I appreciate your arguments in favor of fashion. Apple has clearly made this a priority in both designing and marketing the watch, as evidenced by their actions and statements, particularly those of Jony Ive himself.
But the assertion that the square display has the advantage in a direct comparison doesn't work due to Apple's significant border frame-bezel.
The only comparison that matters is a direct direct one, being the size of an ?Watch display as compared to the area it would fill in a circular display, since the actual pixels have nothing to do with what the user ultimately sees. And the current 42mm display (30.42mm x 24.32mm) easily fits inside a Huwei-styled watch with the same 42mm height. The 38mm display (26.52mm x 21.22mm) fits into it with room to spare!
So in a direct comparison, the round watch has more area to display information without sacrificing anything from the Apple display. The only argument here, is one of UI design. Obviously having empty semicircles around a text box isn't the most aesthetic, or practical design, but that's software. The hardware is otherwise comparable to the same dimensions the ?Watch currently occupies on the wrist. That is not to say that any of the current Moto, Android, Samsung, et al, watches achieve the same ergonomic design aesthetic as the ?Watch, but the failures of others to conceive of as elegant a design should have no bearing on whether a comparable round watch is possible. Certainly Apple has built a reputation on delivering where others fail.
I did imagine circumscribing a circle about the actual screen (sans bezels) of my 42mm ? Watch, which would be like the larger Huwei you showed above. It seems to me that it would result in a very large device on the wrist. Have you seen any picture of someone wearing that thing?
Above, I expressed the desire for elegance to be a factor in selecting a watch as the motivation behind people not wanting to "wear" something that looks like a computing device. The same thing could be said for why they don't want to wear a very large watch. My hunch is that your concept of basically circumscribing a round screen about the currently usable ? Watch rectangular area would result in a watch that crosses that size divide between fashionable and obnoxious.
Now just look at your ? Watch, if you have one. Definitely a computer device look, in spite of Jony's best efforts to subdue that. Of course, some of that will be mitigated if and when the watch face screen can be made to perpetually stay on without taking the battery life below a day. It would also need some new elegant faces such as on those Cartier Tanks you showed. (Not saying copy... just giving an example.)
So you are right, all by itself the rectangular shape doesn't dictate that the ? Watch must look like a computer device. But it undeniably does look that way now. From my own personal preference, wearing a round ? Watch would feel less like that. (I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.) The Cartiers you showed prove that rectangular watches are feasible and may even have more room for complications than round watches (assuming the same horizontal footprint on the wrist). And yet, round mechanical watches are far more popular. Even on the Cartier web site that you linked to there are about 2.5 - 3 times as many round models as rectangular. Many watch makers don't even bother with a rectangular format.
The bottom line is that circles are more elegant than rectangles, generally speaking. The shape of the new Mac Pro kicks butt for that reason and so will the new Apple campus.
Now just look at your ? Watch, if you have one. Definitely a computer device look, in spite of Jony's best efforts to subdue that. Of course, some of that will be mitigated if and when the watch face screen can be made to perpetually stay on without taking the battery life below a day. It would also need some new elegant faces such as on those Cartier Tanks you showed. (Not saying copy... just giving an example.)
So you are right, all by itself the rectangular shape doesn't dictate that the ? Watch must look like a computer device. But it undeniably does look that way now. From my own personal preference, wearing a round ? Watch would feel less like that. (I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.) The Cartiers you showed prove that rectangular watches are feasible and may even have more room for complications than round watches (assuming the same horizontal footprint on the wrist). And yet, round mechanical watches are far more popular. Even on the Cartier web site that you linked to there are about 2.5 - 3 times as many round models as rectangular. Many watch makers don't even bother with a rectangular format.
The bottom line is that circles are more elegant than rectangles, generally speaking. The shape of the new Mac Pro kicks butt for that reason and so will the new Apple campus.
Hands go around in a circle so a circular watch face has symmetry for that circular motion, but my Apple Watch when "off" just looks like a dark faced wristwatch and when "on" the information display I'm using doesn't involve any "hands" whatsoever, so the rectangular space is well suited to the text and number. The Mac Pro doesn't HAVE an information display function so it's shape is determined and judged by other criteria.
I've seen some rather butt ugly round watches btw: including the ones featured above...
