And yet the predominance of early chronographs, pocket watches, and later wristwatches had round faces and round dials due to ease of manufacture. Certainly most of the movement ever built are round configurations, driven by the application of round dials and faces.
True, because early clocks were driven by round gears, cogs, springs, and spindles.
There are no moving parts in a smart watch, thus no form follows function logic to use a circular format. In the case of the ?Watch, it is probably easier to manufacture a rectangular device than a circular one, and because it is designed as an extension of the iPhone, it makes sense for it to look like a miniature iPhone.
And yet the predominance of early chronographs, pocket watches, and later wristwatches had round faces and round dials due to ease of manufacture. Certainly most of the movement ever built are round configurations, driven by the application of round dials and faces.
I agree that it wasn't exclusively so, just predominately due to ease of manufacture.
And yet, none of this is true either. If you look into the case of a mechanical clock (I own several) you will see that the mechanisms are not round at all. In fact the movements are set between square plates. The dial being round or square is entirely an aesthetic decision made by the clock designer. Whether one shape of clock dial "predominates" or not is hardly relevant, as this is an aesthetic issue that changes over time. I could post photos of some of my clocks just to prove this point but it would only serve to make this discussion even more tedious than it is already. Nobody making the inherency argument for round clock dials is ever going to believe it anyway.
If you consider that a useful function of a smart watch (or any computing device) is to select items from a scrollable list -- the rectangular shape is more suited for that.
Also, the rectangular shape is more efficient in processing, transmission and battery use (from my earlier post).
I'm happy to concede any practical consideration for choosing square over round for the initial product launch, and I've agreed processing power and battery concerns are a good one in this case. I don't agree that smart watch functions need to select items from a scrollable list. In the same way the iPhone doesn't simply mimic OS X, and there are unique ways of accessing information on an iPhone than from a desktop -- the watch has it's own unique interface ... and interestingly, many of the basic OS screens Apple has designed are circular. Swiping seems more practical than scrolling, which seems tedious to me, like swiping through the various home screens on an iPhone. Information is displayed in neat little vignettes, no scrolling required. And again, how much scrolling are people going to really be doing on a one-inch screen?
Quote:
Additionally there are manufacturing costs -- case, glass, display ...
For example, the sapphire screen is cut from a slice of sapphire cut from a round ingot. Say you need sapphire to cover displays of a square of 1.5 x 1.5 inches. Many more 1.5 x 1.5 squares can be cut from the slice than the larger circles needed to contain the 1.5 x 1.5 squares.
Same for slices from silicon ingots.
Even more so for glass and metal which are manufactured into rectangular sheets.
I suspect there is at least a 50% premium to manufacture a round watch vs a square or rectangular watch.
I'll have to take your word on all of this, because I don't know. But certainly for a new product with an uncertain future, I would accept that cost would be a major concern, especially if it doesn't take off in the same way even the iPad did. That said, if you have a round ingot, you're going to have a lot of waste if you're cutting rectangles out of it. Whereas, why not just cultivate a boule the diameter one wants? And Apple already machines it's metal blocks into all kind of exotic shapes and recycles the material for new use, so I fail to see how that's a consideration at all.
But like I said you seem to have the inside track on watch manufacture, so I have to take your word for it. Though if that were entirely true, you'd think watchmakers would be going out of their way to sway fashion trends toward square and rectangular watch faces.
it is probably easier to manufacture a rectangular device than a circular one, and because it is designed as an extension of the iPhone, it makes sense for it to look like a miniature iPhone.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway. Apple wants rounded corners as part of the design and style so that's what they cut. Which takes me to the next issue: I'd say you were right if this were just another tech product, but Apple has gone out of its way to demonstrate the watch is a fashion item -- a personal expression of taste and style. So do people really want to wear a mini iPhone on their wrist? Seemingly the idea behind the watch is it allows a person to put the phone away, out of sight most of the time. So the relationship to the way the phone looks seems of the least importance than to how it looks on the wearer. In fact, looking like a mini iPhone is the last thing I think someone would want their personal wrist wear to resemble.
