Do you seriously think the dial on S2 can be easily used with one finger? That was my only point.
I have no idea if it factually can be or not, nor do you. You won't have long to wait to try it in real life. You're comparing a watch you yourself have little experience with and don't even own AFAIK with one not yet available to buy and you've obviously never touched.
You obfuscate facts with opinion far too often when you post IMHO, and casual readers may not realize the difference.
[@]sog35[/@] IMO you'd do better to note when you're stating opinion (we all have them) and when you're stating fact. It's almost impossible to tell one from the other in some of your posts.
No doubt (in my meaningless little mind), the future.
That would look hideous on my tiny wrist. And how in the world would you fit battery, taptic engine and sensors into something that thin. That's why graphic design concepts suck. They don't require any real engineering. They just have to look cool.
Hm. I think the Gear looks nice, maybe a tad too large, but aesthetically nicer than the Apple watch which looks like a mini computer strapped haphazardly onto a wrist (which it is). I have an Apple watch and like it, but I do not wear it because it looks good. I wear it because it has good functionality and does not look terrible. But if someone came to give the same functionality (or even slightly less) and look good, I'd switch. Quickly.
It's like Minivans: people bought them because they were practical, not terribly ugly, but not nice looking. Then came the SUV which is nice looking, and fulfills many advantages of the minivan, and people switched.
Interested to hear what others think.
It boggles my mind that some think just going from rounded rec to circular makes something not look like a "mini computer" strapped on to a wrist. How does that Samsung watch not look any more like a computer than the ?Watch does? And those mockup ups of ?Watch's app constellation on a round form factor certainly don't make it look any more jewelry like than the square ?Watch IMO.
Square watches have existed in the traditional watch space for a long time. Is this considered geeky too?
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.
And that's why this obsession over round vs square baffles my mind (even though yes I admit I'm participating in it ). Why does it matter? If the public says 'sorry Apple we prefer round' then Apple will have no choice but to go round. But if the public likes the watch and its utility then what's the point of going round? Just because most mechanical watches are round? The coolest things I do with my Apple Watch have nothing to do with telling time.
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.
I would disagree with this. I've never owned a watch with a curved edge crystal that sat on top of the watch until the ?Watch. The crystal is always flat, and may be flush or protrude slightly from the bezel, in the latter instance, with no beveling that overplayed the watch face itself. So this is not really a consideration, unless a watchmaker takes the non-traditional approach Apple has taken. Some would argue putting the crystal completely above the watch case, affords the watch little protection, and takes the full brunt of any blows to the watch.
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.
What is the point of round other than aesthetics? People here are showing how round *could* work but not why it's better. And who knows what the future of wearables will be? Why do we assume it will forever be first and foremost about telling time (which is the only reason for a round form factor)?
It is what most people think a watch should look like.
Well in 2007 most people thought a smartphone should look like a Blackberry and have a physical keyboard........
As I've said before I haven't had one person look at me funny or ask me why my watch is square instead of round. They ask me what it does and if I like it and they think being able to pay from my wrist is very cool. Of course most of these Android Wear watches don't currently have NFC so they can't do payments. But hey they're round and look like a knockoff version of a traditional watch and I guess that's all that matters.
If we compare apples to apples we would only conclude that the (new) rectangular no-bezel watch could have a larger useful region for text than the (new) circular no-bezel watch does. I am not disputing this.
My goal is only to show that a no-bezel circular watch would be viable, in terms of not being too large or bulky for the wrist and yet still presenting the same amount of useful space for texts that we currently enjoy. Therefore it would work. That's all I'm saying.
Having observed your discussion style, I have faith that you will understand the difference. Not so much, sog.
Yes exactly.
The fact of the matter is this is reality today -- with the exception of the very first round 38mm mock up, all of these watches exist with the display area as shown. And it's quite clear that the ?Watch displays easily fit within the current round watch technology that exists today. These watches are are in exact scale relative to each other, and it's subjective at best whether one looks larger or more bulky than the other.
I included the 38mm Huawei mock-up because technically it's possible given that Apple is able to produce a similar-sized watch. Of course there would be substantial compromises, just as with the 38mm ?Watch, in terms of reduced battery life, reduced legibility, and reduced screen space to render content.