I did imagine circumscribing a circle about the actual screen (sans bezels) of my 42mm ? Watch, which would be like the larger Huwei you showed above. It seems to me that it would result in a very large device on the wrist. Have you seen any picture of someone wearing that thing?
Above, I expressed the desire for elegance to be a factor in selecting a watch as the motivation behind people not wanting to "wear" something that looks like a computing device. The same thing could be said for why they don't want to wear a very large watch. My hunch is that your concept of basically circumscribing a round screen about the currently usable ? Watch rectangular area would result in a watch that crosses that size divide between fashionable and obnoxious.
No that's not right. I've demonstrated with this diagram that a round watch like Huwei is no taller than than the ?Watch currently is. While it is wider, which is what anyone buying a 42mm round watch would find, it's also slimmer around the corners (obviously, since it doesn't have any). Again, my mockup is perfectly scaled to the existing Apple watch using the published dimensions of the Huwei -- 42mm round. So you're assumption that this watch must in any way be bigger than the ?Watch to have the same useable rectangular area, is wrong.
Now whether Huwei or any of the others have executed this concept as well as Apple is debatable. I personally haven't seen a single round smartwatch that looks as good as Apple's, or that I would buy. The new Samsung Gear S2 looks very nice, but I'm not interested in the Tizen OS. But that obviously doesn't mean Apple, or someone else couldn't do it. In fact I'm looking at the traditional watchmakers to give Apple a run for their money in terms of design and build. The software is another matter, and where Apple really excels.
No that's not right. I've demonstrated with this diagram that a round watch like Huwei is no taller than than the ?Watch currently is. While it is wider, which is what anyone buying a 42mm round watch would find, it's also slimmer around the corners (obviously, since it doesn't have any). Again, my mockup is perfectly scaled to the existing Apple watch using the published dimensions of the Huwei -- 42mm round. So you're assumption that this watch must in any way be bigger than the ?Watch to have the same useable rectangular area, is wrong.
Now whether Huwei or any of the others have executed this concept as well as Apple is debatable. I personally haven't seen a single round smartwatch that looks as good as Apple's, or that I would buy. The new Samsung Gear S2 looks very nice, but I'm not interested in the Tizen OS. But that obviously doesn't mean Apple, or someone else couldn't do it. In fact I'm looking at the traditional watchmakers to give Apple a run for their money in terms of design and build. The software is another matter, and where Apple really excels.
How is it possible that you are still arguing about usable area in a circle versus a square? If you take any circle and turn it into a square, while maintaining width and height - the square has more area. End of story!
Sure - you can display the same content if you use a smaller font - but that's another issue entirely.
I get the fact that some people prefer the round shape - but nobody will ever convince me that it's better than a square shape for all of the features and functions that the ultimate smart watch should perform!
So go ahead and tell us you prefer the round shape. Share the reasons why you like it! But don't try to convince us it's better - when it's clearly not!
And even though it's just software, Apple calls them complications, and Rogifan was correct for pointing out that there would be less room for them if the watch face were cropped to the inscribed circle.
Apple's wrong calling it a complication.
Regifan can only think in terms of rounded squares
That size looks ok. The rotation could be more efficient in some cases. I would have expected the home screen and contacts to be on pages and the bezel to switch pages so that you could quickly jump through dozens of apps and contacts. I'm not sure why they didn't go with a touch bezel vs mechanical. Maybe it was just more reliable for input. It looked like it was a bit laggy in places but the UI didn't look badly cropped, the bezel could be operated quite easily, even with one finger. They have a messaging app with a T9 keyboard. 2-3 day battery life. Price seems to be $349-399 ($349 for sport, $399 Classic, I think the cheaper one looks a bit better). This is also Tizen, not Android Wear and they can make it iPhone compatible to an extent but the Apple Watch will always be the only one to support Apple Pay.
It seems like a no brainer comparison - the crown is easily operated by a single finger, while rotating a bezel requires two fingers opposing each other.
Advantage, crown.
if you watch videos of hands you will see people rotating the bezel with only one finger.
<div id="user_content_2771271" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);margin:0px;padding:0px 0px .75em;">
<p style="margin:0px;padding:0px;">if you watch videos of hands you will see people rotating the bezel with only one finger.</p>
I don't think that anybody has said that a round watch is not viable for a smart watch. The argument starts when a proponent of the round shape declares it to be *better* than a square or rectangular shape when it is so clearly not.
