Granted, Apple made it as easy for them as possible, but to the extent there is a market for a round ?Watch, just how difficult do you imagine it would be, given that Apple would likely have a "round UI" team working on it, sharing common factors between the two?
My faith in Apple runs a little deeper than yours.
Your comparison is simplistic and inappropriate. The nature of the I.phone interface did not change with several different screen dimensions. A slightly longer rectangle is still rectangular. Going round would indeed require a separate round user experience/interface team, but not merely at Apple. Every app developer would need to support two wholly different approaches the application layout as well. It's just a ludicrous proposition. And yes, I spent 26 years in the software business, as a software designer (most recently co-founder and VP at TimeTrade.com, where I designed the entire suite of software sold by the company. I know a bit of what I speak.
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
Your comparison is simplistic and inappropriate. The nature of the I.phone interface did not change with several different screen dimensions. A slightly longer rectangle is still rectangular. Going round would indeed require a separate round user experience/interface team, but not merely at Apple. Every app developer would need to support two wholly different approaches the application layout as well. It's just a ludicrous proposition. And yes, I spent 26 years in the software business, as a software designer (most recently co-founder and VP at TimeTrade.com, where I designed the entire suite of software sold by the company. I know a bit of what I speak.
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
That's why one of the requirements for wearables will be variety, far more so than on smartphones. This is my main argument. Rather than cracking you up or making you sad, it should beget your agreement, because it is in complete harmony with what you have just written.
Your comparison is simplistic and inappropriate. The nature of the I.phone interface did not change with several different screen dimensions. A slightly longer rectangle is still rectangular. Going round would indeed require a separate round user experience/interface team, but not merely at Apple. Every app developer would need to support two wholly different approaches the application layout as well. It's just a ludicrous proposition. And yes, I spent 26 years in the software business, as a software designer (most recently co-founder and VP at TimeTrade.com, where I designed the entire suite of software sold by the company. I know a bit of what I speak.
So what you're saying is that Apple couldn't support two UIs for two differently shaped products, and developers would reject it if they tried? Funny how Samsung adapts its Tizen OS, and LG adapts Android to work on both square and round watches with no such concerns. Guess they could teach Apple a thing or two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Wow it just sounds like an impossible task, well beyond anything Apple would attempt to do.
Apple could make it not clownish and cheap, because they have taste, take their time to get it right, and are not Samsung. An ? Watch must be fashionable as well as functional, and variety is part of fashion. Thousands of straps notwithstanding, there currently isn't enough variety in the watches themselves to answer the call of fashion. You apparently will never grok this.
Not sure you should be using the word Grok. It's... it's just not a good word for you. Not yet.
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
That's why one of the requirements for wearables will be variety, far more so than on smartphones. This is my main argument. Rather than cracking you up or making you sad, it should beget your agreement, because it is in complete harmony with what you have just written.
Well I will capitulate that the first line in my post was perhaps a wee little bit hyperbolic.
Dude stop comparing something with zero bezel to something with a bezel.
lets get down to basics.
Below is an image of a round shape and rectangle shape. Both would be able to display text of the same dimensions.
Notice how much BIGGER the round shape is?
Dude, that's your agenda, and I already understand and agree with it. What you don't understand is that this does not prove that there can't be a way to make a round ? Watch that is: (1) viable, (2) as good as what we have today (which apparently is good enough for millions) and (3) provides some more choices for the masses. It does not matter that the future there might also be a rectangular ? Watch with even a larger usable rectangular area. We can have a round one that is good enough. The same goes for the current 38 mm model. Go back and read post 225 where I explain what I am intending to prove and how you inadvertently helped me to prove it, in spite of your thrashing.
Simple: because iPhones aren't worn. Nor are Ferraris (nor are they sold in volume... it's more like a club of rich people). Same is true of a high-end watch or real diamond earrings, even though these are worn. Their very nature as rare status symbols flips the narrative. People who buy these want to be seen as part of "the club". Extreme Apple fanboy geeks (like us) like being part of a club too, so we will tolerate the similarities of wearing the same $500 gear, but the general population won't.