Whether Apple decides to expand their display to the case edge or not is irrelevant at the moment -- as this is the what Apple presented to its customers as the best possible solution after 3 years of development. It seems to me, Apple is very happy with the current screen dimensions, and expanding them to edge from their current restrictive frame bezel would likely only increase the size of the screen, not change the amount of content displayed. But if they do expand the area of the watch to display more than what it currently does, then obviously the round watch would have to be larger to display the same area. Of course the reality is that Apple has already shown us with the ?Watch that a larger display, or more information on the screen isn't necessary. Has anyone heard of a 38mm ?Watch owner complain about the size of their display?
But for now, Apple's current solution could just as easily be implemented into a round form factor without sacrificing a bit of information, or legibility.
It boggles my mind that some think just going from rounded rec to circular makes something not look like a "mini computer" strapped on to a wrist. How does that Samsung watch not look any more like a computer than the ?Watch does? And those mockup ups of ?Watch's app constellation on a round form factor certainly don't make it look any more jewelry like than the square ?Watch IMO.
Square watches have existed in the traditional watch space for a long time. Is this considered geeky too?
I am not an advocate that watches have to be round (indeed, in a fit of grandeur I bought a Le-Coultre that is square). I was only stating an opinion tat the Moto 360's form factor and design (disregarding the size for now) looks nice; as others were laughing at it. I do not think that the Apple Watch looks like a computer strapped to a wrist because it is square. I am not a design critic, I just voiced an feeling, but maybe it is because it lacks symmetry (largely because of the buttons which are just NOT elegant at all); or because the strap looks like it is an afterthought, it just does not seem to match the casing (it doe s ore so on the Sport). If I compare the Apple Watch to the Apple Mac Pro; or the Cube, or the iMac, or even the iPhone, etc, it just stands out as unpolished and cobbled together, like McMansions: designed inside-out.
Have you ever even used an actual Gear S2?The rotating bezel may be very easy to use. It may LOOK fiddly but that doesn't mean it is.
Why not wait to pass personal judgment on it until you've had a chance to see one
I don't see any reason why the bezel could be turned with one finger. I can turn the bezels with one finger on my chronographs, albeit there's more resistance to keep them from accidentally slipping, so it's easier with two fingers. It should be no more difficult than steering my car with one hand on the wheel.
Frankly, while I like the idea of a rotating bezel, it's just as a bad a solution as the Digital Crown for a digital watch. I would much prefer the black frame bezel space on the side of the ?Watch, be touch sensitive and dedicated for this purpose, or even the side of the case. Likewise, in a round form factor, I'd like to see a touch sensitive bezel that one could simply swipe with the finger.
But the digital crown is there because of fashion. It's a homage to all the watches that came before it. Jony Ive is explicit about his reverence for the tradition the traditional watch in his adaptation of the ?Watch. He acknowledges the expectations of all those potential customers for whom his design must please. And the digital crown is a fitting design feature. But it's completely unnecessary.
That would look hideous on my tiny wrist. And how in the world would you fit battery, taptic engine and sensors into something that thin. That's why graphic design concepts suck. They don't require any real engineering. They just have to look cool.
You know what would look really awful on somebody's wrist? This humongous thing:
What is the point of round other than aesthetics? People here are showing how round *could* work but not why it's better. And who knows what the future of wearables will be? Why do we assume it will forever be first and foremost about telling time (which is the only reason for a round form factor)?
To me and many others, a round watch of any kind is still preferable to the square calculator watch look. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the option of either round or square in the future.
You know what would look really awful on somebody's wrist? This humongous thing:
/s
Its not the size, its the lack of homogeneity: the bands (except maybe the sports bands) don't match the casing, and the buttons don't match anything. It just looks cobbled together, thats all.
Practical though, it is very useful and the sports editions look a bit more homogenous.
Whatever dude. All the videos I've seen of the S2 they use two fingers to spin the dial when the watch is on the wrist.
I've used the Apple watch enough to know the crown is very easy to use with one finger
Part of the issue in my experience with my Submariner is the bezel has to be designed to not be easily shifted , and that built in resistance does tend to make two finger grips more comfortable as the leverage is opposed in a "grip" squeeze which also means the watch band is stabilized and doesn't get pushed around by an asymmetric push from one finger on a side of the case. Or a diver risks an inaccurate time count or a user of an electronic device a false input os some sort.
