I'm just curious....what's fiddly about the crown? And that's not just a question to you as you're not the only one who's said it. I can easily rotate the crown with my index finger. And anyway I thought smartwatches were supposed to be about pushing information to you not you having to fiddle with them.
The tech press will fiddle with this rotary bezel and get a kick out of it for a few days and then they'll go back to being bored and move on to the next shiny object. Though I have no doubt the Verge already has their force touch is confusing and pointless piece all ready to go. This week's meme is rotary bezel trumps digital crown, next week will be all concern trolling over force touch. Mark my words.
I don't the have Apple watch yet (as b-day is only next week ) but I've tried it on multiple times. I'm wearing the watch in my left wrist, and I'm left-handed. Therefore using the crown, especially when pushing it requiring to support the housing from the opposite side, was not immediately comfortable. I'm not saying I would not get used to it. But seeing the video this reminded me of my own experience as it appears like it was not so easy as well for Dom to use it, at least less easier than the rotary bezel. Check out at around 0:50 and around 1:50.
Did I say the Gear S2 was fiddly? No. I just said the dial would take 2 fingers. I know this because of the videos and I owned many watches with dials on it . . . Pretty obvious.
So [@]sog35[/@] now has his video evidence that the rotating bezel can perhaps be easily operated with one finger. Not so obvious it required two fingers after all.
For all of you folks on here saying that at Apple "form follows function", you might have a surprise coming. Oh yes, I agree with you that it always has been that way, but I think the situation is going to subtly change. To wit...
As you know, Apple has always said that they live at the "intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts".
Well now that they have gotten into wearables, I think that Apple has wandered a few blocks down Technology Street and now find themselves at the intersection of Technology and Fashion, where the rules are somewhat different. On this corner, form and function live in an apartment together, and neither is the head of the household. I think Apple realizes this and that they might do some things in the future that would surprise some of you. Sometimes they will trade off some function just for aesthetic reasons. Look no further than the fact that they introduced the 38 mm ? Watch for no other reason than it would look better on people with smaller wrists. (The larger watch would still be functional on a smaller wrist. It's not like they can't use it.) Other product categories with size variations like iPad Minis, iPod Shuffles, and iPod Nanos, etc, were introduced for functional reasons such as different degrees of portability. Not so the 38 mm ? Watch, which is not really any more portable than its (barely) bigger sibling. The sacrifice of screen size was done purely to address how it looks when worn. If it "looks wrong" on some people, then those people won't buy it.
So apparently, how the ? Watch looks when worn is important. And I know some of you might say: "Of course the size of the watch matters, because who wants to wear something that completely engulfs your wrist!" And I agree. But it's more nuanced than that. I think that many people really scrutinize how it looks, even if the size isn't obviously too large. (Mostly these people are not the kind that hang out on Apple rumor websites and post nonstop like we/I do, but I digress...) These people ask themselves things like: is the size perhaps a bit too large? A bit too small? Or is it just about right? What about this color? What about that other color? What about that band, etc, etc? Before I got my ? Watch, I tried on different styles & bands and asked all of those questions (not out loud though). Where the iPhone is concerned, every year I just go with what I know I wanted based on the specs and pictures I can find online. Some people do that with the ? Watch but a lot of people don't.
And if you think that a lot of people don't consider the shape as well when it comes to what looks good when worn, then you are kidding yourselves. Apple has allowed form to trump function when it comes to size, so don't think that they wouldn't consider doing the same for shape. For the watches, they have moved a couple of blocks down from their traditional "function over form" neighborhood.
Now, there have been a few good points made with regard to the challenges of rectangular versus round areas for purposes of displaying information on a computing device. But I think these concerns are overblown. Apple could do it right. In fact, sometimes Apple doesn't do something for a long time not because they have decided against it but rather because they want to spend the time to get it right. Maybe that's what they are doing with a round watch design. Also, there have been some good points about how Apple is traditionally loath to fragment their platforms in such a way. But since Apple has apparently moved out of its traditional neighborhood and into something that is necessarily influenced by fleeting fashion, I wouldn't be placing bets against it.
