Of course it doesn't. People have demonstrated that with various mock ups. If display size is so important why would Apple even offer a 38mm watch? Isn't a smaller screen harder to see? Some people think 38mm is too large for their wrists, does that mean Apple won't offer an even smaller screen to address that group because it will be harder to read? This also presumes there's no other way to present information than Apple currently has chosen. When Apple decides to do a round watch their solution will be just as intuitive. Apple said they wouldn't do a 5.5" iPhone because among other things, it couldn't be used with one hand. But then they introduced one with the reach feature to mitigate that particular problem.
All you're proposing is a problem in search of a solution.
I personally don't see a round smart watch as a good option because as you know is a circle. It is only capable displaying full info on the center, top and bottom narrow and you are basically wasting room. You just can't fit the same amount of info afficiently on a round watch. That is why everything that displays information is rectangular, it just works.
I personally don't see a round smart watch as a good option because as you know is a circle. It is only capable displaying full info on the center, top and bottom narrow and you are basically wasting room. You just can't fit the same amount of info afficiently on a round watch. That is why everything that displays information is rectangular, it just works.
Well you've obviously made up your mind as to what is possible so hopefully you won't have to be burdened with the knowledge Apple makes one.
In another note, looks like Samsung may have bitten more than what they can chew. It looks like they "can't produce curve screens fast enough" ????. They so want to be apple.
Of course it doesn't. People have demonstrated that with various mock ups. If display size is so important why would Apple even offer a 38mm watch? Isn't a smaller screen harder to see? Some people think 38mm is too large for their wrists, does that mean Apple won't offer an even smaller screen to address that group because it will be harder to read? This also presumes there's no other way to present information than Apple currently has chosen. When Apple decides to do a round watch their solution will be just as intuitive. Apple said they wouldn't do a 5.5" iPhone because among other things, it couldn't be used with one hand. But then they introduced one with the reach feature to mitigate that particular problem.
No, but you actually proved yourself wrong with your own example without realizing what you've done.
The large-screen iPhone isn't the ideal shape for a mobile phone, but it's ideal for what smartphones have become: pocket tablets. Mobile phones before the iPhone were "flip" phones that folded in half, or sliders, that would extend a small form factor. Mobile phones were getting smaller and smaller. (A joke in the 2001 movie Zoolander had the main character with a tiny flip phone that could only be held between two fingers). Now they're just getting bigger and bigger because they're used like pocket tablets with a phone function. The phone is a lesser, secondary function.
Similarly, smartwatches will become a wrist-worn screen with watch functions. The watch function, even if analog in style, won't be what drives the evolution of smartwatches. The display of analog time will just be a lesser, secondary function. So taking the long view, Apple got the design right.
The facts are there in the form of actual products which may be compared side by side.
How can you compare Apple's current solution for a square against their possible solution for a circle factually unless a prototype of a round ?Watch exists with which to compare it?
Unless you are saying that you are comparing Apple's square watch against the round offerings from Motorola, Samsung, et al? In which case, since when have these companies ever come up with a solution that even holds water compared to Apple?
Similarly, smartwatches will become a wrist-worn screen with watch functions. The watch function, even if analog in style, won't be what drives the evolution of smartwatches. The display of analog time will just be a lesser, secondary function. So taking the long view, Apple got the design right.
Your vision of the future is different from mine. I see it more like the statements Ive has made -- 'watches are intended for glances', 'people expect choice the minute they wear something'. I see the watch liberating people from their phones, by ignoring messages they would have otherwise viewed on the iPhones. Anyone who wants to read the full text of something, much less reply, are going to pull their phones out anyway, it's much easier to read than squinting at a tiny square on your wrist. So to that end I'm guessing Apple will take the fashion aspect of the watch seriously regardless of any potential trade-offs, to accommodate the fashion minded customers they've worked so hard to attract, and that the watch will be used like Ive suggested, for quick bits of information -- not for reading lengthy e-mails, books and other tomes -- something the circle is readily able to accommodate.
By the way, I don't agree that the overall trend is toward pocket tablets with a phone function. We have no idea how many iPhone 6 Pluses Apple is actually selling compared to the 4.7" 6. Nor if they had not changed from a 4" display -- would the people who now have 6 bought the Plus instead? Either way, Apple stated that a 3.5" phone was the perfect size -- that hasn't changed. It absolutely is for one-handed use. But Apple catered to what the market wanted and gave them larger phones, and they've kludged that "reach" feature onto it to reinforce their one-handed philosophy. You say the watch is no different because people won't use it just for telling time. Which is true, because the thing consumers wanted -- a larger phone to use more like a tablet does not work with Apple's ergonomic vision of a pocket computer, yet they did it anyway. So add to that the watch is an admitted fashion item. Nobody wears an iPhone (except perhaps at the gym). Therefore fashion can't simply be dismissed as a consideration for customers. Will Apple cater to this expectation from consumers like they did for larger iPhones, even though it undermines a central design consideration? Maybe. Maybe not. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it, any more than developing a 5.5" iPhone that goes against their previously stated design principles.