P.S. By the way, the most efficient shape from the perspective of maximizing area relative to perimeter and materials is a circle. And increased surface area is valuable for many computational purposes. Your best (valid) point is that rows of text don't efficiently fill that particular area. My counter point is that Apple is smart enough to address this.
Each argument presented is less logical that the last. It's starting to smack of religion, this faith that Apple can just solve the problem. Apple HAS solved the problem, by going with a shape that doesn't create problems begging to be solved. It makes no difference that a circle has the most area relative to its perimeter versus any other shape. That's a complete non-point. Who cares about that ratio? Why does that ratio pertain to this discussion at all?, it simply doesn't.
Dude, that's your agenda, and I already understand and agree with it. What you don't understand is that this does not prove that there can't be a way to make a round ? Watch that is: (1) viable, (2) as good as what we have today (which apparently is good enough for millions) and (3) provides some more choices for the masses. It does not matter that the future there might also be a rectangular ? Watch with even a larger usable rectangular area. We can have a round one that is good enough. The same goes for the current 38 mm model. Go back and read post 225 where I explain what I am intending to prove and how you inadvertently helped me to prove it, in spite of your thrashing.
Exactly, Apple only makes a watch display with limited dimensions. The fact is, at present, it fits almost perfectly inside a round watch of the same diameter as height, regardless of size. This is the only graphic that matters at present:
I believe Apple will come out with a round smartwatch within the next few years. The technology to make a round display with minimal bezel is still in its infancy and is not as easy as some would believe.
The people on here bashing round smartwatches remind me of the people a few years ago that bashed on Android phones for being way too big. It's as if something only becomes acceptable until Apple does it.
Exactly, Apple only makes a watch display with limited dimensions. The fact is, at present, it fits almost perfectly inside a round watch of the same diameter as height, regardless of size. This is the only graphic that matters at present:
Yes, but the square reaches the maximum "diameter" exactly at the croners through the diagonals, while the round version is maximum diameter "around the clock". And just cut it out on paper and lay both versions on your hand. The difference is significant.
It does not mean that there will never be a round watch from Apple. But right now, the additional four sections you get from "square - circle" are just dead space, except for aesthetics.
Personally, I do not think that it has to be round, as it is not a watch, but as stated before, a wrist worn computer. And each time I see it on a wrist I catch myself thinking "they really made this nice".
Each argument presented is less logical that the last. It's starting to smack of religion, this faith that Aplle can just solve the problem. Apple HAS solved the problem, by going with a shape that doesn't create problems begging to be solved. It makes no difference that a circle has the most area relative to its perimeter versus any other shape. That's a complete non-point. Who cares about that ratio? Why does that ratio pertain to this discussion at all?, it simply doesn't.
Radar, I respect your opinion... I've been around long enough, although I post far less often than most (this thread notwithstanding).
With your pardon... and I'm sure you already know this, but what the heck... when you scan through a thread like this and catch numerous little side debates one by one by one, it is easy to lose some context and then see something that seems out-of-place. You can also blur the viewpoints of people together, especially if it seems like they are reaching similar conclusions.
With regard to that circle-area stuff, if you confine yourself to read just the back-and-forth between sog and I, in chronological order, you will understand why I brought up the area efficiency of the circle... it's only because sog has been touting the efficiency of rectangular regions versus circular ones. I am trying to point out that while that may be true for purposes of presenting strings of text, there are other measures of efficiency, especially when considering non-textual elements that need room on a graphical display. In some cases, circular regions will reign supreme for that, and I was only trying to back him down from his global "circles suck" schtick. It was sog that brought up the tangent, and I went with it. Out of context, it must have seemed out-of-place. But that's the way these threads go, right? I am completely willing to expunge that entire tangent from the record, because it has very little bearing on my point of view anyway. Speaking of which...