Well now that they have gotten into wearables, I think that they have wandered a few blocks down Technology Street and now find themselves at the intersection of Technology and Fashion, where the rules are somewhat different. On this corner, form and function live in an apartment together, and neither is the head of the household. I think Apple realizes this and that they might do some things in the future that would surprise some of you. Sometimes they will trade off some function just for aesthetic reasons. Look no further than the fact that they introduced the 38 mm ? Watch for no other reason than it would look better on people with smaller wrists. (The larger watch would still be functional on a smaller wrist. It's not like they can't use it.) Not so the 38 mm ? Watch, which is not really any more portable than its (barely) bigger sibling. The sacrifice of screen size was done purely to address how it looks when worn. If it "looks wrong" on some people, then those people won't buy it.
Jony Ive said "As soon as something is worn, we have expectations of choice", before joking that "only in prison" do you see uniformity in what people wear.
So Apple gets it.
Your assessment of the 38mm watch is dead on, it represents substantial compromises in not only screen size, but display area, and battery life. Apple turns it around and markets the 42mm as having 'slightly better' battery life, but the reality is, the 38mm is a compromise. But it's a brilliant move in making smartwatch technology to those who have traditionally avoided it, because the watches were too large and un-attractive.
So far the round watch makers seem to be targeting males, if for no other reason that men likely represent the largest group of early adopters for such technology. And it's easier and cheaper just to offer one size that's going to likely fit the majority of those in the target demographic at first. I'd like to know the male/female split of just who exactly is buying the 38mm vs. 42mm. I think we take it for granted that Apple, with its billions in R&D, can afford to launch what is essentially two different watches upon its first attempt at the product, while other manufacturers roll out one offering to test the waters in the event it doesn't sell.
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.
I don't think that Apple will have a round configuration for its UI anytime soon; not within 5 years. My intuition is that Jony and Marc, et al, created a design that gets better as it shrinks in thickness, and the pursuit of thin is absolutely technical innovation; people will pay for it. That is the path that Apple will choose to grow its market.
It's quite easy to imagine what a 5 mm "diet" will do to the design over two or three more generations; it will be the thickness of a current iPhone. It isn't difficult to do a little visual test to "imagine" what the future will bring. Two things that become clear at that point; the digital crown is the same diameter as the thickness; and, the band attachment still works absolutely the same. As Apple goes thinner, the digital crown will disappear, and control will be all touch / force touch; eventually it evolves to a flexible band. Once you have a flexible band, there are essentially no technically limitations to how the data is formatted for display; round or rectangular become a moot point.
For the competition, the same holds true, but in the case of the round configuration, the rotating bezel evolves to a touch surface.
By sticking with the current rectangular UI configuration, the developers have a consistent paradigm to work with across all the Apple ecosystem. Differentiation continues to be size, but also thickness/battery life, and customization of each generation is by material, color and a plethora of watch bands.
There isn't any reason that Apple needs to pursue round watch aficionado's until the arrival of flexible electronics; by then, the wearable market and Apple's ecosystem will be well established, and that will be the arrival of a UI what will be adaptable to many more configurations beyond strictly round or rectangular.
Wearables, not just just watches, is Apple's plan.
Here is the problem with sog, he has no imagination. He sees no way to solve a problem and he is unable to think outside the box. Because he hasn't seen a compelling UI on a round smartwatch he assumes there is no possible way to make one. Go back far enough and you will find him believing there was no possible way to make a large screen phone but then the 6+ came out and it was the greatest thing ever. Sog, let the creatives do their thing and trust that there are ways even if you cannot see them
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.
Unfortunately for your argument, the digital crown will work for quite a number of configurations; a rotating bezel won't for anything but a round configuration. As for the touch sensitive surfaces, likely they aren't fully baked, though they will be available in the future.