Well you've obviously made up your mind as to what is possible so hopefully you won't have to be burdened with the knowledge Apple makes one.
I am fine with them making a round watch. If they do it will sell. I'll just stick to the rectangular because I like how rectangular displays work. Like I said, it is just my personal preference
I am fine with them making a round watch. If they do it will sell. I'll just stick to the rectangular because I like how rectangular displays work. Like I said, it is just my personal preference
Good god the Moto 360 is ugly. Why does the band attach at the base? Why would you do that? Why is it just a circle with a lump in it? Had they ever actually SEEN a watch or did they just ask a drunk person to describe one over the phone?
In a promo video it looked like a hockey puck strapped to the PR woman's wrist. I've heard with the 2nd version they discovered the lugs that give a regular watch a more hexagonal look, and they are also working on a smaller version. The challenge facing everyone is how to ensure decent battery life in a smaller device. Apple was smart to introduce a size and multiple styles that could appeal to women.
Because buying something because it's expensive is much better?
At least the poster can actually comment on how good or bad it is rather than relying on a preconceived viewpoint.
The point is that the race to the bottom affects quality. Granted, Apple's margins are very high, and a company could be successful with lower margins, but the rest of the industry seems to take it to the opposite extreme. The poster who you replied to essentially got the Moto 360 for $79. A cheap Fossil or Swatch cost that much.
I went ahead and bit the bullet. Best Buy is currently running a promo where you buy a Moto 360 with any Android phone and you get $100 off. This is in addition to the $179 sales price.
So I picked up a silver Moto 360 with brown leather band for $179.99 and an el cheapo prepaid ZTE Zinger Android smartphone for $39.99. Total came to $119.98 after $100 instant discount. Gonna throw the damn ZTE Zinger on eBay and I'll have a brand new Moto 360 to play around with for less than $100 out of pocket.
That's my kind of deal! :) And if the Android Wear iOS companion app actually comes out, SCORE!
The point is that the race to the bottom affects quality. Granted, Apple's margins are very high, and a company could be successful with lower margins, but the rest of the industry seems to take it to the opposite extreme. The poster who you replied to essentially got the Moto 360 for $79. A cheap Fossil or Swatch cost that much.
At that price, I wonder if the store even makes a profit (loss leader?), let alone the manufacturer?
I tried on the watch today at lunchtime. My expectations were high, but I was stunned at how beautiful the watches are in person. The feel is pretty amazing. I can’t wait (.. but I will apparently be waiting until June)!
I bought the Motorola 360 with a T-Mobile prepaid ZTE phone. It was funny because the sales associate was kind of a douche about the whole thing claiming that the $100 deal off was bundling and hence was only valid for Android phones that were $129 and up. I actually had to convince him that any phone goes and he wouldn't have any of that at least in the beginning saying that the language on the ad is a little bit sketchy. Especially this part here "Best Buy may require an existing line of service to receive a new 2-year plan" which seems to nullify pre-paid devices. In the end though I prevailed. All in all, day two and I am really happy with my Moto 360 watch I can't wait for the ability to pair with my iPhone 6. And by the way round watches are way cooler than rectangle ones IMO (yes, I have tried the Apple Watch and I don't like it).
Comments
I'm proposing nothing. The facts are there in the form of actual products which may be compared side by side.
Really, Apple has a prototype round ?Watch to compare to the square one?
What?
I personally don't see a round smart watch as a good option because as you know is a circle. It is only capable displaying full info on the center, top and bottom narrow and you are basically wasting room. You just can't fit the same amount of info afficiently on a round watch. That is why everything that displays information is rectangular, it just works.
I personally don't see a round smart watch as a good option because as you know is a circle. It is only capable displaying full info on the center, top and bottom narrow and you are basically wasting room. You just can't fit the same amount of info afficiently on a round watch. That is why everything that displays information is rectangular, it just works.
Well you've obviously made up your mind as to what is possible so hopefully you won't have to be burdened with the knowledge Apple makes one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2015/04/09/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-supply/
Of course it doesn't. People have demonstrated that with various mock ups. If display size is so important why would Apple even offer a 38mm watch? Isn't a smaller screen harder to see? Some people think 38mm is too large for their wrists, does that mean Apple won't offer an even smaller screen to address that group because it will be harder to read? This also presumes there's no other way to present information than Apple currently has chosen. When Apple decides to do a round watch their solution will be just as intuitive. Apple said they wouldn't do a 5.5" iPhone because among other things, it couldn't be used with one hand. But then they introduced one with the reach feature to mitigate that particular problem.