Sort of the same reason I use two fingers when pushing a button on a Casio G-shock: one to push the button and one (my thumb) to oppose the push and steady the watch case.
ETA: Thinking about it then, the crown force is somewhat "down" into thew wrist so it doesn't have the same tendency to slide the and and =case around that a side push does. When I push the crown in I steady the case with my thumb on the diagonal corner, while when I roll it I just use one finder as there's no sideways movement and what tendency to shift there may be is along the axis of the band and so resisted by the band fit itself.
To me and many others, a round watch of any kind is still preferable to the square calculator watch look. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the option of either round or square in the future.
So this is a calculator watch look?
Anyway if all I wanted was a watch I wouldn't be buying a smart watching the first place.
I have no idea if it factually can be or not, nor do you. You won't have long to wait to try it in real life. You're comparing a watch you yourself have little experience with and don't even own AFAIK with one not yet available to buy and you've obviously never touched.
Whatever dude. All the videos I've seen of the S2 they use two fingers to spin the dial when the watch is on the wrist.
I've used the Apple watch enough to know the crown is very easy to use with one finger
Looks pretty easy to move the bezel with one finger to me in this video:
I was being a little facetious with the calculator watch reference but point taken. I personally prefer a circular look for my watches, smart or not. At this point with the current generation of smartwatches, I haven't been impressed enough to spend money on one yet but that can and will likely change as they become better each year. If and when the time comes for me to buy one, I would prefer it to look like a classic timeless circular watch.
Just as I suspected. The text looks incredibily small and hard to read. Notice how the arch areas on the right and left of the screen are not even used. And the bottom of the screen only has the CNN logo. Right there proves my point why the round interface is horrible. Really only about 50% of the screen is even usable. In contrast a rectangle screen can use close to 100% of the screen for text.
LOL!
The text in that image is no smaller than a lot of the text on my ? Watch. The only reason it looks "hard to read" is that the posted image is low resolution and pixelated. Open the image in Preview and then zoom in and see for yourself. The image itself is just pixelated. There's no way that the pixels on that watch screen are that large. I thought you considered yourself knowledgable on tech, but I knew the truth of this "hard to read text" at first glance.
With regard to the unused areas in this image, it's really not that big of a deal to me provided there are other apps on the phone (besides just the clock face) that are designed to take advantage of the entire circle.
If these two complaints (in which the first was just wrong and the other was overblown) are representative of your best efforts then I'm afraid you are failing at your point. I can certainly say this: that watch looks a far cry better than those images you showed earlier with (1) the "Hello Round Word" text presented on a grey background (for no apparent reason) and (2) a black circle segment sitting at the bottom of an otherwise filled background (which was also unnecessary). Whoever designed that watch software - or whoever mocked up those images, if they aren't of an actual watch - sucks.
Comments
You obfuscate facts with opinion far too often when you post IMHO, and casual readers may not realize the difference.
That would look hideous on my tiny wrist. And how in the world would you fit battery, taptic engine and sensors into something that thin. That's why graphic design concepts suck. They don't require any real engineering. They just have to look cool.
It boggles my mind that some think just going from rounded rec to circular makes something not look like a "mini computer" strapped on to a wrist. How does that Samsung watch not look any more like a computer than the ?Watch does? And those mockup ups of ?Watch's app constellation on a round form factor certainly don't make it look any more jewelry like than the square ?Watch IMO.
Square watches have existed in the traditional watch space for a long time. Is this considered geeky too?
And that's why this obsession over round vs square baffles my mind (even though yes I admit I'm participating in it
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.
I would disagree with this. I've never owned a watch with a curved edge crystal that sat on top of the watch until the ?Watch. The crystal is always flat, and may be flush or protrude slightly from the bezel, in the latter instance, with no beveling that overplayed the watch face itself. So this is not really a consideration, unless a watchmaker takes the non-traditional approach Apple has taken. Some would argue putting the crystal completely above the watch case, affords the watch little protection, and takes the full brunt of any blows to the watch.