If you consider that a useful function of a smart watch (or any computing device) is to select items from a scrollable list -- the rectangular shape is more suited for that.
Also, the rectangular shape is more efficient in processing, transmission and battery use (from my earlier post).
I'm happy to concede any practical consideration for choosing square over round for the initial product launch, and I've agreed processing power and battery concerns are a good one in this case. I don't agree that smart watch functions need to select items from a scrollable list. In the same way the iPhone doesn't simply mimic OS X, and there are unique ways of accessing information on an iPhone than from a desktop -- the watch has it's own unique interface ... and interestingly, many of the basic OS screens Apple has designed are circular. Swiping seems more practical than scrolling, which seems tedious to me, like swiping through the various home screens on an iPhone. Information is displayed in neat little vignettes, no scrolling required. And again, how much scrolling are people going to really be doing on a one-inch screen?
It is much more expensive in processing, transmission and battery to swipe a watch screen and completely replace it with a new screen. With scrolling a list, only the visible rows are refreshed as displayed -- much more efficient.
Developers on an iPhone sometimes get a little careless and refresh an entire list (table) with a reloadData() function. You do not have a reloadData() function in WatchKit because it is too inefficient ... Apple wants developers to consider efficiency first!
Likely a scrollable list on the Watch will be 10-20 items max -- usually 8 or less.
Additionally there are manufacturing costs -- case, glass, display ... For example, the sapphire screen is cut from a slice of sapphire cut from a round ingot. Say you need sapphire to cover displays of a square of 1.5 x 1.5 inches. Many more 1.5 x 1.5 squares can be cut from the slice than the larger circles needed to contain the 1.5 x 1.5 squares. Same for slices from silicon ingots. Even more so for glass and metal which are manufactured into rectangular sheets. I suspect there is at least a 50% premium to manufacture a round watch vs a square or rectangular watch.
I'll have to take your word on all of this, because I don't know. But certainly for a new product with an uncertain future, I would accept that cost would be a major concern, especially if it doesn't take off in the same way even the iPad did. That said, if you have a round ingot, you're going to have a lot of waste if you're cutting rectangles out of it. Whereas, why not just cultivate a boule the diameter one wants? And Apple already machines it's metal blocks into all kind of exotic shapes and recycles the material for new use, so I fail to see how that's a consideration at all.
The process of creating an ingot goes something like this:
a seed of crystals is attached to a rod
the seed is lowered into a furnace of molten material
the furnace spins
slowly, the rod containing the seed is raised creating a solid ingot
The process can take days or weeks. After this, the ingot is sliced into thin, round, wafers. Eventually, the maximum number of rectangles are cut from each round wafer.
I don't know of any practical way of creating square ingots.
But like I said you seem to have the inside track on watch manufacture, so I have to take your word for it. Though if that were entirely true, you'd think watchmakers would be going out of their way to sway fashion trends toward square and rectangular watch faces.
And yet, none of this is true either. If you look into the case of a mechanical clock (I own several) you will see that the mechanisms are not round at all. In fact the movements are set between square plates. The dial being round or square is entirely an aesthetic decision made by the clock designer. Whether one shape of clock dial "predominates" or not is hardly relevant, as this is an aesthetic issue that changes over time. I could post photos of some of my clocks just to prove this point but it would only serve to make this discussion even more tedious than it is already. Nobody making the inherency argument for round clock dials is ever going to believe it anyway.
Please do some searches on American Watchmaking in the 1800's. The Americans were dominant in the last half of the century because they used machines instead of hand labor for the bulk of the the manufacturing.
Then go look at American Waltham Watches, Elgin, Illinois and a host of other American watches.
On a component level, round bezels, glass, and backs was easier to manufacture and easier means less expensive to build and lower cost to consumers. Watch movement were predominately round for that reason.
It is much more expensive in processing, transmission and battery to swipe a watch screen and completely replace it with a new screen. With scrolling a list, only the visible rows are refreshed as displayed -- much more efficient....
