The rotating bezel sounds like one of those things the tech press will drool over but in real life will be a pain in the ass to use. With the digital crown I can rest one hand on the other and scroll with my finger without covering the screen at all.
In the graphic above, it doesn't look as if it would cover the screen!
And accessing the bezel is definitely easier than accessing the crown.
The issue I see is that the rotating bezel locks the design to a round face. The round face is attractive at first blush, but then I'm highly reminded of the old pre-smartwatch wearables where the ?watch is a fresh face in the crowd. Apple's UI has the advantage of working well with any shaped device; round, square, or rectangle. Advantage: Apple
The 42nm can already get 2 days easy even in normal usage, 3-4 days in light usage (that's about the size of that watch's battery. So, it is unlikely to be 14nm.
BTW, this watch looks CHEAP.
The 42mm Apple Watch 2 days easy with normal usage?.. I use it everyday, and generally have 30-40% battery lef by bed time, and I'm not working out. Never could get 2 days easy...
Apple went for a rotating crown rather than a bezel, because they chose to go with a square format rather than a circular one where a rotating bezel is a natural thing to incorporate. Personally I prefer a circular format, its more like a real watch (even though there are square/rectangular ones too, Cartier's famous tank watch comes to mind) and is more interesting visually for a tech device. Also I think if from day one you design a smartwatch and its functionality and apps around a circular display, it can work as well as a square one. I think it was a missed opportunity by Apple going for a plain-Jane square/rectangular smartwatch format rather than a circular one. Because if in the future they do release a circular Apple Watch they'll be considered to be just following the herd.
The 42mm Apple Watch 2 days easy with normal usage?.. I use it everyday, and generally have 30-40% battery lef by bed time, and I'm not working out. Never could get 2 days easy...
Plenty finish the day at 50-60% (including 2 of my friends), which would take you till the end of the second day.
So, you're usage is higher than them. Myself, waiting to buy the new Iphone before going for the watch.
But, really, even you, putting on the charger for 20-30 minutes (while showering?) would get you to the end of the second day.
Apple went for a rotating crown rather than a bezel, because they chose to go with a square format rather than a circular one where a rotating bezel is a natural thing to incorporate. Personally I prefer a circular format, its more like a real watch (even though there are square/rectangular ones too, Cartier's famous tank watch comes to mind) and is more interesting visually for a tech device. Also I think if from day one you design a smartwatch and its functionality and apps around a circular display, it can work as well as a square one. I think it was a missed opportunity by Apple going for a plain-Jane square/rectangular smartwatch format rather than a circular one. Because if in the future they do release a circular Apple Watch they'll be considered to be just following the herd.
It's not a "plane jane" rectangle... It looks nothing like other rectangular smart watches, it looks like a polished rectangle stone, while other round ones look like industrial steam punk retro crap.
Considering those puke watches have sold near zero and all look like hell in person; I think Apple will "live" with their choice and prosper with it.
By the time they do a round one, they'd will have sold 100M of the "plane jane" (sic) watch and made 90% of the profit and won't care what you, or their feeble "competition" think about them.
But I'd like to see it from the side, on a wrist. It doesn't say if it is waterproof. Does it have a touchscreen?
I don't like the mimicking of a mechanical watch so much. I think it wants to be something it is not, whereas Apple decided that the smartwatch should look different from a regular mechanical watch.
Its better that you hold judgement until you actually use it. Or else it makes you look like a Troll.
Hm! You did not read the conversation between Rogifan and me but picked up only this singular post. This short answer to him had a context. Only in context, you could understand what I was talking about. Just a hint: read also that part about my analog watch with a bezel!
I don't think he's used the Apple Watch either. The Apple Watch digital crown moves very easily, unlike the crown on some watches. I have a crown and rotating bezel on my traditional "aviator" watch: both are stiff to turn. The bezel is also a slide rule. Funny thing is, with "Hey Siri" enabled, it's easier to (hands free) ask Siri to do whatever math you would normally use the slide rule for, including logarithms. You can also simply ask Siri for the current time in whatever major city. What do I need a rotating bezel for?