Unfortunately for your argument, the digital crown will work for quite a number of configurations; a rotating bezel won't for anything but a round configuration. As for the touch sensitive surfaces, likely they aren't fully baked, though they will be available in the future.
I would be curious to know if Aople investigated a round housing with a rotating bezel - in the end, it's applying the iPad click wheel to a watch - and have decided that it's not as good. Your argument points to a more universal use of the crown.
Call it silly perhaps but I've been of the belief that all these other round smartwatches from Android manufacturers are huge compared to the Apple Watch. I suppose I never really looked for myself. Then in the past couple of days I've seen side-by-side's with both the Galaxy Gear S2 and Moto 360. I'm pretty surprised to see that they aren't the big slabs that I and most others here were under the apparently mistaken impression they are.
Call it silly perhaps but I've been of the belief that all these other round smartwatches from Android manufacturers are huge compared to the Apple Watch. I suppose I never really looked for myself. Then in the past couple of days I've seen side-by-side's with both the Galaxy Gear S2 and Moto 360. I'm pretty surprised to see that they aren't the big slabs that I and most others here were under the apparently mistaken impression they are.
Remember when the larger phones were ridiculed as being too big?
Not offensive. But far from "beautiful" or aesthetically pleasing. The casing is rounded ("pill form") while the band's links have hard edges. It just looks un-Apple-esque, not elegant-smooth, to me. I find that the Sports with the rubber bands are actually the best looking ones.
Also: does not divert from the fact that the watch has two buttons that seem to have been designed by different people, to a different spec, for a different product, in different universes. The Crown looks like "a" crown, like any other, cheap, picked-up from the local-DIY-store-crown. I am still surprised at this.
Again, the Apple Watch is not offensively ugly, and it is functional (somewhat). But it also looks functional, like the original Walkman: it has the right buttons, but it looks cobbled together to make it work, rather than to make it look good while it works.
Maybe, as they themselves seemed to admit, the Execs did not know what the Watch would be used for, they just felt that "the wrist was a good place to put something", and they hoped for developers to come up with good ideas. So they just figured to give Version 1 a go, get sufficient users using massive marketing, let developers figure out what to do with this, and then design Version 2 around these use cases. They actually did not know what to design it for.
And yes, it may continue to be square and that is fine, but a square watch can still show some symmetry and aesthetics.
I would be curious to know if Aople investigated a round housing with a rotating bezel - in the end, it's applying the iPad click wheel to a watch - and have decided that it's not as good. Your argument points to a more universal use of the crown.
I'd bet that Apple's ID team investigated every option they could possibly imagine, and a rectangular configuration won out over a round or any other shape.
Call it silly perhaps but I've been of the belief that all these other round smartwatches from Android manufacturers are huge compared to the Apple Watch. I suppose I never really looked for myself. Then in the past couple of days I've seen side-by-side's with both the Galaxy Gear S2 and Moto 360. I'm pretty surprised to see that they aren't the big slabs that I and most others here were under the apparently mistaken impression they are.
An oblique view would be more telling of bulk (thickness) in a comparison over a top view, and text on screen would be a more difficult presentation for the round over rectangular configuration.
An oblique view would be more telling of bulk (thickness) in a comparison over a top view, and text on screen would be a more difficult presentation for the round over rectangular configuration.
The old Moto 360 wasn't much "bulkier" if at all. The new 38mm one is even thinner I think.
EDIT: I think the reason the new 360 looks thinner than the old is they've changed the lugs. On the wrist the new version looks thinner in pics.
The bezel won't solve the issue that we don't read in circles.... And you still need a much bigger watch to ge the same function.
So, you're still compromising function substantially for esthetics.
BTW, the first Iphones were the biggest phones around, so Apple has no qualms about big, it had a issue with big vs function.
When Iphones were mostly phones, big was stupid; for Apple form follows function.