So as not to be confused with some of the other viewpoints out there, I would boil mine down to this:
(1) I own and love my ? Watch,
(2) It would be good in general to have a little bit more variety in the style of ? Watch casing in the future,
(3) I would prefer a round casing for myself,
(4) A circular ? Watch casing is viable pending some advancements in fabrication technology,
(5) Resolving the rectangular versus round screen issue for developers is not the overwhelming challenge that it appears,
(6) Apple has probably already prototyped this in their labs and may still be working it, and
(7) We may see one in the future.
At times on this thread, especially early on, I have offered the opinion that people currently prefer round watches to rectangular watches and therefore Apple should work in that direction, but that is not to say that (1) Apple screwed up with their choice, or that (2) Apple should dispense with the rectangular shape. I am willing to let the statements of preference go, but I still strongly believe the round option should come. I am all for having both shapes, and I strongly believe that Apple probably made the right engineering choices given the circumstances at the time. I have also gone on record as saying that Apple will provide a round option in the next 5 years, but my thoughts on that have lessened as the din around me strengthened.
So what you're saying is that Apple couldn't support two UIs for two differently shaped products, and developers would reject it if they tried? Funny how Samsung adapts its Tizen OS, and LG adapts Android to work on both square and round watches with no such concerns. Guess they could teach Apple a thing or two?
Ha! You beat me to it!
Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say it can't be done. I clearly stated, in agreement with the previous poster, that extra work would be required, to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist on a rectangular shaped Watch. Apple certainly considered both shapes, then decided which way to go. Some posters here, with no evidence to support their position and no logic of their own to suggest Apple should do so, are strongly suggesting that Aplle's decision to go with a rectangular form factor is merely Apple's initial round of design and that surely Apple will add a round form factor in the future. And I am arguing, in accordance with that facts of what Apole has created in the Watch that exists, that it is FAR MORE LIKELY Apole has considered both and decided its path, and is very unlikely to create a round watch form. The future will tell who groks Apple; Sog and me, or those who are culturally indoctrinated in the round watch face paradigm.
Radar, I respect your opinion... I've been around long enough, although I post far less often than most (this thread notwithstanding).
With your pardon... and I'm sure you already know this, but what the heck... when you scan through a thread like this and catch numerous little side debates one by one by one, it is easy to lose some context and then see something that seems out-of-place. You can also blur the viewpoints of people together, especially if it seems like they are reaching similar conclusions.
With regard to that circle-area stuff, if you confine yourself to read just the back-and-forth between sog and I, in chronological order, you will understand why I brought up the area efficiency of the circle... it's only because sog has been touting the efficiency of rectangular regions versus circular ones. I am trying to point out that while that may be true for purposes of presenting strings of text, there are other measures of efficiency, especially when considering non-textual elements that need room on a graphical display. In some cases, circular regions will reign supreme for that, and I was only trying to back him down from his global "circles suck" schtick. ;) It was sog that brought up the tangent, and I went with it. Out of context, it must have seemed out-of-place. But that's the way these threads go, right? I am completely willing to expunge that entire tangent from the record, because it has very little bearing on my point of view anyway. Speaking of which...
So as not to be confused with some of the other viewpoints out there, I would boil mine down to this:
(1) I own and love my ? Watch,
(2) It would be good in general to have a little bit more variety in the style of ? Watch casing in the future,
(3) I would prefer a round casing for myself,
(4) A circular ? Watch casing is viable pending some advancements in fabrication technology,
(5) Resolving the rectangular versus round screen issue for developers is not the overwhelming challenge that it appears,
(6) Apple has probably already prototyped this in their labs and may still be working it, and
(7) We may see one in the future.