Likely a scrollable list on the Watch will be 10-20 items max -- usually 8 or less.
Well you're guessing on how Apple intends to present scrollable lists. If you have 30 people in your contacts that start with an "S", is the watch just not going to show them to you? Granted I'd agree refreshing a whole screen takes more power than scrolling, but depending on the draw versus tediously scrolling up and down the list with the backlight on, I'd say the trade off is in the experience. In which manner is the data most efficiently presented in a "glance" on such a small UI? One that requires you to tedious maneuver a scroll wheel (which sometimes zooms, sometimes scrolls), or quick swipes of the finger, not requiring precision contact with something so tiny? Again, I'll concede the power demands of this watch are the most important consideration over any other aspect of it, so for the first iteration of a product launch if scrolling saves a significant amount of power over swiping, then hands down Apple made the right choice. As a UI interface, the jury is still out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I don't know of any practical way of creating square ingots.
Hence my suggestion that it would be less expensive to grown them into the size you need for the round lens. Seems like considerably more waste for rectangles and squares.
Please do some searches on American Watchmaking in the 1800's. The Americans were dominant in the last half of the century because they used machines instead of hand labor for the bulk of the the manufacturing.
Then go look at American Waltham Watches, Elgin, Illinois and a host of other American watches.
On a component level, round bezels, glass, and backs was easier to manufacture and easier means less expensive to build and lower cost to consumers. Watch movement were predominately round for that reason.
I don't need to do any searches, I already know most early watches were round. You will perhaps notice that I referred more generally to clock-making.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway. Apple wants rounded corners as part of the design and style so that's what they cut. Which takes me to the next issue: I'd say you were right if this were just another tech product, but Apple has gone out of its way to demonstrate the watch is a fashion item -- a personal expression of taste and style. So do people really want to wear a mini iPhone on their wrist? Seemingly the idea behind the watch is it allows a person to put the phone away, out of sight most of the time. So the relationship to the way the phone looks seems of the least importance than to how it looks on the wearer. In fact, looking like a mini iPhone is the last thing I think someone would want their personal wrist wear to resemble.
Lathes spin the work and move the tools
Milling machines move the work and spin the tools
Turning Centers are computerized and have multiple tools on a turret.
Machining Centers are computerized and have multiple tools on racks that are changed into the spindle.
People program the machines typically based on a solids model created for the part.
If someone gave me a solids model for a 42 mm Sportwatch case, I or any other machinist with software and a machining center could build it.
Likely a scrollable list on the Watch will be 10-20 items max -- usually 8 or less.
Well you're guessing on how Apple intends to present scrollable lists.
Give me a little credit ...
When configuring tables, you can improve performance by limiting the number of rows you create initially. But because table rows must all be created up front, creating large numbers of rows can adversely affect the performance of your app. The precise number of rows depends on the complexity of your data and how long it takes you to create each one, but consider keeping the total number of rows to 20 or fewer. For tables that require more rows, consider loading only a subset of rows initially and then provide the user with controls to load more rows. An even better solution is to display only the most important subset of rows. For example, you might use location data to limit the number of rows to those that are most relevant to the user’s current location.
Here's a sample of an app I wrote originally for the iPhone -- and have been playing with on the Apple Watch.
It demonstrates how to order take out -- In-N-Out Burger in this example.
The way it works is this:
you scroll the list by dragging on the screen or rotating the crown
table rows are sent to the watch as needed for display
you add an item to the order by tapping on it's name
the item quantity is incremented by 1 for each tap on the name
you remove an item from the order by tapping on it's quantity
tapping on a quantity decrements it by 1
tapping a row or its quantity only redisplays that row
totals are updated for each tap
a different sound is made for each tap
a hard-press shows a menu to send, cancel or continue the order
The current In-N-Out menu is 22 items -- Fine on the iPhone, but a bit much for the Watch (I think). In-N-Out has some "special" items they don't show on their normal menu -- I could remove these or put them in a separate section of the table.
