I did not realize that Asus was a major watchmaker.
Not just smart watches? Jaeger Le Coultre and I think Panerai allow you to switch watch bands easily at home (those are the only two I own). The Apple Watch is innovative, but switching bands has been around for centuries..... Really, is that what you meant?
You've characterized this incorrectly. Apple holds off on some changes, like screen size, until the technology is right. Because Apple also thinks in terms of power efficiency of its devices. IPhonrs have for a long time been more power efficient per unit of performance versus the competition, who have no qualms about just tossing in a larger battery. Apple thinks about how its products effect the environment, and hundreds of millions of iPhones using less energy to deliver the same computing performance adds up to a lot of aggregate energy savings. Multiple power plants worth. This is just one of the hidden aspects of engineering and design most don't give consideration to and that make Apple a company apart from the usual.
I think you are really grasping for straws now.....
There's absolutely nothing innovative about the Apple Watch's form factor. Square watches have existed for a very, very long time. I actually think a round face is far more innovative when it comes to a smart watch. A square screen is obvious, and a bit lazy. I don't see how the Apple Watch benefits from a square screen anyway really. The screen is too small for meaningful work and a round watch is likely just as good at displaying notifications, etc. as a square screen.
Your sentence in bold is exactly why your comment holds very little authority in my eyes. You don't see how... but for Apple engineers and many, many, many users, the rectangular screen is a far better design to get the most out of a rather expensive wrist-worn computer. We get it... you want a round Apple watch because it *looks* better to you, and for no other good reason. And that's okay.
Then again, Apple and most of its fans - me included - thought that those Samsung phablets were comically huge. Look how that turned out. I guess that's why Apple makes larger sizes now. Apple doesn't always get its initial trade offs right.
While others have already offered excellent rebuttals to your comment, I'll add my own, likely echoing what others have said.
Samsung and others made larger screens at the expense of user experience. They made devices that users had to adapt TO. Sure, people can overlook the usability issues and say "this phone is better for me because I can actually read the text". Did those same people even try an iPhone with a 3.5" screen first, or did they automatically just decide that bigger was better? See, it's important to see the user separately from the device, but see them together when it comes to evaluating the user experience. Companies can spew amazing specs all they want, but if those specs do not translate into a great user experience, then what's the point? Apple has effectively delivered a much better user experience for the life of a product without chasing specs. They've focused on performance. They deliver the same or better performance from a dual-core processor as an onto-core processor from a competitor. They deliver touch screens that are accurate, from day one. That matters.
Apple introduced a larger iPhone once the market existed for one, and once the technology could deliver the same great experience. It's not just about the hardware, but also the software. They weren't "correcting a mistake". They established a market and then built on that when the pieces were in place. They did not chase specs. They delivered an unmatched user experience in a larger form factor. That matters.
Well, you obviously think we're idiots who can't recall your other posts... So, guess it all comes out even hmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Someone has just placed me into a stereotype that I don't belong in. I agree that size in watches is very important. I haven't the foggiest why you think I would think otherwise unless you think I appreciate Android watches... I don't. My only point on this thread is to say that Apple should really consider including round watches in the future. I acknowledge the obstacles they will face when doing that and that smaller sizes for some people will be an obstacle too. I just don't subscribe to the opinion that those obstacles are insurmountable and aren't worth trying to address.
OK then, I will be try to be concilliant :-) It is possible that when tech allows, Apple will have a round watch. In this case, I'm assuming the screen won't be the primary way of communicating with that device. I'm betting that this won't occur any time in the next 5 years though.
Your sentence in bold is exactly why your comment holds very little authority in my eyes. You don't see how... but for Apple engineers and many, many, many users, the rectangular screen is a far better design to get the most out of a rather expensive wrist-worn computer. We get it... you want a round Apple watch because it *looks* better to you, and for no other good reason. And that's okay.
I don't care if you think my comment holds authority or not. It's an opinion. And like everyone else who disagrees with me, you've offered no evidence for why a square screen is better. Just a lazy, "well Apple engineers chose it so it must be better..." explanation.