At times on this thread, especially early on, I have offered the opinion that people currently prefer round watches to rectangular watches and therefore Apple should work in that direction, but that is not to say that (1) Apple screwed up with their choice, or that (2) Apple should dispense with the rectangular shape. I am willing to let the statements of preference go, but I still strongly believe the round option should come. I am all for having both shapes, and I strongly believe that Apple probably made the right engineering choices given the circumstances at the time. I have also gone on record as saying that Apple will provide a round option in the next 5 years, but my thoughts on that have lessened as the din around me strengthened.
That's pretty much it.
We're cool, and I enjoy the discussions. For the record, I'm one of those, apparently few, who make a point to read every message from the beginning of each AI article that interests me. I don't always wait until I reach the end to go back and respond; I typically do that along the way, which sometimes results in a redundant response that someone else has already made.
Clearly, Sog and I feel strongly about design and the key motivations behind a design. Jonny Ive and others at Apple seem to share the design esthetic of form following function; that the consumer will come to agree with this design esthetic after experiencing the product, even if they don't initially appreciate it when merely shopping for the product or evaluating their own impression of it from a distance, such as when merely reading about products online and viewing pictures of such.
My own impression of the round form factor for smartwatches changed dramatically after taking possession of my Apple Watch, which arrived at 5pm on April 24th (having been ordered in the first three minutes on the 10th). Among my impressions was that I could wear it closer to my hand, which for me makes a watch more comfortable versus hanging higher on my arm. This was especially noticeable when working out, where my wrist is bend back while lifting weights and doing push-ups. Round watches always dug into the back of my hand in these situations. A minor point, but appreciated and the reason I make comments like my earlier one about how the watch bands are generally straight all around the rest of your wrist, protruding only at the buckle/clasp if necessary to accommodate the shape of that component dictated by its mechanics. There are no round protrusions anywhere else along the band, because there doesn't need to be and would not be of any value. But then when you reach the watch body, it protrudes from the sides of the band, because it must, in order to accommodate its circular internal mechanical movements and circular presentation interface. Original watch makers would never have gone there had they had the technology to present time as a number, and so the whole paradigm of round watch forms came about as a necessity and persists merely out of cultural tradition. Apple is exactly the type of company to dissect that thinking and go against it, offering consumers a vision of a watch that is born of the necessities of its functionality and not mere tradition. And I applaud their courage in taking us in a new direction, as they have in the past so many times. This is why I think Apple will not bend to the round form; it is simply not suited to, nor an efficient paradigm for, the modern smartwatch.
The main reason why someone would design a round smartwatch is for aesthetics.
But from readable text standpoint a round watch will ALWAYS have to be larger than a rectangle watch.
And for the majority of the population a overly large watch is not aestheticially pleasing. Thus you are defeating the only reason why you would make a round watch.
And don't say you are making a round watch just for more variety. Variety for varieties sake is stupid. Then why not make a triangle watch? Or hexagon Watch? Why not have 4 versions of WatchOS for 4 different shapes? LOL.
Again this picture says it all.
Notice how much more MASSIVE the round shape is even though they would support the same amount of text.
For your consideration:
Top left: Current ? Watch shape, drawn to scale, including bezels.
Top right: Smallest circle that perfectly circumscribes the usable area of current ? Watch.
Bottom left: Current ? Watch displayed over the top of the circle from top right.
Bottom right: Circle from top right displayed on top of the current ? Watch
I don't think this circle blows the aesthetics. In fact, I think it is better. While it is slightly wider (see bottom left), it takes up significantly less space than the current ? Watch due to those large corner bezels (see bottom right). I quite like it.
Certainly, if you want to make a new rectangular ? Watch with no bezels, you could build one that has even more usable area than either the circle or the current rectangular model. Your graphics prove precisely that.
But all I care about is the fact that this shows that (sans bezels!) one could make a round version of both of the current sized ? Watches without making them that much larger or losing the current size of usable text area. And the aesthetics are unharmed (improved in my opinion). There's even room for some bezel here without breaking the aesthetics (but admittedly not much)!