If function in a smart watch is not compromised by esthetics, they would maybe do round.
But for visual input/output, even with a smaller bezel, function is compromised and even esthetics is compromisted (through a much bigger round watch necessary).
Apple didn't come out with a bigger screen until 2012, long after smart phones became more than just phones so I'm not buying that. Not to mention that the iphone5 was still only a 4" screen which was way smaller than the competition.
If and when I get a smartwatch, the majority of the time I imagine I will not be interacting with it and will be wearing it like a regular watch. For this reason, I would like it to look like a regular watch.
The bezel won't solve the issue that we don't read in circles.... And you still need a much bigger watch to ge the same function.
So, you're still compromising function substantially for esthetics.
BTW, the first Iphones were the biggest phones around, so Apple has no qualms about big, it had a issue with big vs function.
When Iphones were mostly phones, big was stupid; for Apple form follows function.
If function in a smart watch is not compromised by esthetics, they would maybe do round.
But for visual input/output, even with a smaller bezel, function is compromised and even esthetics is compromisted (through a much bigger round watch necessary).
Apple didn't come out with a bigger screen until 2012, long after smart phones became more than just phones so I'm not buying that. Not to mention that the iphone5 was still only a 4" screen which was way smaller than the competition.
I believe the OP is referring to the overall size of the iPhone was bigger than other smartphones, not just the screen. Which is not true. The footprint of the first iPhone wasn't much different than that of existing smartphones, the only difference was the size of the screens because the iPhone was completely touchscreen while the others were not.
Comments
I don't the have Apple watch yet (as b-day is only next week
So [@]sog35[/@] now has his video evidence that the rotating bezel can perhaps be easily operated with one finger. Not so obvious it required two fingers after all.
For all of you folks on here saying that at Apple "form follows function", you might have a surprise coming. Oh yes, I agree with you that it always has been that way, but I think the situation is going to subtly change. To wit...
As you know, Apple has always said that they live at the "intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts".
Well now that they have gotten into wearables, I think that Apple has wandered a few blocks down Technology Street and now find themselves at the intersection of Technology and Fashion, where the rules are somewhat different. On this corner, form and function live in an apartment together, and neither is the head of the household. I think Apple realizes this and that they might do some things in the future that would surprise some of you. Sometimes they will trade off some function just for aesthetic reasons. Look no further than the fact that they introduced the 38 mm ? Watch for no other reason than it would look better on people with smaller wrists. (The larger watch would still be functional on a smaller wrist. It's not like they can't use it.) Other product categories with size variations like iPad Minis, iPod Shuffles, and iPod Nanos, etc, were introduced for functional reasons such as different degrees of portability. Not so the 38 mm ? Watch, which is not really any more portable than its (barely) bigger sibling. The sacrifice of screen size was done purely to address how it looks when worn. If it "looks wrong" on some people, then those people won't buy it.
So apparently, how the ? Watch looks when worn is important. And I know some of you might say: "Of course the size of the watch matters, because who wants to wear something that completely engulfs your wrist!" And I agree. But it's more nuanced than that. I think that many people really scrutinize how it looks, even if the size isn't obviously too large. (Mostly these people are not the kind that hang out on Apple rumor websites and post nonstop like we/I do, but I digress...) These people ask themselves things like: is the size perhaps a bit too large? A bit too small? Or is it just about right? What about this color? What about that other color? What about that band, etc, etc? Before I got my ? Watch, I tried on different styles & bands and asked all of those questions (not out loud though). Where the iPhone is concerned, every year I just go with what I know I wanted based on the specs and pictures I can find online. Some people do that with the ? Watch but a lot of people don't.
And if you think that a lot of people don't consider the shape as well when it comes to what looks good when worn, then you are kidding yourselves. Apple has allowed form to trump function when it comes to size, so don't think that they wouldn't consider doing the same for shape. For the watches, they have moved a couple of blocks down from their traditional "function over form" neighborhood.