Like I said, I don't see why a square screen is better than a round one for displaying bite size bits of data. Sure, there's more surface area and screens have traditionally been square or rectangular. But does that make them better on the wrist? I don't think so.
I do think round watches look better. But I really don't care if Apple makes a round one or sticks to square. I can safely say that the Apple watch is probably one Apple product I will never buy.
While others have already offered excellent rebuttals to your comment, I'll add my own, likely echoing what others have said.
Samsung and others made larger screens at the expense of user experience. They made devices that users had to adapt TO. Sure, people can overlook the usability issues and say "this phone is better for me because I can actually read the text". Did those same people even try an iPhone with a 3.5" screen first, or did they automatically just decide that bigger was better? See, it's important to see the user separately from the device, but see them together when it comes to evaluating the user experience. Companies can spew amazing specs all they want, but if those specs do not translate into a great user experience, then what's the point? Apple has effectively delivered a much better user experience for the life of a product without chasing specs. They've focused on performance. They deliver the same or better performance from a dual-core processor as an onto-core processor from a competitor. They deliver touch screens that are accurate, from day one. That matters.
Apple introduced a larger iPhone once the market existed for one, and once the technology could deliver the same great experience. It's not just about the hardware, but also the software. They weren't "correcting a mistake". They established a market and then built on that when the pieces were in place. They did not chase specs. They delivered an unmatched user experience in a larger form factor. That matters.
In the case of the iPhone they were correcting a mistake, the mistake that locked in the iPhone screen size from day one. Remember how the iPhone 5 added a row to the home screen and apps that hadn't been updated didn't fill the screen? At that point, Apple's only choice was to scale the screen so they stuck to the marketing spin that they couldn't deliver the same caliber product with a larger screen...until they changed everything under the hood and got developers to update apps, and only then could they change screen size. It had nothing to do with "an unmatched user experience" of any other such spin.
Pardon my interruption. I, for one, don't dispute much of what you say here. Apple's going to sell way more watches than these other guys, but that has less to do with the shape and more to do with a litany of advantages Apple showcases with every product class.
But in my opinion, a round Apple watch would be a thing of beauty like no other. I appreciate the obstacles that you and others have rightly pointed out about the difficulty of efficiently displaying information on a round screen, but I am not ready to declare those obstacles insurmountable. If anybody could do it, I'll bet Apple can, and I would also bet that they are working on it. Furthermore, the desire for individualism in things that people wear is going to drive a need for more options, shapes, and models. This hasn't been in keeping with Apple's successful MO, but this is the market they entered. Just differentiating via the straps and materials is not going to cut it. Shapes will come.
Cartier, TAG Heuer, Baume and Mercier, Franck Muller and others make gorgeous watches with square faces. I'm hoping that future Apple watches continue with the same shape, albeit a bit thinner.
Cartier, TAG Heuer, Baume and Mercier, Franck Muller and others make gorgeous watches with square faces. I'm hoping that future Apple watches continue with the same shape, albeit a bit thinner.
And all of those companies make gorgeous round models too. More models round than square. I hope Apple makes round and keeps the rectangular too, in order to have the variety that suits the people.
I re-watched the Jony Ive Condé Nast interview. He said when they were developing the iPhone the motivation was they all hated their phones and wanted to make a better phone. With the watch the motivation was different. It wasn't that they hated their watches and thought they could make a better watch or wanted to compete with traditional watch makers (they love and collect mechanical watches). The motivation was believing the wrist was the right place to bring technology to.
When Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone he said the killer app was making calls. Of course it's hard to argue now that phone.app is still the killer app on the iPhone. I think we'll see something similar in the smart watch space. Telling time is not going to be the killer app so designing around an analog watch face will be less important.