Zero bezel tech would have made it much more tolerable, and I think I've already shown that if you had that you could achieve the same amount of usable area on an edge-to-edge ? Watch for anything with rectangular constraints and more area for other content.
Zero bezel tech on the ?Watch would be incompatible with the curved portion of the glass because the visual display would appear distorted. Same thing with the iPhone, perhaps to a lesser degree. In both instances, since the glass is raised slightly above the metal case, the curved edge makes the glass a little stronger in order to resist against accidental bumps cracking the screen, but you do lose some visual real estate. The same thing should be true of a round watch, so drawing rectangles with the corners at the absolute edge is probably not realistic either.
Zero bezel tech on the ?Watch would be incompatible with the curved portion of the glass because the visual display would appear distorted. Same thing with the iPhone, perhaps to a lesser degree. In both instances, since the glass is raised slightly above the metal case, the curved edge makes the glass a little stronger in order to resist against accidental bumps cracking the screen, but you do lose some visual real estate. The same thing should be true of a round watch, so drawing rectangles with the corners at the absolute edge is probably not realistic either.
So strive for a bezel of 2 mm and make a model with 40 mm diagonal circular screen (i'm in) and another with diagonal of 38 mm (my wife is in). Or make the bezels another 1 or 2 mm (3 or 4 mm total) with those 40 and 38 mm screens and my yellow circle above gets a little bigger. It still wouldn't be a bulky thing. All I'm asking is that folks consider the possibilities. I'm willing to bet that Apple hasn't given up on this. It's just not quite there yet.
For anyone interested here's a short side-by side with the Apple Watch and a competitor's round smartphone version. The round one is much smaller than I had expected it to be.
Comments
Your comparison is simplistic and inappropriate. The nature of the I.phone interface did not change with several different screen dimensions. A slightly longer rectangle is still rectangular. Going round would indeed require a separate round user experience/interface team, but not merely at Apple. Every app developer would need to support two wholly different approaches the application layout as well. It's just a ludicrous proposition. And yes, I spent 26 years in the software business, as a software designer (most recently co-founder and VP at TimeTrade.com, where I designed the entire suite of software sold by the company. I know a bit of what I speak.
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
https://developer.android.com/training/wearables/ui/layouts.html
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
That's why one of the requirements for wearables will be variety, far more so than on smartphones. This is my main argument. Rather than cracking you up or making you sad, it should beget your agreement, because it is in complete harmony with what you have just written.
Your comparison is simplistic and inappropriate. The nature of the I.phone interface did not change with several different screen dimensions. A slightly longer rectangle is still rectangular. Going round would indeed require a separate round user experience/interface team, but not merely at Apple. Every app developer would need to support two wholly different approaches the application layout as well. It's just a ludicrous proposition. And yes, I spent 26 years in the software business, as a software designer (most recently co-founder and VP at TimeTrade.com, where I designed the entire suite of software sold by the company. I know a bit of what I speak.
So what you're saying is that Apple couldn't support two UIs for two differently shaped products, and developers would reject it if they tried? Funny how Samsung adapts its Tizen OS, and LG adapts Android to work on both square and round watches with no such concerns. Guess they could teach Apple a thing or two?
Wow it just sounds like an impossible task, well beyond anything Apple would attempt to do.
https://developer.android.com/training/wearables/ui/layouts.html
Ha! You beat me to it!
Not sure you should be using the word Grok. It's... it's just not a good word for you. Not yet.
Reading this thread is cracking me up, but also makes me sad for the human race.
Fashion is a fickle thing. While everyone gets to have an opinion, what looks good or bad is up to each person. We are all individuals with our own opinions in this big world of ours.
Reminds me of people who sit and people watch, only to make ugly comments about those who pass them by. It's a behavior that I never understood other than perhaps it involves low self-esteem.
