display, not the shape of the display. And the usable rectangular space, you know the shape you would use to display most UI aside from an analog watch display is still greater on the watch on the right.
The image height on the right is smaller than the image height on the left. That's a function of the amount of unused space around the display, not the shape of the display. And the usable rectangular space, you know the shape you would use to display most UI aside from an analog watch display is still greater on the watch on the right.
Same bezel size on both devices, same physical display height. What you've not been considering is the Apple Watch along with other non-round smart watches don't have square faces as a rule. They're taller than they are wide which is not what you've been discussing. It should be easy to see that with two devices of the same height, one round and one rectangular, the round one may be able to show easier to see notifications depending on what's being presented. Isn't that what's important? All this silly talk of wasted space is highly dependent on the content isn't it? You certainly can't make a blanket statement that a round display has a smaller useful area than a rectangular one. The content is the key.
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.
Pardon this observation, but don't you think you are maybe becoming a tad obsessional with this round form factor thing? You are welcome to wait for it, if you are so convinced that you are right. But personally I'd set up an appointment with Godot first, as he is likely to arrive sooner than a round Apple Watch.
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.
That image has taken the bezel over too. If you copy/paste the display alone, you can see the larger Apple Watch fits inside the circle with a lot of room to spare:
So a watch the size of the Huawei watch 42mm (same height as the Apple Watch) would fit pretty much the same content in.
People keep going back to the sticking point that the rectangular shape is more optimal for rectangular content. That's no more enlightening than saying a circular display is more optimal for circular content e.g if you put the fitness loops or new contacts layout from the Apple Watch on a circular display, they will be bigger than on a rectangular display.
Both shapes are perfectly suitable shapes for a smartwatch. Rectangular just tends to look more techie than fashionable.
"I'm more inclined to believe that Apple has chosen a more build to order model, than massive sales."
Either way, the word "essentially" from my first post on the topic implies the same thing. I never, ever claimed Apple WAS a build to order company. That was your inference, and yours alone. I very clearly in both instances likened Cook's tight supply chain to a BTO company.
... 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.
Here's some photoshop mockups I did 1:1. The first is the watch with the usable display area delineated. Not the slight reduction of the 38mm inside the 42mm. Keep in mind Ive chose not to have the image extend under the curved crystal because it would distort the image. The display could absolutely extend to the edge. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
Now we have the round watch overplayed on the ?Watch, making it only slightly wider, but then slimmer at the top and bottom. Note the inset 42mm display fits perfectly inside the case of the circle. And if Apple chose a flat crystal, they could use all of that space -- remember Ive chose not to extend the display to the edge. But let's stick with Apple's current design, and assume the only space we have is equivalent to the 38mm display including a border. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
So now we have a typical text use overlaid on the round shape as it would appear on the 38mm watch.
But look at this -- in the rectangular shape the Name of the contact and time take up room at the top of the text view. But look what happens when that information is moved to the unused spare areas of the round circle. Now there's not only more information, displayed in the text window, but it can also be enlarged back up to the same size the 42mm watch would have displayed it -- and that's assuming we're stuck with the border. Since we aren't, the 38mm text box doesn't have to be any smaller than it presently is. And, Apple isn't constrained by these sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer a 34, or 36mm version to fit petite wrists, without substantial loss to legibility.
I'm absolutely satisfied that there's absolutely no compromise between presenting text on a rectangle vs. a round watch. In fact, you can have even more text on a round watch, and more information impossible on the ?Watch without restricting displayed text. And frankly, most of the screen shots I've seen from Apple's apps (aside from straight text) would translate better on a round screen than a square.
The difference between Moto 360 and the ?Watch boils down to design implementation, and nothing else. Apple would blow this concept out of the water.
That image has taken the bezel over too. If you copy/paste the display alone, you can see the larger Apple Watch fits inside the circle with a lot of room to spare:
So a watch the size of the Huawei watch 42mm (same height as the Apple Watch) would fit pretty much the same content in.
People keep going back to the sticking point that the rectangular shape is more optimal for rectangular content. That's no more enlightening than saying a circular display is more optimal for circular content e.g if you put the fitness loops or new contacts layout from the Apple Watch on a circular display, they will be bigger than on a rectangular display.
Both shapes are perfectly suitable shapes for a smartwatch. Rectangular just tends to look more techie than fashionable.
if circular were equal for laying out content we'd have some circular televisions or monitors. but we don't.