Probably a better solution is to prepare your order in advance on the iPhone -- then place the order with the Watch when at take-out.
There's lots of possible permutations -- each person in the office (or family) has favorites -- and we do ... Why not select favorites on the iPhone, then order from the Watch ...
If you have 30 people in your contacts that start with an "S", is the watch just not going to show them to you? Granted I'd agree refreshing a whole screen takes more power than scrolling, but depending on the draw versus tediously scrolling up and down the list with the backlight on, I'd say the trade off is in the experience. In which manner is the data most efficiently presented in a "glance" on such a small UI? One that requires you to tedious maneuver a scroll wheel (which sometimes zooms, sometimes scrolls), or quick swipes of the finger, not requiring precision contact with something so tiny? Again, I'll concede the power demands of this watch are the most important consideration over any other aspect of it, so for the first iteration of a product launch if scrolling saves a significant amount of power over swiping, then hands down Apple made the right choice. As a UI interface, the jury is still out.
I don't know of any practical way of creating square ingots.
Hence my suggestion that it would be less expensive to grown them into the size you need for the round lens. Seems like considerably more waste for rectangles and squares.
Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting ...
You want to use, say, 100 small, watch-face-size furnaces and long ingot-growing processes -- to replace a single large furnace/ingot-growing process.
There is so much wrong with that suggestion, that I don't know where to begin.
But let's try this:
Any ingot has unusable space around its periphery (it's an imperfect process). Lets say, to get wafers with a high-yield of 2" diameter round surfaces, you need to grow 2.5-3" diameter ingots. *
What you suggest would be more expensive with less yield than cutting multiple, abutting circles from a large wafer.
* I haven't been in a clean room for years, but I suspect that the Ingot manufacturers have developed the least expensive, practical method for doing their job.
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.
you have a false assumption that rectangular is for video. how many decades did we have rectangular computer displays before putting any video on them? textual CRTs were not round.
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.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway.
I was thinking about the guts as well as the case. Chips are usually rectangular as are screens, board level electrical sockets and batteries, making a rectangular shape much more efficient for the layout of the circuitry. In addition, for their concept of being able to quickly swap out the bands, the case having straight sides greatly facilitates that process. Furthermore, the design of having the digital crown and a the elongated button on the same side of the watch pretty much necessitates a flat side.
You have to look at the entire design and consider all the complications that would be introduced with a round design, which in itself offers no particular advantages.
I was responding to the argument that round is somehow an inherently more logical shape for timepieces.
I have only argued that for the mechanism and manufacturing methods available for watches historically, round would have been a logical shape for production, and it was.
There really aren't many constraints at all for building digital or mechanical watches today and of a wide variety of materials.
Apple chose the UI and the screen format after due diligence. The market would love to see Apple disrupted if they chose incorrectly. I find that unlikely to happen.
You have to look at the entire design and consider all the complications that would be introduced with a round design, which in itself offers no particular advantages.
Gotcha, and while all that is infinitely practical and makes for a perfectly logical reason for them to stick to a rectangular design for an unproven product, at the end of the day, is Apple making just a smart watch? Or are they making fashion statement? The additional cost necessary to create an elegant round wrist device is no more complex than what Swiss watchmakers have been doing for years, often with equal or greater precision than Apple's standards. Surely if Apple wanted to make a round watch, the additional expense would not be a concern -- these are the people who custom built an aquarium to photograph jellyfish at 8K to be shrunk down to 300 pixels.
As for whether round offers any particular advantages over square, well that debate continues. I did another mockup of one of Apple's apps -- the camera remote which is sure to get a lot of use on the watch. Note that on the rectangular model, in order to get a reasonably sized image to line up your shot, they have to crop the sides of the image, so you don't know whether everything is in frame or not. However, on a round watch, the full frame can be displayed even larger than the cropped one on the rectangular screen. And the control buttons that take up space from the rectangular screen, are moved outward on the round screen allowing the primary focus to be larger. This goes for text too. So for me, that's a compelling reason to have a round watch face over a rectangular.