What is the point of round other than aesthetics? People here are showing how round *could* work but not why it's better. And who knows what the future of wearables will be? Why do we assume it will forever be first and foremost about telling time (which is the only reason for a round form factor)?
As I've said before I haven't had one person look at me funny or ask me why my watch is square instead of round. They ask me what it does and if I like it and they think being able to pay from my wrist is very cool. Of course most of these Android Wear watches don't currently have NFC so they can't do payments. But hey they're round and look like a knockoff version of a traditional watch and I guess that's all that matters.
I
If we compare apples to apples we would only conclude that the (new) rectangular no-bezel watch could have a larger useful region for text than the (new) circular no-bezel watch does. I am not disputing this.
My goal is only to show that a no-bezel circular watch would be viable, in terms of not being too large or bulky for the wrist and yet still presenting the same amount of useful space for texts that we currently enjoy. Therefore it would work. That's all I'm saying.
Having observed your discussion style, I have faith that you will understand the difference. Not so much, sog.
Yes exactly.
The fact of the matter is this is reality today -- with the exception of the very first round 38mm mock up, all of these watches exist with the display area as shown. And it's quite clear that the ?Watch displays easily fit within the current round watch technology that exists today. These watches are are in exact scale relative to each other, and it's subjective at best whether one looks larger or more bulky than the other.
I included the 38mm Huawei mock-up because technically it's possible given that Apple is able to produce a similar-sized watch. Of course there would be substantial compromises, just as with the 38mm ?Watch, in terms of reduced battery life, reduced legibility, and reduced screen space to render content.
Whether Apple decides to expand their display to the case edge or not is irrelevant at the moment -- as this is the what Apple presented to its customers as the best possible solution after 3 years of development. It seems to me, Apple is very happy with the current screen dimensions, and expanding them to edge from their current restrictive frame bezel would likely only increase the size of the screen, not change the amount of content displayed. But if they do expand the area of the watch to display more than what it currently does, then obviously the round watch would have to be larger to display the same area. Of course the reality is that Apple has already shown us with the ?Watch that a larger display, or more information on the screen isn't necessary. Has anyone heard of a 38mm ?Watch owner complain about the size of their display?
But for now, Apple's current solution could just as easily be implemented into a round form factor without sacrificing a bit of information, or legibility.
It boggles my mind that some think just going from rounded rec to circular makes something not look like a "mini computer" strapped on to a wrist. How does that Samsung watch not look any more like a computer than the ?Watch does? And those mockup ups of ?Watch's app constellation on a round form factor certainly don't make it look any more jewelry like than the square ?Watch IMO.
Square watches have existed in the traditional watch space for a long time. Is this considered geeky too?
I am not an advocate that watches have to be round (indeed, in a fit of grandeur I bought a Le-Coultre that is square). I was only stating an opinion tat the Moto 360's form factor and design (disregarding the size for now) looks nice; as others were laughing at it. I do not think that the Apple Watch looks like a computer strapped to a wrist because it is square. I am not a design critic, I just voiced an feeling, but maybe it is because it lacks symmetry (largely because of the buttons which are just NOT elegant at all); or because the strap looks like it is an afterthought, it just does not seem to match the casing (it doe s ore so on the Sport). If I compare the Apple Watch to the Apple Mac Pro; or the Cube, or the iMac, or even the iPhone, etc, it just stands out as unpolished and cobbled together, like McMansions: designed inside-out.
Have you ever even used an actual Gear S2?The rotating bezel may be very easy to use. It may LOOK fiddly but that doesn't mean it is.
Why not wait to pass personal judgment on it until you've had a chance to see one
I don't see any reason why the bezel could be turned with one finger. I can turn the bezels with one finger on my chronographs, albeit there's more resistance to keep them from accidentally slipping, so it's easier with two fingers. It should be no more difficult than steering my car with one hand on the wheel.
Frankly, while I like the idea of a rotating bezel, it's just as a bad a solution as the Digital Crown for a digital watch. I would much prefer the black frame bezel space on the side of the ?Watch, be touch sensitive and dedicated for this purpose, or even the side of the case. Likewise, in a round form factor, I'd like to see a touch sensitive bezel that one could simply swipe with the finger.