Either way, the word "essentially" from my first post on the topic implies the same thing. I never, ever claimed Apple WAS a build to order company. That was your inference, and yours alone. I very clearly in both instances likened Cook's tight supply chain to a BTO company.
no, that's not inference, you're just flip flopping, and rightfully so because you were flat out wrong -- Apple has not and is not essentially operating as a BTO company. they simply didn't have enough supply for the insane demand for a product you've been poo-pooing, and now you have to perform all sorts of impressive mental gymnastics to get out from under that.
once over the launch hump it will be back to business as normal - ask for a watch and they'll get one for you, they won't be building it for you. just like the iPhones on every single launch.
Same bezel size on both devices, same physical display height. What you've not been considering is the Apple Watch along with other non-round smart watches don't have square faces as a rule. They're taller than they are wide which is not what you've been discussing. It should be easy to see that with two devices of the same height, one round and one rectangular, the round one may be able to show easier to see notifications depending on what's being presented. Isn't that what's important? All this silly talk of wasted space is highly dependent on the content isn't it? You certainly can't make a blanket statement that a round display has a smaller useful area than a rectangular one. The content is the key.
no, they aren't the same sized bezels on both devices and it's not even close. Draw 2 horizontal lines that go across the top and bottom of the right display and you'll see it's really not even close to the same size bezel.
The apple watch has a screen where the width is 85% of the height. I already showed you the math, which is basic geometry, that proves that if the height of the display is the same, the rectangular display gives more image area than a round display. It's mathematically impossible to prove otherwise. To get the same area, you have to make the round display taller.
If you're going to make one display taller to get more visible area, then do it to both displays. When you do it to both, the rectangle one (with Apple's proportions) still has more area. It's basic high school geometry.
Also, there is a web site that lets you preview many of the Apple Watch apps.
I just browsed through them and the vast majority would suffer on a round display, they would be reduced to using the smaller rectangular area inside of that round display.
30 seconds is not fast enough. Probably tens of thousands of people or even bots beat you to the punch.
Dickprinter....apt name for a person who thinks Apple needs to do tricks to sell their product and build hype.
It would be a dumb trick for a company of that size. Given that every one of their products seems to experience some level of scarcity at launch, I suspect they have other reasons not to build up an extreme surplus prior to launch date. It could be some combination of warehouse space, timing between product and other update launches, and ability to watch for things (hehe) that didn't show up during product testing.
I just browsed through them and the vast majority would suffer on a round display, they would be reduced to using the smaller rectangular area inside of that round display.
I didn't see it the same way ... those apps are designed to maximize a rectangular screen. They would design them differently if it were round. And for the ones that display a block of text, I've already shown that the ?Watch handily displays the text without any compromise on a round watch without the developer doing anything. And then there's this from the Watch Kit
Quote:
There could be more Watch sizes later. "Unlike iOS, where you place views at a coordinate on the screen," Apple says, "with WatchKit, objects automatically flow downward from the top left corner of the screen, filling the available space." There’s a lot of flexibility with how you group and nest elements in a Watch app, but fundamentally this means apps flow like a responsive website and can fit whatever resolution is available now and in the future. That’ll make things a lot easier for developers and a lot nicer for watch owners should Apple decide to make a change.
So it seems like the developer doesn't have to worry about how his image fits on the watch, Apple will adjust it to the future resolution. Indeed Ive has already chosen to reduce the display size by not extending it to the edges under the curved glass. Worst case scenario is a round watch will inset the developers 4:5 display with letter boxing at the top, bottom and sides of the circle, just like when the 4" iPhone came out. Developers can then address alternate interfaces or not, to make use of the full circle.
The math is off (I should have searched further), but the 4:5 rectangular one still has more display area vs a round one of the same height while simultaneously not being as wide on your wrist.
And it's not just that the apps are optimized for rectangular display, the underlying data itself is rectangular in nature. Text, photos, etc.
And the documentation you quoted doesn't suggest that the watch will ever be circular, only that the number of pixels, overall screen size, and perhaps aspect ratio can change. The documentation specifically references the top left pixel and basing the layout from there, which assumes the display is some sort of rectangle.
People keep going back to the sticking point that the rectangular shape is more optimal for rectangular content. That's no more enlightening than saying a circular display is more optimal for circular content e.g if you put the fitness loops or new contacts layout from the Apple Watch on a circular display, they will be bigger than on a rectangular display.
Exactly. The ?Watch is a hybrid. It's designed to be a watch and text display. So the overall shape doesn't matter. If it's square the round shapes are constrained by the display, but if it's round, the text box doesn't have to be compromised at all, while offering additional space to include other information, while maximizing the text which can be displayed. If anything, round is probably better to get more overall screen space as this graphic demonstrates:
And it's not just that the apps are optimized for rectangular display, the underlying data itself is rectangular in nature. Text, photos, etc.