Unlike my earlier examples, I didn't use a frame border around the display area, since one is not necessary. The only reason the ?Watch has a frame border is because Jony Ive decided it should be that way, the display could have easily gone all the way to the edge, but the rounded corners presented a dilemma for him in presenting photos. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
The current In-N-Out menu is 22 items -- Fine on the iPhone, but a bit much for the Watch (I think). In-N-Out has some "special" items they don't show on their normal menu -- I could remove these or put them in a separate section of the table.
Probably a better solution is to prepare your order in advance on the iPhone -- then place the order with the Watch when at take-out.
And that's what I think. Anything that has significant lists or options requiring a person to scroll through is going to be much easier to accomplish by pulling the iPhone out. I'm guessing after people really start using it, that the most effective watch screens will adapt more to this concept for quickly selecting something from a list.
Quote:
You want to use, say, 100 small, watch-face-size furnaces and long ingot-growing processes -- to replace a single large furnace/ingot-growing process.
There is so much wrong with that suggestion, that I don't know where to begin.
I'll freely admit I'm in over my head here and do not completely follow you. I'll need to do some self-educating before further commentary. Thanks for bearing with me.
Gotcha, and while all that is infinitely practical and makes for a perfectly logical reason for them to stick to a rectangular design for an unproven product, at the end of the day, is Apple making just a smart watch? Or are they making fashion statement?
Well I think the strongest argument for the rectangle is that it is supposed to match the look and feel of the iPhone which it is paired with. I believe the ?Watch has infinitely more in common with the other members of the iOS ecosystem than it does with legacy wristwatches.
Comments
And yet the predominance of early chronographs, pocket watches, and later wristwatches had round faces and round dials due to ease of manufacture. Certainly most of the movement ever built are round configurations, driven by the application of round dials and faces.
True, because early clocks were driven by round gears, cogs, springs, and spindles.
There are no moving parts in a smart watch, thus no form follows function logic to use a circular format. In the case of the ?Watch, it is probably easier to manufacture a rectangular device than a circular one, and because it is designed as an extension of the iPhone, it makes sense for it to look like a miniature iPhone.
And yet the predominance of early chronographs, pocket watches, and later wristwatches had round faces and round dials due to ease of manufacture. Certainly most of the movement ever built are round configurations, driven by the application of round dials and faces.
I agree that it wasn't exclusively so, just predominately due to ease of manufacture.
And yet, none of this is true either. If you look into the case of a mechanical clock (I own several) you will see that the mechanisms are not round at all. In fact the movements are set between square plates. The dial being round or square is entirely an aesthetic decision made by the clock designer. Whether one shape of clock dial "predominates" or not is hardly relevant, as this is an aesthetic issue that changes over time. I could post photos of some of my clocks just to prove this point but it would only serve to make this discussion even more tedious than it is already. Nobody making the inherency argument for round clock dials is ever going to believe it anyway.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57831/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
If you consider that a useful function of a smart watch (or any computing device) is to select items from a scrollable list -- the rectangular shape is more suited for that.
Also, the rectangular shape is more efficient in processing, transmission and battery use (from my earlier post).
I'm happy to concede any practical consideration for choosing square over round for the initial product launch, and I've agreed processing power and battery concerns are a good one in this case. I don't agree that smart watch functions need to select items from a scrollable list. In the same way the iPhone doesn't simply mimic OS X, and there are unique ways of accessing information on an iPhone than from a desktop -- the watch has it's own unique interface ... and interestingly, many of the basic OS screens Apple has designed are circular. Swiping seems more practical than scrolling, which seems tedious to me, like swiping through the various home screens on an iPhone. Information is displayed in neat little vignettes, no scrolling required. And again, how much scrolling are people going to really be doing on a one-inch screen?