I don't think that anybody has said that a round watch is not viable for a smart watch. The argument starts when a proponent of the round shape declares it to be *better* than a square or rectangular shape when it is so clearly not.
I've no doubt at all that for some potential buyers a round smartwatch they think looks good on them (or for some specific occasion) will be better than a square one they don't like the looks of and thus won't use.
With that said which poster was claiming a round version was better overall than a square one? I think you may have invented an argument that wasn't made unless I missed someone's post which is certainly possible.
Comments
I appreciate your arguments in favor of fashion. Apple has clearly made this a priority in both designing and marketing the watch, as evidenced by their actions and statements, particularly those of Jony Ive himself.
But the assertion that the square display has the advantage in a direct comparison doesn't work due to Apple's significant border frame-bezel.
The only comparison that matters is a direct direct one, being the size of an ?Watch display as compared to the area it would fill in a circular display, since the actual pixels have nothing to do with what the user ultimately sees. And the current 42mm display (30.42mm x 24.32mm) easily fits inside a Huwei-styled watch with the same 42mm height. The 38mm display (26.52mm x 21.22mm) fits into it with room to spare!
So in a direct comparison, the round watch has more area to display information without sacrificing anything from the Apple display. The only argument here, is one of UI design. Obviously having empty semicircles around a text box isn't the most aesthetic, or practical design, but that's software. The hardware is otherwise comparable to the same dimensions the ?Watch currently occupies on the wrist. That is not to say that any of the current Moto, Android, Samsung, et al, watches achieve the same ergonomic design aesthetic as the ?Watch, but the failures of others to conceive of as elegant a design should have no bearing on whether a comparable round watch is possible. Certainly Apple has built a reputation on delivering where others fail.
I did imagine circumscribing a circle about the actual screen (sans bezels) of my 42mm ? Watch, which would be like the larger Huwei you showed above. It seems to me that it would result in a very large device on the wrist. Have you seen any picture of someone wearing that thing?
Above, I expressed the desire for elegance to be a factor in selecting a watch as the motivation behind people not wanting to "wear" something that looks like a computing device. The same thing could be said for why they don't want to wear a very large watch. My hunch is that your concept of basically circumscribing a round screen about the currently usable ? Watch rectangular area would result in a watch that crosses that size divide between fashionable and obnoxious.
Rectangular: yet a classic, elegant, analog watch, I give you the Cartier Tank. Not much computer device look that I can detect...
http://www.cartier.us/en-us/collections/watches/mens-watches/tank.html
One model is $51,500 and they don't even GIVE you a face! How rude is that? lol
http://www.cartier.us/en-us/collections/watches/mens-watches/tank/tank-louis-cartier/w5310012-tank-louis-cartier.html
Now just look at your ? Watch, if you have one. Definitely a computer device look, in spite of Jony's best efforts to subdue that. Of course, some of that will be mitigated if and when the watch face screen can be made to perpetually stay on without taking the battery life below a day. It would also need some new elegant faces such as on those Cartier Tanks you showed. (Not saying copy... just giving an example.)
So you are right, all by itself the rectangular shape doesn't dictate that the ? Watch must look like a computer device. But it undeniably does look that way now. From my own personal preference, wearing a round ? Watch would feel less like that. (I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.) The Cartiers you showed prove that rectangular watches are feasible and may even have more room for complications than round watches (assuming the same horizontal footprint on the wrist). And yet, round mechanical watches are far more popular. Even on the Cartier web site that you linked to there are about 2.5 - 3 times as many round models as rectangular. Many watch makers don't even bother with a rectangular format.
The bottom line is that circles are more elegant than rectangles, generally speaking. The shape of the new Mac Pro kicks butt for that reason and so will the new Apple campus.
Now just look at your ? Watch, if you have one. Definitely a computer device look, in spite of Jony's best efforts to subdue that. Of course, some of that will be mitigated if and when the watch face screen can be made to perpetually stay on without taking the battery life below a day. It would also need some new elegant faces such as on those Cartier Tanks you showed. (Not saying copy... just giving an example.)
So you are right, all by itself the rectangular shape doesn't dictate that the ? Watch must look like a computer device. But it undeniably does look that way now. From my own personal preference, wearing a round ? Watch would feel less like that. (I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.) The Cartiers you showed prove that rectangular watches are feasible and may even have more room for complications than round watches (assuming the same horizontal footprint on the wrist). And yet, round mechanical watches are far more popular. Even on the Cartier web site that you linked to there are about 2.5 - 3 times as many round models as rectangular. Many watch makers don't even bother with a rectangular format.