Square or round, bulky or slim, there is an option out there somewhere. Functional and spartan or functional and complicated, there is an option out there somewhere. Plastic or gold, gold colored plastic, there is a option out there somewhere. From bell bottoms to skinny jeans styles come and styles go.
People are all different. What is ugly to one person is beautiful to another. What is bulky to one person is simply perfect to another.
That's why one of the requirements for wearables will be variety, far more so than on smartphones. This is my main argument. Rather than cracking you up or making you sad, it should beget your agreement, because it is in complete harmony with what you have just written.
Well I will capitulate that the first line in my post was perhaps a wee little bit hyperbolic.
Dude stop comparing something with zero bezel to something with a bezel.
lets get down to basics.
Below is an image of a round shape and rectangle shape. Both would be able to display text of the same dimensions.
Notice how much BIGGER the round shape is?
Dude, that's your agenda, and I already understand and agree with it. What you don't understand is that this does not prove that there can't be a way to make a round ? Watch that is: (1) viable, (2) as good as what we have today (which apparently is good enough for millions) and (3) provides some more choices for the masses. It does not matter that the future there might also be a rectangular ? Watch with even a larger usable rectangular area. We can have a round one that is good enough. The same goes for the current 38 mm model. Go back and read post 225 where I explain what I am intending to prove and how you inadvertently helped me to prove it, in spite of your thrashing.
Each argument presented is less logical that the last. It's starting to smack of religion, this faith that Apple can just solve the problem. Apple HAS solved the problem, by going with a shape that doesn't create problems begging to be solved. It makes no difference that a circle has the most area relative to its perimeter versus any other shape. That's a complete non-point. Who cares about that ratio? Why does that ratio pertain to this discussion at all?, it simply doesn't.
Not sure you should be using the word Grok. It's... it's just not a good word for you. Not yet.
Well, I certainly don't "grok" your point here.
Grok: understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
Dude, that's your agenda, and I already understand and agree with it. What you don't understand is that this does not prove that there can't be a way to make a round ? Watch that is: (1) viable, (2) as good as what we have today (which apparently is good enough for millions) and (3) provides some more choices for the masses. It does not matter that the future there might also be a rectangular ? Watch with even a larger usable rectangular area. We can have a round one that is good enough. The same goes for the current 38 mm model. Go back and read post 225 where I explain what I am intending to prove and how you inadvertently helped me to prove it, in spite of your thrashing.
Exactly, Apple only makes a watch display with limited dimensions. The fact is, at present, it fits almost perfectly inside a round watch of the same diameter as height, regardless of size. This is the only graphic that matters at present:
The people on here bashing round smartwatches remind me of the people a few years ago that bashed on Android phones for being way too big. It's as if something only becomes acceptable until Apple does it.
Exactly, Apple only makes a watch display with limited dimensions. The fact is, at present, it fits almost perfectly inside a round watch of the same diameter as height, regardless of size. This is the only graphic that matters at present:
Yes, but the square reaches the maximum "diameter" exactly at the croners through the diagonals, while the round version is maximum diameter "around the clock". And just cut it out on paper and lay both versions on your hand. The difference is significant.
It does not mean that there will never be a round watch from Apple. But right now, the additional four sections you get from "square - circle" are just dead space, except for aesthetics.
Personally, I do not think that it has to be round, as it is not a watch, but as stated before, a wrist worn computer. And each time I see it on a wrist I catch myself thinking "they really made this nice".
Each argument presented is less logical that the last. It's starting to smack of religion, this faith that Aplle can just solve the problem. Apple HAS solved the problem, by going with a shape that doesn't create problems begging to be solved. It makes no difference that a circle has the most area relative to its perimeter versus any other shape. That's a complete non-point. Who cares about that ratio? Why does that ratio pertain to this discussion at all?, it simply doesn't.
Radar, I respect your opinion... I've been around long enough, although I post far less often than most (this thread notwithstanding).