But the digital crown is there because of fashion. It's a homage to all the watches that came before it. Jony Ive is explicit about his reverence for the tradition the traditional watch in his adaptation of the ?Watch. He acknowledges the expectations of all those potential customers for whom his design must please. And the digital crown is a fitting design feature. But it's completely unnecessary.
That would look hideous on my tiny wrist. And how in the world would you fit battery, taptic engine and sensors into something that thin. That's why graphic design concepts suck. They don't require any real engineering. They just have to look cool.
You know what would look really awful on somebody's wrist? This humongous thing:
/s
To me and many others, a round watch of any kind is still preferable to the square calculator watch look. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the option of either round or square in the future.
You know what would look really awful on somebody's wrist? This humongous thing:
/s
Its not the size, its the lack of homogeneity: the bands (except maybe the sports bands) don't match the casing, and the buttons don't match anything. It just looks cobbled together, thats all.
Practical though, it is very useful and the sports editions look a bit more homogenous.
Whatever dude. All the videos I've seen of the S2 they use two fingers to spin the dial when the watch is on the wrist.
I've used the Apple watch enough to know the crown is very easy to use with one finger
Part of the issue in my experience with my Submariner is the bezel has to be designed to not be easily shifted , and that built in resistance does tend to make two finger grips more comfortable as the leverage is opposed in a "grip" squeeze which also means the watch band is stabilized and doesn't get pushed around by an asymmetric push from one finger on a side of the case. Or a diver risks an inaccurate time count or a user of an electronic device a false input os some sort.
Sort of the same reason I use two fingers when pushing a button on a Casio G-shock: one to push the button and one (my thumb) to oppose the push and steady the watch case.
ETA: Thinking about it then, the crown force is somewhat "down" into thew wrist so it doesn't have the same tendency to slide the and and =case around that a side push does. When I push the crown in I steady the case with my thumb on the diagonal corner, while when I roll it I just use one finder as there's no sideways movement and what tendency to shift there may be is along the axis of the band and so resisted by the band fit itself.
Um, that's why Apple offers two sizes.
So this is a calculator watch look?
Anyway if all I wanted was a watch I wouldn't be buying a smart watching the first place.
I have no idea if it factually can be or not, nor do you. You won't have long to wait to try it in real life. You're comparing a watch you yourself have little experience with and don't even own AFAIK with one not yet available to buy and you've obviously never touched.
Whatever dude. All the videos I've seen of the S2 they use two fingers to spin the dial when the watch is on the wrist.
I've used the Apple watch enough to know the crown is very easy to use with one finger
Looks pretty easy to move the bezel with one finger to me in this video:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/3/9252787/samsung-gear-s-2-watch-video-hands-on
I was being a little facetious with the calculator watch reference but point taken. I personally prefer a circular look for my watches, smart or not. At this point with the current generation of smartwatches, I haven't been impressed enough to spend money on one yet but that can and will likely change as they become better each year. If and when the time comes for me to buy one, I would prefer it to look like a classic timeless circular watch.
Just as I suspected. The text looks incredibily small and hard to read. Notice how the arch areas on the right and left of the screen are not even used. And the bottom of the screen only has the CNN logo. Right there proves my point why the round interface is horrible. Really only about 50% of the screen is even usable. In contrast a rectangle screen can use close to 100% of the screen for text.
LOL!
The text in that image is no smaller than a lot of the text on my ? Watch. The only reason it looks "hard to read" is that the posted image is low resolution and pixelated. Open the image in Preview and then zoom in and see for yourself. The image itself is just pixelated. There's no way that the pixels on that watch screen are that large. I thought you considered yourself knowledgable on tech, but I knew the truth of this "hard to read text" at first glance.
With regard to the unused areas in this image, it's really not that big of a deal to me provided there are other apps on the phone (besides just the clock face) that are designed to take advantage of the entire circle.
If these two complaints (in which the first was just wrong and the other was overblown) are representative of your best efforts then I'm afraid you are failing at your point. I can certainly say this: that watch looks a far cry better than those images you showed earlier with (1) the "Hello Round Word" text presented on a grey background (for no apparent reason) and (2) a black circle segment sitting at the bottom of an otherwise filled background (which was also unnecessary). Whoever designed that watch software - or whoever mocked up those images, if they aren't of an actual watch - sucks.