But I've already demonstrated graphically that none of that has to be compromised on the ?Watch as it currently exists. Indeed, with a round shape, photos can be larger since photos tend to be more horizontal than vertical, making round a somewhat more versatile display choice to accommodate everything the watch can do, than square.
The only real complaint I see you have against a round watch is that round would be wider than the rectangular watch currently is. However, the shape is narrower on the top and bottom where it matters on a finite wrist width. And that of course isn't a requirement, depending on how small a screen you're willing to look at. But 38mm-42mm round traditional watches are a common size, and there are people besides yourself who love wearing them, and prefer them to square watches of any size. And that's another aspect of the watch that gets obfuscated in this debate over tech -- fashion. And the watch should address the fashion concerns of its customers as well.
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 even brings into question whether the device should be optimized for text. But to the extent someone wants the read the NY Times on their ?Watch, I've demonstrated they can do so without compromise.
But I've already demonstrated graphically that none of that has to be compromised on the ?Watch as it currently exists. Indeed, with a round shape, photos can be larger since photos tend to be more horizontal than vertical, making round a somewhat more versatile display choice to accommodate everything the watch can do, than square.
The only real complaint I see you have against a round watch is that round would be wider than the rectangular watch currently is. However, the shape is narrower on the top and bottom where it matters on a finite wrist width. And that of course isn't a requirement, depending on how small a screen you're willing to look at. But 38mm-42mm round traditional watches are a common size, and there are people besides yourself who love wearing them, and prefer them to square watches of any size. And that's another aspect of the watch that gets obfuscated in this debate over tech -- fashion. And the watch should address the fashion concerns of its customers as well.
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 even brings into question whether the device should be optimized for text. But to the extent someone wants the read the NY Times on their ?Watch, I've demonstrated they can do so without compromise.
Reading this makes me want to go watch "The Caine Mutiny".
if circular were equal for laying out content we'd have some circular televisions or monitors. but we don't.
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape, same if it had a windowed UI or browsed webpages. It doesn't do any of those things though. If it's a really bad shape to work with then buyers won't buy them and the round watch manufacturers will switch away from that design.
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape, same if it had a windowed UI or browsed webpages. It doesn't do any of those things though. If it's a really bad shape to work with then buyers won't buy them and the round watch manufacturers will switch away from that design.
The round watch is fundamentally driven by a rotary output mechanism. That was the primary driver for any of the original watch designs. That the manufacture was fundamentally easier turned than milled was obvious then and now.
The Apple Watch suffers neither of those constraints.
The argument for a round watch today is typically a style or stasis one; this is how it was historically and this is how it should continue to be. Apple has the opportunity to change that culture.
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape.
It is designed to look at photos, so it should be wider than narrower to address that need as well since most photos tend to be landscape, following this argument.
For instance, the remote camera app does not give a true viewfinder of what the iPhone camera is seeing. Most pictures taken with the iPhone are going to be 16x9 landscape. The ?Watch might account for this, but it will still be smaller than on a round watch which is more versatile for both height and width. Likewise, all the photos taken with an iPhone, which are the most likely to be imported to the watch will be smaller, or cropped to fit the portrait orientation of the watch.
Comments
[VIDEO]
Zenwatch (the rectangular one) - 1.63” AMOLED
Moto 360 - 1.5" IPS LCD
The data presented is larger on the smaller Moto 360 tho.
The image height on the right is smaller than the image height on the left. That's a function of the amount of unused space around the display, not the shape of the display. And the usable rectangular space, you know the shape you would use to display most UI aside from an analog watch display is still greater on the watch on the right.
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.
Pardon this observation, but don't you think you are maybe becoming a tad obsessional with this round form factor thing? You are welcome to wait for it, if you are so convinced that you are right. But personally I'd set up an appointment with Godot first, as he is likely to arrive sooner than a round Apple Watch.
That image has taken the bezel over too. If you copy/paste the display alone, you can see the larger Apple Watch fits inside the circle with a lot of room to spare:
So a watch the size of the Huawei watch 42mm (same height as the Apple Watch) would fit pretty much the same content in.
People keep going back to the sticking point that the rectangular shape is more optimal for rectangular content. That's no more enlightening than saying a circular display is more optimal for circular content e.g if you put the fitness loops or new contacts layout from the Apple Watch on a circular display, they will be bigger than on a rectangular display.
Both shapes are perfectly suitable shapes for a smartwatch. Rectangular just tends to look more techie than fashionable.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57795/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
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.