For example, the sapphire screen is cut from a slice of sapphire cut from a round ingot. Say you need sapphire to cover displays of a square of 1.5 x 1.5 inches. Many more 1.5 x 1.5 squares can be cut from the slice than the larger circles needed to contain the 1.5 x 1.5 squares.
Same for slices from silicon ingots.
Even more so for glass and metal which are manufactured into rectangular sheets.
I suspect there is at least a 50% premium to manufacture a round watch vs a square or rectangular watch.
I'll have to take your word on all of this, because I don't know. But certainly for a new product with an uncertain future, I would accept that cost would be a major concern, especially if it doesn't take off in the same way even the iPad did. That said, if you have a round ingot, you're going to have a lot of waste if you're cutting rectangles out of it. Whereas, why not just cultivate a boule the diameter one wants? And Apple already machines it's metal blocks into all kind of exotic shapes and recycles the material for new use, so I fail to see how that's a consideration at all.
But like I said you seem to have the inside track on watch manufacture, so I have to take your word for it. Though if that were entirely true, you'd think watchmakers would be going out of their way to sway fashion trends toward square and rectangular watch faces.
it is probably easier to manufacture a rectangular device than a circular one, and because it is designed as an extension of the iPhone, it makes sense for it to look like a miniature iPhone.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway. Apple wants rounded corners as part of the design and style so that's what they cut. Which takes me to the next issue: I'd say you were right if this were just another tech product, but Apple has gone out of its way to demonstrate the watch is a fashion item -- a personal expression of taste and style. So do people really want to wear a mini iPhone on their wrist? Seemingly the idea behind the watch is it allows a person to put the phone away, out of sight most of the time. So the relationship to the way the phone looks seems of the least importance than to how it looks on the wearer. In fact, looking like a mini iPhone is the last thing I think someone would want their personal wrist wear to resemble.
It is much more expensive in processing, transmission and battery to swipe a watch screen and completely replace it with a new screen. With scrolling a list, only the visible rows are refreshed as displayed -- much more efficient.
Developers on an iPhone sometimes get a little careless and refresh an entire list (table) with a reloadData() function. You do not have a reloadData() function in WatchKit because it is too inefficient ... Apple wants developers to consider efficiency first!
Likely a scrollable list on the Watch will be 10-20 items max -- usually 8 or less.
The process of creating an ingot goes something like this:
The process can take days or weeks. After this, the ingot is sliced into thin, round, wafers. Eventually, the maximum number of rectangles are cut from each round wafer.
I don't know of any practical way of creating square ingots.
And yet, none of this is true either. If you look into the case of a mechanical clock (I own several) you will see that the mechanisms are not round at all. In fact the movements are set between square plates. The dial being round or square is entirely an aesthetic decision made by the clock designer. Whether one shape of clock dial "predominates" or not is hardly relevant, as this is an aesthetic issue that changes over time. I could post photos of some of my clocks just to prove this point but it would only serve to make this discussion even more tedious than it is already. Nobody making the inherency argument for round clock dials is ever going to believe it anyway.
Please do some searches on American Watchmaking in the 1800's. The Americans were dominant in the last half of the century because they used machines instead of hand labor for the bulk of the the manufacturing.
Then go look at American Waltham Watches, Elgin, Illinois and a host of other American watches.
On a component level, round bezels, glass, and backs was easier to manufacture and easier means less expensive to build and lower cost to consumers. Watch movement were predominately round for that reason.
It is much more expensive in processing, transmission and battery to swipe a watch screen and completely replace it with a new screen. With scrolling a list, only the visible rows are refreshed as displayed -- much more efficient....
Well you're guessing on how Apple intends to present scrollable lists. If you have 30 people in your contacts that start with an "S", is the watch just not going to show them to you? Granted I'd agree refreshing a whole screen takes more power than scrolling, but depending on the draw versus tediously scrolling up and down the list with the backlight on, I'd say the trade off is in the experience. In which manner is the data most efficiently presented in a "glance" on such a small UI? One that requires you to tedious maneuver a scroll wheel (which sometimes zooms, sometimes scrolls), or quick swipes of the finger, not requiring precision contact with something so tiny? Again, I'll concede the power demands of this watch are the most important consideration over any other aspect of it, so for the first iteration of a product launch if scrolling saves a significant amount of power over swiping, then hands down Apple made the right choice. As a UI interface, the jury is still out.