Please read first the entire conversation between me and Rogifan. Then you will understand the context of my post and that I was saying that based on my own experience with my analog watch accessing the bezel was easier than accessing the crown.
And yet, rotating bezel watches have been around for years without any such issues. In fact, I can rest my right hand on top of my left hand and comfortably turn the bezel without ever covering the display too. And it works on either hand without having to change the design orientation of the watch. Too bad a left-hander who wants to wear the ?Watch the way it was designed to be worn, with the digital crown at the top right, won't be able to do that without covering the screen.
Wow. You had to really stretch to find something negative to say about the Apple watch this time. Of course left handed users of the Apple watch can comfortably access the digital crown without covering the screen. For a left-handed user, the crown is towards the bottom of the device as opposed to the right handed user accessing it about 0.4" higher. LOL! Why do you say that it's "too bad" for something which really is a non-issue? And what makes you so sure that the watch was designed for a right- handed user? Perhaps it was designed with lefties in mind and it is we right-handed users who are so unfortunate as to have to raise our thumbs a fraction of an inch further up the side of the device. Here's a thought...for the next month, why don't you leave all negativity about Apple, about Google - about anything at all out of your posts and just share your positive thoughts?
It depends on the watch. But still: the bezel is on the top and easier to access.
That may be completely true on your analog watch - but the way the crown is positioned on the Apple watch, the size of the crown and the ease with which it rotates all combine to make a very easy to use control far easier than rotating the bezel would be (especially since it's square! /s)
You're comparing oranges to bananas and because of that, the facts you present are wrong and your conclusions are flawed.
Apple went for a rotating crown rather than a bezel, because they chose to go with a square format rather than a circular one where a rotating bezel is a natural thing to incorporate. Personally I prefer a circular format, its more like a real watch (even though there are square/rectangular ones too, Cartier's famous tank watch comes to mind) and is more interesting visually for a tech device. Also I think if from day one you design a smartwatch and its functionality and apps around a circular display, it can work as well as a square one. I think it was a missed opportunity by Apple going for a plain-Jane square/rectangular smartwatch format rather than a circular one. Because if in the future they do release a circular Apple Watch they'll be considered to be just following the herd.
Funny that you use the term "real watch" when you should have said "traditional watch". Round is obviously your personal preference but round has been antiquated ever since digital clocks were invented. Apple may very well introduce a round version in the future - for the traditionalists and fashionists - and they'll probably do a great job on the interface and display of data - but it won't be able to present as much information in an easy to read format as compared to the square design. In my opinion a round watch is a waste of wrist real estate - and I'm less concerned about holding on to an antiquated tradition and more concerned with content being presented in an efficient and traditional format for the display of text (square or rectangular). When is the last time you wrote a letter, a blog post or a business proposal on a pad of round paper? When is the last time you bought round envelopes for sending a letter? When is the last time you handed out round business cards? There is no good *FUNCTIONAL* reason to create a round *digital* watch. The only reason to do so is because "some" people find it more fashionable - and although there are a lot of those people - I think they are a minority.
That may be completely true on your analog watch - but the way the crown is positioned on the Apple watch, the size of the crown and the ease with which it rotates all combine to make a very easy to use control far easier than rotating the bezel would be (especially since it's square! /s)
You're comparing oranges to bananas and because of that, the facts you present are wrong and your conclusions are flawed.
Somehow I don't get you guys! You don't really read the posts, do you?
A summary:
- Rogifan assumed rotating bezel would cover the screen when beig used.
- I challenged this and argued that (physical) access to the bezel is easier becuse it is on the top.
- He asked how I could know this
- I told him that I have both on my analog watch (remark for you: (physical) access has nothing to do with digital or analog watches)
- He told that he had no issues with the crown so far.
- And I answered exactly this:
Quote:
I did not say that the crown is bad. And I'm not telling that you have any issues with it. I just commented your origin post which claimed the rotating bezel would be less good than the crown.