With your pardon... and I'm sure you already know this, but what the heck... when you scan through a thread like this and catch numerous little side debates one by one by one, it is easy to lose some context and then see something that seems out-of-place. You can also blur the viewpoints of people together, especially if it seems like they are reaching similar conclusions.
With regard to that circle-area stuff, if you confine yourself to read just the back-and-forth between sog and I, in chronological order, you will understand why I brought up the area efficiency of the circle... it's only because sog has been touting the efficiency of rectangular regions versus circular ones. I am trying to point out that while that may be true for purposes of presenting strings of text, there are other measures of efficiency, especially when considering non-textual elements that need room on a graphical display. In some cases, circular regions will reign supreme for that, and I was only trying to back him down from his global "circles suck" schtick.
It was sog that brought up the tangent, and I went with it. Out of context, it must have seemed out-of-place. But that's the way these threads go, right? I am completely willing to expunge that entire tangent from the record, because it has very little bearing on my point of view anyway. Speaking of which...
So as not to be confused with some of the other viewpoints out there, I would boil mine down to this:
(1) I own and love my ? Watch,
(2) It would be good in general to have a little bit more variety in the style of ? Watch casing in the future,
(3) I would prefer a round casing for myself,
(4) A circular ? Watch casing is viable pending some advancements in fabrication technology,
(5) Resolving the rectangular versus round screen issue for developers is not the overwhelming challenge that it appears,
(6) Apple has probably already prototyped this in their labs and may still be working it, and
(7) We may see one in the future.
At times on this thread, especially early on, I have offered the opinion that people currently prefer round watches to rectangular watches and therefore Apple should work in that direction, but that is not to say that (1) Apple screwed up with their choice, or that (2) Apple should dispense with the rectangular shape. I am willing to let the statements of preference go, but I still strongly believe the round option should come. I am all for having both shapes, and I strongly believe that Apple probably made the right engineering choices given the circumstances at the time. I have also gone on record as saying that Apple will provide a round option in the next 5 years, but my thoughts on that have lessened as the din around me strengthened.
That's pretty much it.
Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say it can't be done. I clearly stated, in agreement with the previous poster, that extra work would be required, to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist on a rectangular shaped Watch. Apple certainly considered both shapes, then decided which way to go. Some posters here, with no evidence to support their position and no logic of their own to suggest Apple should do so, are strongly suggesting that Aplle's decision to go with a rectangular form factor is merely Apple's initial round of design and that surely Apple will add a round form factor in the future. And I am arguing, in accordance with that facts of what Apole has created in the Watch that exists, that it is FAR MORE LIKELY Apole has considered both and decided its path, and is very unlikely to create a round watch form. The future will tell who groks Apple; Sog and me, or those who are culturally indoctrinated in the round watch face paradigm.
We're cool, and I enjoy the discussions. For the record, I'm one of those, apparently few, who make a point to read every message from the beginning of each AI article that interests me. I don't always wait until I reach the end to go back and respond; I typically do that along the way, which sometimes results in a redundant response that someone else has already made.
Clearly, Sog and I feel strongly about design and the key motivations behind a design. Jonny Ive and others at Apple seem to share the design esthetic of form following function; that the consumer will come to agree with this design esthetic after experiencing the product, even if they don't initially appreciate it when merely shopping for the product or evaluating their own impression of it from a distance, such as when merely reading about products online and viewing pictures of such.