I don't know of any practical way of creating square ingots.
Hence my suggestion that it would be less expensive to grown them into the size you need for the round lens. Seems like considerably more waste for rectangles and squares.
Please do some searches on American Watchmaking in the 1800's. The Americans were dominant in the last half of the century because they used machines instead of hand labor for the bulk of the the manufacturing.
Then go look at American Waltham Watches, Elgin, Illinois and a host of other American watches.
On a component level, round bezels, glass, and backs was easier to manufacture and easier means less expensive to build and lower cost to consumers. Watch movement were predominately round for that reason.
I don't need to do any searches, I already know most early watches were round. You will perhaps notice that I referred more generally to clock-making.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway. Apple wants rounded corners as part of the design and style so that's what they cut. Which takes me to the next issue: I'd say you were right if this were just another tech product, but Apple has gone out of its way to demonstrate the watch is a fashion item -- a personal expression of taste and style. So do people really want to wear a mini iPhone on their wrist? Seemingly the idea behind the watch is it allows a person to put the phone away, out of sight most of the time. So the relationship to the way the phone looks seems of the least importance than to how it looks on the wearer. In fact, looking like a mini iPhone is the last thing I think someone would want their personal wrist wear to resemble.
Lathes spin the work and move the tools
Milling machines move the work and spin the tools
Turning Centers are computerized and have multiple tools on a turret.
Machining Centers are computerized and have multiple tools on racks that are changed into the spindle.
People program the machines typically based on a solids model created for the part.
If someone gave me a solids model for a 42 mm Sportwatch case, I or any other machinist with software and a machining center could build it.
Oh wait, there they are:
https://grabcad.com/library/apple-watch-38mm-case-1/files
Click on "3D view" to see without downloading. Most of these file will work with 3D printers.
I don't need to do any searches, I already know most early watches were round. You will perhaps notice that I referred more generally to clock-making.
My apologies.
Since the thread was on watches, I assumed that's what you were generalizing wrt watches as well.
Give me a little credit ...
Review this document:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/WatchKitProgrammingGuide/Tables.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014969-CH14-SW1
Here's a sample of an app I wrote originally for the iPhone -- and have been playing with on the Apple Watch.
It demonstrates how to order take out -- In-N-Out Burger in this example.
The way it works is this:
The current In-N-Out menu is 22 items -- Fine on the iPhone, but a bit much for the Watch (I think). In-N-Out has some "special" items they don't show on their normal menu -- I could remove these or put them in a separate section of the table.
Probably a better solution is to prepare your order in advance on the iPhone -- then place the order with the Watch when at take-out.
There's lots of possible permutations -- each person in the office (or family) has favorites -- and we do ... Why not select favorites on the iPhone, then order from the Watch ...
Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting ...
You want to use, say, 100 small, watch-face-size furnaces and long ingot-growing processes -- to replace a single large furnace/ingot-growing process.
There is so much wrong with that suggestion, that I don't know where to begin.
But let's try this:
Any ingot has unusable space around its periphery (it's an imperfect process). Lets say, to get wafers with a high-yield of 2" diameter round surfaces, you need to grow 2.5-3" diameter ingots. *
What you suggest would be more expensive with less yield than cutting multiple, abutting circles from a large wafer.
* I haven't been in a clean room for years, but I suspect that the Ingot manufacturers have developed the least expensive, practical method for doing their job.
you have a false assumption that rectangular is for video. how many decades did we have rectangular computer displays before putting any video on them? textual CRTs were not round.
photos will not be a primary use case on the watch. I get the feeling you've never seen one or used one, but it doesn't lend itself to photos.