That is all. Happy to hear you are happy with your watch. Just enjoy it!
So, please enlighten me by pointing to my wrong facts and to my flawed conclusions.
I don't think he's used the Apple Watch either. The Apple Watch digital crown moves very easily, unlike the crown on some watches. I have a crown and rotating bezel on my traditional "aviator" watch: both are stiff to turn. The bezel is also a slide rule. Funny thing is, with "Hey Siri" enabled, it's easier to (hands free) ask Siri to do whatever math you would normally use the slide rule for, including logarithms. You can also simply ask Siri for the current time in whatever major city. What do I need a rotating bezel for?
I can't get Hey Siri to work on my Watch. I'll ask Siri something and it just sits there doing nothing. If I long press the digital crown it works.
And yet, rotating bezel watches have been around for years without any such issues. In fact, I can rest my right hand on top of my left hand and comfortably turn the bezel without ever covering the display too. And it works on either hand without having to change the design orientation of the watch. Too bad a left-hander who wants to wear the ?Watch the way it was designed to be worn, with the digital crown at the top right, won't be able to do that without covering the screen.
All you have to do is flip the watch UI in settings. You can put the crown on either side you want. Problem solved.
The issue I see is that the rotating bezel locks the design to a round face. The round face is attractive at first blush, but then I'm highly reminded of the old pre-smartwatch wearables where the ?watch is a fresh face in the crowd. Apple's UI has the advantage of working well with any shaped device; round, square, or rectangle. Advantage: Apple
I don't understand why people think this looks good:
There's a reason all the PR shots for these round watches are usually showing off a faux analog display, because showing anything else would make them look like shit.
Let's see how the bezel works in practice. In any case, it's interesting to see how Samsung gets 2-3 days out of a battery about 25% bigger than the one in the 38mm Apple Watch. Are they using a 14nm processor? If so, it suggests Apple will be able to do the same when they switch over to 14nm.
My guess is they are using best case scenario and not real world usage. They would rather over promise and under deliver since it gets their watch more pre-launch attention.
Comments
The rotating bezel sounds like one of those things the tech press will drool over but in real life will be a pain in the ass to use. With the digital crown I can rest one hand on the other and scroll with my finger without covering the screen at all.
In the graphic above, it doesn't look as if it would cover the screen!
And accessing the bezel is definitely easier than accessing the crown.
The issue I see is that the rotating bezel locks the design to a round face. The round face is attractive at first blush, but then I'm highly reminded of the old pre-smartwatch wearables where the ?watch is a fresh face in the crowd. Apple's UI has the advantage of working well with any shaped device; round, square, or rectangle. Advantage: Apple
The 42mm Apple Watch 2 days easy with normal usage?.. I use it everyday, and generally have 30-40% battery lef by bed time, and I'm not working out. Never could get 2 days easy...
Apple went for a rotating crown rather than a bezel, because they chose to go with a square format rather than a circular one where a rotating bezel is a natural thing to incorporate. Personally I prefer a circular format, its more like a real watch (even though there are square/rectangular ones too, Cartier's famous tank watch comes to mind) and is more interesting visually for a tech device. Also I think if from day one you design a smartwatch and its functionality and apps around a circular display, it can work as well as a square one. I think it was a missed opportunity by Apple going for a plain-Jane square/rectangular smartwatch format rather than a circular one. Because if in the future they do release a circular Apple Watch they'll be considered to be just following the herd.
The 42mm Apple Watch 2 days easy with normal usage?.. I use it everyday, and generally have 30-40% battery lef by bed time, and I'm not working out. Never could get 2 days easy...
Plenty finish the day at 50-60% (including 2 of my friends), which would take you till the end of the second day.
So, you're usage is higher than them. Myself, waiting to buy the new Iphone before going for the watch.
But, really, even you, putting on the charger for 20-30 minutes (while showering?) would get you to the end of the second day.