Now, there have been a few good points made with regard to the challenges of rectangular versus round areas for purposes of displaying information on a computing device. But I think these concerns are overblown. Apple could do it right. In fact, sometimes Apple doesn't do something for a long time not because they have decided against it but rather because they want to spend the time to get it right. Maybe that's what they are doing with a round watch design. Also, there have been some good points about how Apple is traditionally loath to fragment their platforms in such a way. But since Apple has apparently moved out of its traditional neighborhood and into something that is necessarily influenced by fleeting fashion, I wouldn't be placing bets against it.
Well now that they have gotten into wearables, I think that they have wandered a few blocks down Technology Street and now find themselves at the intersection of Technology and Fashion, where the rules are somewhat different. On this corner, form and function live in an apartment together, and neither is the head of the household. I think Apple realizes this and that they might do some things in the future that would surprise some of you. Sometimes they will trade off some function just for aesthetic reasons. Look no further than the fact that they introduced the 38 mm ? Watch for no other reason than it would look better on people with smaller wrists. (The larger watch would still be functional on a smaller wrist. It's not like they can't use it.) Not so the 38 mm ? Watch, which is not really any more portable than its (barely) bigger sibling. The sacrifice of screen size was done purely to address how it looks when worn. If it "looks wrong" on some people, then those people won't buy it.
Jony Ive said "As soon as something is worn, we have expectations of choice", before joking that "only in prison" do you see uniformity in what people wear.
So Apple gets it.
Your assessment of the 38mm watch is dead on, it represents substantial compromises in not only screen size, but display area, and battery life. Apple turns it around and markets the 42mm as having 'slightly better' battery life, but the reality is, the 38mm is a compromise. But it's a brilliant move in making smartwatch technology to those who have traditionally avoided it, because the watches were too large and un-attractive.
So far the round watch makers seem to be targeting males, if for no other reason that men likely represent the largest group of early adopters for such technology. And it's easier and cheaper just to offer one size that's going to likely fit the majority of those in the target demographic at first. I'd like to know the male/female split of just who exactly is buying the 38mm vs. 42mm. I think we take it for granted that Apple, with its billions in R&D, can afford to launch what is essentially two different watches upon its first attempt at the product, while other manufacturers roll out one offering to test the waters in the event it doesn't sell.
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.
I don't think that Apple will have a round configuration for its UI anytime soon; not within 5 years. My intuition is that Jony and Marc, et al, created a design that gets better as it shrinks in thickness, and the pursuit of thin is absolutely technical innovation; people will pay for it. That is the path that Apple will choose to grow its market.
It's quite easy to imagine what a 5 mm "diet" will do to the design over two or three more generations; it will be the thickness of a current iPhone. It isn't difficult to do a little visual test to "imagine" what the future will bring. Two things that become clear at that point; the digital crown is the same diameter as the thickness; and, the band attachment still works absolutely the same. As Apple goes thinner, the digital crown will disappear, and control will be all touch / force touch; eventually it evolves to a flexible band. Once you have a flexible band, there are essentially no technically limitations to how the data is formatted for display; round or rectangular become a moot point.
For the competition, the same holds true, but in the case of the round configuration, the rotating bezel evolves to a touch surface.
By sticking with the current rectangular UI configuration, the developers have a consistent paradigm to work with across all the Apple ecosystem. Differentiation continues to be size, but also thickness/battery life, and customization of each generation is by material, color and a plethora of watch bands.
There isn't any reason that Apple needs to pursue round watch aficionado's until the arrival of flexible electronics; by then, the wearable market and Apple's ecosystem will be well established, and that will be the arrival of a UI what will be adaptable to many more configurations beyond strictly round or rectangular.
Wearables, not just just watches, is Apple's plan.