Here's the link where I clarified my original post:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/185708/initial-apple-watch-stock-dries-up-in-minutes-shipping-times-quickly-jump-to-4-6-weeks#post_2707617
Either way, the word "essentially" from my first post on the topic implies the same thing. I never, ever claimed Apple WAS a build to order company. That was your inference, and yours alone. I very clearly in both instances likened Cook's tight supply chain to a BTO company.
My algebra and geometry is rusty ... The example below, determines the area of a circle circumscribing a square of side 4 (units).
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.
Here's some photoshop mockups I did 1:1. The first is the watch with the usable display area delineated. Not the slight reduction of the 38mm inside the 42mm. Keep in mind Ive chose not to have the image extend under the curved crystal because it would distort the image. The display could absolutely extend to the edge. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
Now we have the round watch overplayed on the ?Watch, making it only slightly wider, but then slimmer at the top and bottom. Note the inset 42mm display fits perfectly inside the case of the circle. And if Apple chose a flat crystal, they could use all of that space -- remember Ive chose not to extend the display to the edge. But let's stick with Apple's current design, and assume the only space we have is equivalent to the 38mm display including a border. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
So now we have a typical text use overlaid on the round shape as it would appear on the 38mm watch.
But look at this -- in the rectangular shape the Name of the contact and time take up room at the top of the text view. But look what happens when that information is moved to the unused spare areas of the round circle. Now there's not only more information, displayed in the text window, but it can also be enlarged back up to the same size the 42mm watch would have displayed it -- and that's assuming we're stuck with the border. Since we aren't, the 38mm text box doesn't have to be any smaller than it presently is. And, Apple isn't constrained by these sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer a 34, or 36mm version to fit petite wrists, without substantial loss to legibility.
I'm absolutely satisfied that there's absolutely no compromise between presenting text on a rectangle vs. a round watch. In fact, you can have even more text on a round watch, and more information impossible on the ?Watch without restricting displayed text. And frankly, most of the screen shots I've seen from Apple's apps (aside from straight text) would translate better on a round screen than a square.
The difference between Moto 360 and the ?Watch boils down to design implementation, and nothing else. Apple would blow this concept out of the water.
if circular were equal for laying out content we'd have some circular televisions or monitors. but we don't.
no, that's not inference, you're just flip flopping, and rightfully so because you were flat out wrong -- Apple has not and is not essentially operating as a BTO company. they simply didn't have enough supply for the insane demand for a product you've been poo-pooing, and now you have to perform all sorts of impressive mental gymnastics to get out from under that.
once over the launch hump it will be back to business as normal - ask for a watch and they'll get one for you, they won't be building it for you. just like the iPhones on every single launch.
Same bezel size on both devices, same physical display height. What you've not been considering is the Apple Watch along with other non-round smart watches don't have square faces as a rule. They're taller than they are wide which is not what you've been discussing. It should be easy to see that with two devices of the same height, one round and one rectangular, the round one may be able to show easier to see notifications depending on what's being presented. Isn't that what's important? All this silly talk of wasted space is highly dependent on the content isn't it? You certainly can't make a blanket statement that a round display has a smaller useful area than a rectangular one. The content is the key.
no, they aren't the same sized bezels on both devices and it's not even close. Draw 2 horizontal lines that go across the top and bottom of the right display and you'll see it's really not even close to the same size bezel.
The apple watch has a screen where the width is 85% of the height. I already showed you the math, which is basic geometry, that proves that if the height of the display is the same, the rectangular display gives more image area than a round display. It's mathematically impossible to prove otherwise. To get the same area, you have to make the round display taller.
If you're going to make one display taller to get more visible area, then do it to both displays. When you do it to both, the rectangle one (with Apple's proportions) still has more area. It's basic high school geometry.
Also, there is a web site that lets you preview many of the Apple Watch apps.
http://watchaware.com/watch-apps
I just browsed through them and the vast majority would suffer on a round display, they would be reduced to using the smaller rectangular area inside of that round display.
30 seconds is not fast enough. Probably tens of thousands of people or even bots beat you to the punch.
Dickprinter....apt name for a person who thinks Apple needs to do tricks to sell their product and build hype.
It would be a dumb trick for a company of that size. Given that every one of their products seems to experience some level of scarcity at launch, I suspect they have other reasons not to build up an extreme surplus prior to launch date. It could be some combination of warehouse space, timing between product and other update launches, and ability to watch for things (hehe) that didn't show up during product testing.
The apple watch has a screen where the width is 85% of the height.