We keep hearing about how people don't wear watches any more. What that tells me is people were wearing watches for utility more than fashion or some sort of status symbol (otherwise they'd still be wearing them). And once the phone in their pocket could give them the time they no longer needed a watch on their wrist. So if they are putting something back on their wrist does it need to look like the previous thing they took off their wrist years ago? And those that still wear mechanical watches for fashion or status reasons, will they give up their Rolex, Omega, Breitling, etc. for a smartwatch? I'm assuming people paying thousands of dollars for a mechanical watch are doing so for a specific reason and I don't see how a skeuomorphic watch face delivered by software can compete with a high end mechanical watch. I'm sorry but Huawei and Lenovo don't have the same brand cache as a luxury watch maker.
I personally prefer a round watch face, as do most people. People have had the option to buy square watches for centuries but round remains the preferred form factor for this fashion accessory. It has nothing to do with the practical reasons.
er, no. for centuries round watches made more sense than square due to the arms of a watch always, always making a circular sweeping motion. better use of case space. not so much fashion.
now there's a compelling reason for them to be rectangular. Apple designs things along the Braun line of thinking -- the device must be honest and true to its purpose.
As far as your tired argument goes, since the watch is square to maximize the ability to read text, why on Earth are you even using an analogue watch face at all? It just takes up unnecessary room for all those complications. There's only one appropriate watch face for your rectangle and that's this one:
incorrect. watch faces with arms provide a subtle additional piece of info -- relativity. how much time until somethinng (top of the hour, etc) visually. also, there is no seconds hand on the textual watch face. and because the AW is rectangular, I can fill the corners of the screen with aux data while keeping hands.
You can geek out on watch size and volume etc all you want. That's not going to convince me that the Apple Watch is anything more than mediocre in terms of aesthetics. You're free to disagree, but please don't waste your time looking up data I couldn't care less about. I tried one on. It's bulky. It's too thick. Its a bit awkward pulling a shirt sleeve over it because of the thickness.
nonsense. that was my concern until the moment I put one on (42). I even wore a dress shirt to the store for that reason. not s problem in the slightest, since the AW is much slimmer than ALL of the other men's watches my coworkers are wearing. every one.
and the 38mm is anything but bulky. in fact it's so not bulky that I canceled my 38 after trying on the 42.
I personally think that both rectangular and round forms of smartwatch need be considered by Apple.
they were. without a doubt.
As a worn item, Apple is going to need far more variety than the strap color and style combinations they have come up with. In other words, the watch casing itself needs more variability than just size and material. People generally don't like walking into a social scene only to find out that the new shirt they are wearing is also worn by someone else (or perhaps two others). They don't mind so much about having the same phone, but if it's wearable there's this awkward feeling when you discover a "twinsie".
as a non watch wearer before AW, I don't give a shit about somebody else wearing the same leather strap watch on his wrist. we aren't peacocking our wrists around. but if I were that sort, I'd probably wear a special watch to this hypothetical event.
I don't care if you think my comment holds authority or not. It's an opinion. And like everyone else who disagrees with me, you've offered no evidence for why a square screen is better. Just a lazy, "well Apple engineers chose it so it must be better..." explanation.
Like I said, I don't see why a square screen is better than a round one for displaying bite size bits of data. Sure, there's more surface area and screens have traditionally been square or rectangular. But does that make them better on the wrist?
yes, because looking at notifications isn't the ONLY thing you do on AW. I routinely scroll thru my activity data. or thru a long text. and even a couple short emails, which require some scrolling. only for two or three moments, but scrolling nonetheless.
I re-watched the Jony Ive Condé Nast interview. He said when they were developing the iPhone the motivation was they all hated their phones and wanted to make a better phone. With the watch the motivation was different. It wasn't that they hated their watches and thought they could make a better watch or wanted to compete with traditional watch makers (they love and collect mechanical watches). The motivation was believing the wrist was the right place to bring technology to.
When Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone he said the killer app was making calls. Of course it's hard to argue now that phone.app is still the killer app on the iPhone. I think we'll see something similar in the smart watch space. Telling time is not going to be the killer app so designing around an analog watch face will be less important.