Here is the problem with sog, he has no imagination. He sees no way to solve a problem and he is unable to think outside the box. Because he hasn't seen a compelling UI on a round smartwatch he assumes there is no possible way to make one. Go back far enough and you will find him believing there was no possible way to make a large screen phone but then the 6+ came out and it was the greatest thing ever. Sog, let the creatives do their thing and trust that there are ways even if you cannot see them
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.
Unfortunately for your argument, the digital crown will work for quite a number of configurations; a rotating bezel won't for anything but a round configuration. As for the touch sensitive surfaces, likely they aren't fully baked, though they will be available in the future.
I would be curious to know if Aople investigated a round housing with a rotating bezel - in the end, it's applying the iPad click wheel to a watch - and have decided that it's not as good. Your argument points to a more universal use of the crown.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/62432/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Remember when the larger phones were ridiculed as being too big?
WTF man
Not offensive. But far from "beautiful" or aesthetically pleasing. The casing is rounded ("pill form") while the band's links have hard edges. It just looks un-Apple-esque, not elegant-smooth, to me. I find that the Sports with the rubber bands are actually the best looking ones.
Also: does not divert from the fact that the watch has two buttons that seem to have been designed by different people, to a different spec, for a different product, in different universes. The Crown looks like "a" crown, like any other, cheap, picked-up from the local-DIY-store-crown. I am still surprised at this.
Again, the Apple Watch is not offensively ugly, and it is functional (somewhat). But it also looks functional, like the original Walkman: it has the right buttons, but it looks cobbled together to make it work, rather than to make it look good while it works.
Maybe, as they themselves seemed to admit, the Execs did not know what the Watch would be used for, they just felt that "the wrist was a good place to put something", and they hoped for developers to come up with good ideas. So they just figured to give Version 1 a go, get sufficient users using massive marketing, let developers figure out what to do with this, and then design Version 2 around these use cases. They actually did not know what to design it for.
And yes, it may continue to be square and that is fine, but a square watch can still show some symmetry and aesthetics.
I would be curious to know if Aople investigated a round housing with a rotating bezel - in the end, it's applying the iPad click wheel to a watch - and have decided that it's not as good. Your argument points to a more universal use of the crown.
I'd bet that Apple's ID team investigated every option they could possibly imagine, and a rectangular configuration won out over a round or any other shape.
Call it silly perhaps but I've been of the belief that all these other round smartwatches from Android manufacturers are huge compared to the Apple Watch. I suppose I never really looked for myself. Then in the past couple of days I've seen side-by-side's with both the Galaxy Gear S2 and Moto 360. I'm pretty surprised to see that they aren't the big slabs that I and most others here were under the apparently mistaken impression they are.
An oblique view would be more telling of bulk (thickness) in a comparison over a top view, and text on screen would be a more difficult presentation for the round over rectangular configuration.
EDIT: I think the reason the new 360 looks thinner than the old is they've changed the lugs. On the wrist the new version looks thinner in pics.
The bezel won't solve the issue that we don't read in circles.... And you still need a much bigger watch to ge the same function.
So, you're still compromising function substantially for esthetics.
BTW, the first Iphones were the biggest phones around, so Apple has no qualms about big, it had a issue with big vs function.
When Iphones were mostly phones, big was stupid; for Apple form follows function.
If function in a smart watch is not compromised by esthetics, they would maybe do round.
But for visual input/output, even with a smaller bezel, function is compromised and even esthetics is compromisted (through a much bigger round watch necessary).
Apple didn't come out with a bigger screen until 2012, long after smart phones became more than just phones so I'm not buying that. Not to mention that the iphone5 was still only a 4" screen which was way smaller than the competition.
If and when I get a smartwatch, the majority of the time I imagine I will not be interacting with it and will be wearing it like a regular watch. For this reason, I would like it to look like a regular watch.
I believe the OP is referring to the overall size of the iPhone was bigger than other smartphones, not just the screen. Which is not true. The footprint of the first iPhone wasn't much different than that of existing smartphones, the only difference was the size of the screens because the iPhone was completely touchscreen while the others were not.