According to this it's 80%, so your math is off:
I just browsed through them and the vast majority would suffer on a round display, they would be reduced to using the smaller rectangular area inside of that round display.
I didn't see it the same way ... those apps are designed to maximize a rectangular screen. They would design them differently if it were round. And for the ones that display a block of text, I've already shown that the ?Watch handily displays the text without any compromise on a round watch without the developer doing anything. And then there's this from the Watch Kit
So it seems like the developer doesn't have to worry about how his image fits on the watch, Apple will adjust it to the future resolution. Indeed Ive has already chosen to reduce the display size by not extending it to the edges under the curved glass. Worst case scenario is a round watch will inset the developers 4:5 display with letter boxing at the top, bottom and sides of the circle, just like when the 4" iPhone came out. Developers can then address alternate interfaces or not, to make use of the full circle.
People keep going back to the sticking point that the rectangular shape is more optimal for rectangular content. That's no more enlightening than saying a circular display is more optimal for circular content e.g if you put the fitness loops or new contacts layout from the Apple Watch on a circular display, they will be bigger than on a rectangular display.
Exactly. The ?Watch is a hybrid. It's designed to be a watch and text display. So the overall shape doesn't matter. If it's square the round shapes are constrained by the display, but if it's round, the text box doesn't have to be compromised at all, while offering additional space to include other information, while maximizing the text which can be displayed. If anything, round is probably better to get more overall screen space as this graphic demonstrates:
But I've already demonstrated graphically that none of that has to be compromised on the ?Watch as it currently exists. Indeed, with a round shape, photos can be larger since photos tend to be more horizontal than vertical, making round a somewhat more versatile display choice to accommodate everything the watch can do, than square.
The only real complaint I see you have against a round watch is that round would be wider than the rectangular watch currently is. However, the shape is narrower on the top and bottom where it matters on a finite wrist width. And that of course isn't a requirement, depending on how small a screen you're willing to look at. But 38mm-42mm round traditional watches are a common size, and there are people besides yourself who love wearing them, and prefer them to square watches of any size. And that's another aspect of the watch that gets obfuscated in this debate over tech -- fashion. And the watch should address the fashion concerns of its customers as well.
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 even brings into question whether the device should be optimized for text. But to the extent someone wants the read the NY Times on their ?Watch, I've demonstrated they can do so without compromise.
But I've already demonstrated graphically that none of that has to be compromised on the ?Watch as it currently exists. Indeed, with a round shape, photos can be larger since photos tend to be more horizontal than vertical, making round a somewhat more versatile display choice to accommodate everything the watch can do, than square.
The only real complaint I see you have against a round watch is that round would be wider than the rectangular watch currently is. However, the shape is narrower on the top and bottom where it matters on a finite wrist width. And that of course isn't a requirement, depending on how small a screen you're willing to look at. But 38mm-42mm round traditional watches are a common size, and there are people besides yourself who love wearing them, and prefer them to square watches of any size. And that's another aspect of the watch that gets obfuscated in this debate over tech -- fashion. And the watch should address the fashion concerns of its customers as well.
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 even brings into question whether the device should be optimized for text. But to the extent someone wants the read the NY Times on their ?Watch, I've demonstrated they can do so without compromise.
Reading this makes me want to go watch "The Caine Mutiny".
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape, same if it had a windowed UI or browsed webpages. It doesn't do any of those things though. If it's a really bad shape to work with then buyers won't buy them and the round watch manufacturers will switch away from that design.
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape, same if it had a windowed UI or browsed webpages. It doesn't do any of those things though. If it's a really bad shape to work with then buyers won't buy them and the round watch manufacturers will switch away from that design.
The round watch is fundamentally driven by a rotary output mechanism. That was the primary driver for any of the original watch designs. That the manufacture was fundamentally easier turned than milled was obvious then and now.
The Apple Watch suffers neither of those constraints.
The argument for a round watch today is typically a style or stasis one; this is how it was historically and this is how it should continue to be. Apple has the opportunity to change that culture.
If the watch was intended for video then widescreen rectangle would be the better shape.
It is designed to look at photos, so it should be wider than narrower to address that need as well since most photos tend to be landscape, following this argument.
For instance, the remote camera app does not give a true viewfinder of what the iPhone camera is seeing. Most pictures taken with the iPhone are going to be 16x9 landscape. The ?Watch might account for this, but it will still be smaller than on a round watch which is more versatile for both height and width. Likewise, all the photos taken with an iPhone, which are the most likely to be imported to the watch will be smaller, or cropped to fit the portrait orientation of the watch.