Apple went for a rotating crown rather than a bezel, because they chose to go with a square format rather than a circular one where a rotating bezel is a natural thing to incorporate. Personally I prefer a circular format, its more like a real watch (even though there are square/rectangular ones too, Cartier's famous tank watch comes to mind) and is more interesting visually for a tech device. Also I think if from day one you design a smartwatch and its functionality and apps around a circular display, it can work as well as a square one. I think it was a missed opportunity by Apple going for a plain-Jane square/rectangular smartwatch format rather than a circular one. Because if in the future they do release a circular Apple Watch they'll be considered to be just following the herd.
It's not a "plane jane" rectangle... It looks nothing like other rectangular smart watches, it looks like a polished rectangle stone, while other round ones look like industrial steam punk retro crap.
Considering those puke watches have sold near zero and all look like hell in person; I think Apple will "live" with their choice and prosper with it.
By the time they do a round one, they'd will have sold 100M of the "plane jane" (sic) watch and made 90% of the profit and won't care what you, or their feeble "competition" think about them.
It looks interesting.
But I'd like to see it from the side, on a wrist. It doesn't say if it is waterproof. Does it have a touchscreen?
I don't like the mimicking of a mechanical watch so much. I think it wants to be something it is not, whereas Apple decided that the smartwatch should look different from a regular mechanical watch.
I prefer this option
So you have the Gear S2 with you?
Its better that you hold judgement until you actually use it. Or else it makes you look like a Troll.
Hm! You did not read the conversation between Rogifan and me but picked up only this singular post. This short answer to him had a context. Only in context, you could understand what I was talking about. Just a hint: read also that part about my analog watch with a bezel!
Guess who is now the Troll?
Go and get a life.
I don't think he's used the Apple Watch either. The Apple Watch digital crown moves very easily, unlike the crown on some watches. I have a crown and rotating bezel on my traditional "aviator" watch: both are stiff to turn. The bezel is also a slide rule. Funny thing is, with "Hey Siri" enabled, it's easier to (hands free) ask Siri to do whatever math you would normally use the slide rule for, including logarithms. You can also simply ask Siri for the current time in whatever major city. What do I need a rotating bezel for?
Please read first the entire conversation between me and Rogifan. Then you will understand the context of my post and that I was saying that based on my own experience with my analog watch accessing the bezel was easier than accessing the crown.
And you will see that sog35 was just trolling.
You're comparing oranges to bananas and because of that, the facts you present are wrong and your conclusions are flawed.
And will they be calling it "Force Press" or "Deep Touch"?
That may be completely true on your analog watch - but the way the crown is positioned on the Apple watch, the size of the crown and the ease with which it rotates all combine to make a very easy to use control far easier than rotating the bezel would be (especially since it's square! /s)
You're comparing oranges to bananas and because of that, the facts you present are wrong and your conclusions are flawed.
Somehow I don't get you guys! You don't really read the posts, do you?
A summary:
- Rogifan assumed rotating bezel would cover the screen when beig used.
- I challenged this and argued that (physical) access to the bezel is easier becuse it is on the top.
- He asked how I could know this
- I told him that I have both on my analog watch (remark for you: (physical) access has nothing to do with digital or analog watches)
- He told that he had no issues with the crown so far.
- And I answered exactly this:
I did not say that the crown is bad. And I'm not telling that you have any issues with it. I just commented your origin post which claimed the rotating bezel would be less good than the crown.
That is all. Happy to hear you are happy with your watch. Just enjoy it!
So, please enlighten me by pointing to my wrong facts and to my flawed conclusions.
Nobody referring to the ability to make a call?
I can't get Hey Siri to work on my Watch. I'll ask Siri something and it just sits there doing nothing. If I long press the digital crown it works.
All you have to do is flip the watch UI in settings. You can put the crown on either side you want. Problem solved.
You have to say 'Hey Siri' and give the watch a few seconds to launch Siri before giving your request.
I don't understand why people think this looks good:
There's a reason all the PR shots for these round watches are usually showing off a faux analog display, because showing anything else would make them look like shit.
My guess is they are using best case scenario and not real world usage. They would rather over promise and under deliver since it gets their watch more pre-launch attention.