I'm happy to concede this if it's true, but lets look at the facts -- Apple machines a block of metal into any shape they want. Wouldn't square corners be a lot easier to manufacture than the rounded ones? Considering virtually every product Apple sells begins like as a block of aluminum on a lathe, I'd venture to say it doesn't matter if the computer carves out a round or square shape, especially since they recycle all of that metal anyway.
I was thinking about the guts as well as the case. Chips are usually rectangular as are screens, board level electrical sockets and batteries, making a rectangular shape much more efficient for the layout of the circuitry. In addition, for their concept of being able to quickly swap out the bands, the case having straight sides greatly facilitates that process. Furthermore, the design of having the digital crown and a the elongated button on the same side of the watch pretty much necessitates a flat side.
You have to look at the entire design and consider all the complications that would be introduced with a round design, which in itself offers no particular advantages.
My apologies.
Since the thread was on watches, I assumed that's what you were generalizing wrt watches as well.
I was responding to the argument that round is somehow an inherently more logical shape for timepieces.
I was responding to the argument that round is somehow an inherently more logical shape for timepieces.
I have only argued that for the mechanism and manufacturing methods available for watches historically, round would have been a logical shape for production, and it was.
There really aren't many constraints at all for building digital or mechanical watches today and of a wide variety of materials.
Apple chose the UI and the screen format after due diligence. The market would love to see Apple disrupted if they chose incorrectly. I find that unlikely to happen.
You have to look at the entire design and consider all the complications that would be introduced with a round design, which in itself offers no particular advantages.
Gotcha, and while all that is infinitely practical and makes for a perfectly logical reason for them to stick to a rectangular design for an unproven product, at the end of the day, is Apple making just a smart watch? Or are they making fashion statement? The additional cost necessary to create an elegant round wrist device is no more complex than what Swiss watchmakers have been doing for years, often with equal or greater precision than Apple's standards. Surely if Apple wanted to make a round watch, the additional expense would not be a concern -- these are the people who custom built an aquarium to photograph jellyfish at 8K to be shrunk down to 300 pixels.
As for whether round offers any particular advantages over square, well that debate continues. I did another mockup of one of Apple's apps -- the camera remote which is sure to get a lot of use on the watch. Note that on the rectangular model, in order to get a reasonably sized image to line up your shot, they have to crop the sides of the image, so you don't know whether everything is in frame or not. However, on a round watch, the full frame can be displayed even larger than the cropped one on the rectangular screen. And the control buttons that take up space from the rectangular screen, are moved outward on the round screen allowing the primary focus to be larger. This goes for text too. So for me, that's a compelling reason to have a round watch face over a rectangular.
Unlike my earlier examples, I didn't use a frame border around the display area, since one is not necessary. The only reason the ?Watch has a frame border is because Jony Ive decided it should be that way, the display could have easily gone all the way to the edge, but the rounded corners presented a dilemma for him in presenting photos. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
The current In-N-Out menu is 22 items -- Fine on the iPhone, but a bit much for the Watch (I think). In-N-Out has some "special" items they don't show on their normal menu -- I could remove these or put them in a separate section of the table.
Probably a better solution is to prepare your order in advance on the iPhone -- then place the order with the Watch when at take-out.
And that's what I think. Anything that has significant lists or options requiring a person to scroll through is going to be much easier to accomplish by pulling the iPhone out. I'm guessing after people really start using it, that the most effective watch screens will adapt more to this concept for quickly selecting something from a list.
I'll freely admit I'm in over my head here and do not completely follow you. I'll need to do some self-educating before further commentary. Thanks for bearing with me.
Gotcha, and while all that is infinitely practical and makes for a perfectly logical reason for them to stick to a rectangular design for an unproven product, at the end of the day, is Apple making just a smart watch? Or are they making fashion statement?
Well I think the strongest argument for the rectangle is that it is supposed to match the look and feel of the iPhone which it is paired with. I believe the ?Watch has infinitely more in common with the other members of the iOS ecosystem than it does with legacy wristwatches.