No, but you actually proved yourself wrong with your own example without realizing what you've done.
The large-screen iPhone isn't the ideal shape for a mobile phone, but it's ideal for what smartphones have become: pocket tablets. Mobile phones before the iPhone were "flip" phones that folded in half, or sliders, that would extend a small form factor. Mobile phones were getting smaller and smaller. (A joke in the 2001 movie Zoolander had the main character with a tiny flip phone that could only be held between two fingers). Now they're just getting bigger and bigger because they're used like pocket tablets with a phone function. The phone is a lesser, secondary function.
Similarly, smartwatches will become a wrist-worn screen with watch functions. The watch function, even if analog in style, won't be what drives the evolution of smartwatches. The display of analog time will just be a lesser, secondary function. So taking the long view, Apple got the design right.
What?
You wrote:
How can you compare Apple's current solution for a square against their possible solution for a circle factually unless a prototype of a round ?Watch exists with which to compare it?
Unless you are saying that you are comparing Apple's square watch against the round offerings from Motorola, Samsung, et al? In which case, since when have these companies ever come up with a solution that even holds water compared to Apple?
Similarly, smartwatches will become a wrist-worn screen with watch functions. The watch function, even if analog in style, won't be what drives the evolution of smartwatches. The display of analog time will just be a lesser, secondary function. So taking the long view, Apple got the design right.
Your vision of the future is different from mine. I see it more like the statements Ive has made -- 'watches are intended for glances', 'people expect choice the minute they wear something'. I see the watch liberating people from their phones, by ignoring messages they would have otherwise viewed on the iPhones. Anyone who wants to read the full text of something, much less reply, are going to pull their phones out anyway, it's much easier to read than squinting at a tiny square on your wrist. So to that end I'm guessing Apple will take the fashion aspect of the watch seriously regardless of any potential trade-offs, to accommodate the fashion minded customers they've worked so hard to attract, and that the watch will be used like Ive suggested, for quick bits of information -- not for reading lengthy e-mails, books and other tomes -- something the circle is readily able to accommodate.
I am fine with them making a round watch. If they do it will sell. I'll just stick to the rectangular because I like how rectangular displays work. Like I said, it is just my personal preference
I am fine with them making a round watch. If they do it will sell. I'll just stick to the rectangular because I like how rectangular displays work. Like I said, it is just my personal preference
In that case we're in total agreement. ;-)
Lol. Very well then! ????
Good god the Moto 360 is ugly. Why does the band attach at the base? Why would you do that? Why is it just a circle with a lump in it? Had they ever actually SEEN a watch or did they just ask a drunk person to describe one over the phone?
In a promo video it looked like a hockey puck strapped to the PR woman's wrist. I've heard with the 2nd version they discovered the lugs that give a regular watch a more hexagonal look, and they are also working on a smaller version. The challenge facing everyone is how to ensure decent battery life in a smaller device. Apple was smart to introduce a size and multiple styles that could appeal to women.
Because buying something because it's expensive is much better?
At least the poster can actually comment on how good or bad it is rather than relying on a preconceived viewpoint.
The point is that the race to the bottom affects quality. Granted, Apple's margins are very high, and a company could be successful with lower margins, but the rest of the industry seems to take it to the opposite extreme. The poster who you replied to essentially got the Moto 360 for $79. A cheap Fossil or Swatch cost that much.
Lol score.
The point is that the race to the bottom affects quality. Granted, Apple's margins are very high, and a company could be successful with lower margins, but the rest of the industry seems to take it to the opposite extreme. The poster who you replied to essentially got the Moto 360 for $79. A cheap Fossil or Swatch cost that much.
At that price, I wonder if the store even makes a profit (loss leader?), let alone the manufacturer?
Best Buy deal is amazing indeed. My many thanks to Mazda 3s
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/computing-promotions/moto-360-offer/pcmcat372700050004.c?id=pcmcat372700050004
I bought the Motorola 360 with a T-Mobile prepaid ZTE phone. It was funny because the sales associate was kind of a douche about the whole thing claiming that the $100 deal off was bundling and hence was only valid for Android phones that were $129 and up. I actually had to convince him that any phone goes and he wouldn't have any of that at least in the beginning saying that the language on the ad is a little bit sketchy. Especially this part here "Best Buy may require an existing line of service to receive a new 2-year plan" which seems to nullify pre-paid devices. In the end though I prevailed. All in all, day two and I am really happy with my Moto 360 watch I can't wait for the ability to pair with my iPhone 6. And by the way round watches are way cooler than rectangle ones IMO (yes, I have tried the Apple Watch and I don't like it).
Them's fighting words around these parts. ;-)
Haha. Nicely said ????