My own impression of the round form factor for smartwatches changed dramatically after taking possession of my Apple Watch, which arrived at 5pm on April 24th (having been ordered in the first three minutes on the 10th). Among my impressions was that I could wear it closer to my hand, which for me makes a watch more comfortable versus hanging higher on my arm. This was especially noticeable when working out, where my wrist is bend back while lifting weights and doing push-ups. Round watches always dug into the back of my hand in these situations. A minor point, but appreciated and the reason I make comments like my earlier one about how the watch bands are generally straight all around the rest of your wrist, protruding only at the buckle/clasp if necessary to accommodate the shape of that component dictated by its mechanics. There are no round protrusions anywhere else along the band, because there doesn't need to be and would not be of any value. But then when you reach the watch body, it protrudes from the sides of the band, because it must, in order to accommodate its circular internal mechanical movements and circular presentation interface. Original watch makers would never have gone there had they had the technology to present time as a number, and so the whole paradigm of round watch forms came about as a necessity and persists merely out of cultural tradition. Apple is exactly the type of company to dissect that thinking and go against it, offering consumers a vision of a watch that is born of the necessities of its functionality and not mere tradition. And I applaud their courage in taking us in a new direction, as they have in the past so many times. This is why I think Apple will not bend to the round form; it is simply not suited to, nor an efficient paradigm for, the modern smartwatch.
The main reason why someone would design a round smartwatch is for aesthetics.
But from readable text standpoint a round watch will ALWAYS have to be larger than a rectangle watch.
And for the majority of the population a overly large watch is not aestheticially pleasing. Thus you are defeating the only reason why you would make a round watch.
And don't say you are making a round watch just for more variety. Variety for varieties sake is stupid. Then why not make a triangle watch? Or hexagon Watch? Why not have 4 versions of WatchOS for 4 different shapes? LOL.
Again this picture says it all.
Notice how much more MASSIVE the round shape is even though they would support the same amount of text.
For your consideration:
Top left: Current ? Watch shape, drawn to scale, including bezels.
Top right: Smallest circle that perfectly circumscribes the usable area of current ? Watch.
Bottom left: Current ? Watch displayed over the top of the circle from top right.
Bottom right: Circle from top right displayed on top of the current ? Watch
I don't think this circle blows the aesthetics. In fact, I think it is better. While it is slightly wider (see bottom left), it takes up significantly less space than the current ? Watch due to those large corner bezels (see bottom right). I quite like it.
Certainly, if you want to make a new rectangular ? Watch with no bezels, you could build one that has even more usable area than either the circle or the current rectangular model. Your graphics prove precisely that.
But all I care about is the fact that this shows that (sans bezels!) one could make a round version of both of the current sized ? Watches without making them that much larger or losing the current size of usable text area. And the aesthetics are unharmed (improved in my opinion). There's even room for some bezel here without breaking the aesthetics (but admittedly not much)!
Zero bezel tech would have made it much more tolerable, and I think I've already shown that if you had that you could achieve the same amount of usable area on an edge-to-edge ? Watch for anything with rectangular constraints and more area for other content.
Zero bezel tech on the ?Watch would be incompatible with the curved portion of the glass because the visual display would appear distorted. Same thing with the iPhone, perhaps to a lesser degree. In both instances, since the glass is raised slightly above the metal case, the curved edge makes the glass a little stronger in order to resist against accidental bumps cracking the screen, but you do lose some visual real estate. The same thing should be true of a round watch, so drawing rectangles with the corners at the absolute edge is probably not realistic either.
Zero bezel tech on the ?Watch would be incompatible with the curved portion of the glass because the visual display would appear distorted. Same thing with the iPhone, perhaps to a lesser degree. In both instances, since the glass is raised slightly above the metal case, the curved edge makes the glass a little stronger in order to resist against accidental bumps cracking the screen, but you do lose some visual real estate. The same thing should be true of a round watch, so drawing rectangles with the corners at the absolute edge is probably not realistic either.
So strive for a bezel of 2 mm and make a model with 40 mm diagonal circular screen (i'm in) and another with diagonal of 38 mm (my wife is in). Or make the bezels another 1 or 2 mm (3 or 4 mm total) with those 40 and 38 mm screens and my yellow circle above gets a little bigger. It still wouldn't be a bulky thing. All I'm asking is that folks consider the possibilities. I'm willing to bet that Apple hasn't given up on this. It's just not quite there yet.
[VIDEO]