The bottom line is that circles are more elegant than rectangles, generally speaking. The shape of the new Mac Pro kicks butt for that reason and so will the new Apple campus.
Hands go around in a circle so a circular watch face has symmetry for that circular motion, but my Apple Watch when "off" just looks like a dark faced wristwatch and when "on" the information display I'm using doesn't involve any "hands" whatsoever, so the rectangular space is well suited to the text and number. The Mac Pro doesn't HAVE an information display function so it's shape is determined and judged by other criteria.
I've seen some rather butt ugly round watches btw: including the ones featured above...
I did imagine circumscribing a circle about the actual screen (sans bezels) of my 42mm ? Watch, which would be like the larger Huwei you showed above. It seems to me that it would result in a very large device on the wrist. Have you seen any picture of someone wearing that thing?
Above, I expressed the desire for elegance to be a factor in selecting a watch as the motivation behind people not wanting to "wear" something that looks like a computing device. The same thing could be said for why they don't want to wear a very large watch. My hunch is that your concept of basically circumscribing a round screen about the currently usable ? Watch rectangular area would result in a watch that crosses that size divide between fashionable and obnoxious.
No that's not right. I've demonstrated with this diagram that a round watch like Huwei is no taller than than the ?Watch currently is. While it is wider, which is what anyone buying a 42mm round watch would find, it's also slimmer around the corners (obviously, since it doesn't have any). Again, my mockup is perfectly scaled to the existing Apple watch using the published dimensions of the Huwei -- 42mm round. So you're assumption that this watch must in any way be bigger than the ?Watch to have the same useable rectangular area, is wrong.
Now whether Huwei or any of the others have executed this concept as well as Apple is debatable. I personally haven't seen a single round smartwatch that looks as good as Apple's, or that I would buy. The new Samsung Gear S2 looks very nice, but I'm not interested in the Tizen OS. But that obviously doesn't mean Apple, or someone else couldn't do it. In fact I'm looking at the traditional watchmakers to give Apple a run for their money in terms of design and build. The software is another matter, and where Apple really excels.
Sure - you can display the same content if you use a smaller font - but that's another issue entirely.
I get the fact that some people prefer the round shape - but nobody will ever convince me that it's better than a square shape for all of the features and functions that the ultimate smart watch should perform!
So go ahead and tell us you prefer the round shape. Share the reasons why you like it! But don't try to convince us it's better - when it's clearly not!
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/62301/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
And even though it's just software, Apple calls them complications, and Rogifan was correct for pointing out that there would be less room for them if the watch face were cropped to the inscribed circle.
Apple's wrong calling it a complication.
Regifan can only think in terms of rounded squares
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
That size looks ok. The rotation could be more efficient in some cases. I would have expected the home screen and contacts to be on pages and the bezel to switch pages so that you could quickly jump through dozens of apps and contacts. I'm not sure why they didn't go with a touch bezel vs mechanical. Maybe it was just more reliable for input. It looked like it was a bit laggy in places but the UI didn't look badly cropped, the bezel could be operated quite easily, even with one finger. They have a messaging app with a T9 keyboard. 2-3 day battery life. Price seems to be $349-399 ($349 for sport, $399 Classic, I think the cheaper one looks a bit better). This is also Tizen, not Android Wear and they can make it iPhone compatible to an extent but the Apple Watch will always be the only one to support Apple Pay.
if you watch videos of hands you will see people rotating the bezel with only one finger.
It seems like a no brainer comparison - the crown is easily operated by a single finger, while rotating a bezel requires two fingers opposing each other.
Advantage, crown.
if you watch videos of hands you will see people rotating the bezel with only one finger.
With that said which poster was claiming a round version was better overall than a square one? I think you may have invented an argument that wasn't made unless I missed someone's post which is certainly possible.
if you watch videos of hands you will see people rotating the bezel with only one finger.
And it even seems easier to use than the digital crwon. I also like the overall integration of the bezel within the UI.
It is a pity that there is a lack of the e-sim support among European Network Carriers.
Samsung did a great job this time, including the decision to support all Android devices as well as iOS.