We keep hearing about how people don't wear watches any more. What that tells me is people were wearing watches for utility more than fashion or some sort of status symbol (otherwise they'd still be wearing them). And once the phone in their pocket could give them the time they no longer needed a watch on their wrist. So if they are putting something back on their wrist does it need to look like the previous thing they took off their wrist years ago? And those that still wear mechanical watches for fashion or status reasons, will they give up their Rolex, Omega, Breitling, etc. for a smartwatch? I'm assuming people paying thousands of dollars for a mechanical watch are doing so for a specific reason and I don't see how a skeuomorphic watch face delivered by software can compete with a high end mechanical watch. I'm sorry but Huawei and Lenovo don't have the same brand cache as a luxury watch maker.
I also keep hearing people do not wear watches, but reality on the tube or in my office tells otherwise: actually a lot of people are wearing a watch!
So the question is: will the Apple Watch win people over to see the benefit of having a functional device on their wrist, or will they continue to see a watch as fashion/jewelry? Time will tell.
I personally like the functional device (Apple watch) on my wrist during work hours, but in social settings, I almost always put on a fashion or jewelry watch. The Apple Watch looks utilitarian, not really pretty. It is inoffensive, so not ugly, but not pretty.
But others have a different opinion. It does not really matter, the Apple watch will sell a lot, do we really need to discuss here whats is nice about it and what isn't? And how it compares to a Rolex? Aren't we comparing a (well spec'd) Volkswagen Golf to a Ferrari? Two things for different purposes.
So you expect Apple and App makers to make two versions of their software? One for the rectangle watch and one for the round watch?
Exactly. People make it sound like this is so simple. Just like those who think it would be easy for Apple to make an ARM tablet with OS X on it. The fact is Apple thinks about these things longer and harder than anyone on an Internet message board does.
Exactly. People make it sound like this is so simple. Just like those who think it would be easy for Apple to make an ARM tablet with OS X on it. The fact is Apple thinks about these things longer and harder than anyone on an Internet message board does.
Thanks you! Apple people are not stupid; they are among the smartest in the business and I am sure they thought about the Apple Watch and what it should look like A LOT! (but neither are they infallible, and neither are Motorola people stupid, lets not forget that when raining sarcasm over them).
Exactly. People make it sound like this is so simple. Just like those who think it would be easy for Apple to make an ARM tablet with OS X on it. The fact is Apple thinks about these things longer and harder than anyone on an Internet message board does.
I agree with both of you! It won't be simple, and Apple has certainly done the deep dive trade-offs. But I don't think the story is over... they are probably still working the concept. If Apple can deliver a round watch that is big enough to just barely circumscribe the usable rectangular area (ie sans bezel) of the current 38 mm version, then app makers can continue to target the same rectangular aspect ratio that they currently do. Apple itself can utilize the entire circle for its interface, watch app, and other first party apps. Aside: I would love to see a custom watch face that represents the new spaceship campus as viewed from above! If some more ambitious developers want to use the entire circular area and have the bandwidth to make two versions, that would be their prerogative.
I could see something like this happening in the future.
Comments
Not just smart watches? Jaeger Le Coultre and I think Panerai allow you to switch watch bands easily at home (those are the only two I own). The Apple Watch is innovative, but switching bands has been around for centuries..... Really, is that what you meant?
I think you are really grasping for straws now.....
There's absolutely nothing innovative about the Apple Watch's form factor. Square watches have existed for a very, very long time. I actually think a round face is far more innovative when it comes to a smart watch. A square screen is obvious, and a bit lazy. I don't see how the Apple Watch benefits from a square screen anyway really. The screen is too small for meaningful work and a round watch is likely just as good at displaying notifications, etc. as a square screen.
Your sentence in bold is exactly why your comment holds very little authority in my eyes. You don't see how... but for Apple engineers and many, many, many users, the rectangular screen is a far better design to get the most out of a rather expensive wrist-worn computer. We get it... you want a round Apple watch because it *looks* better to you, and for no other good reason. And that's okay.
Then again, Apple and most of its fans - me included - thought that those Samsung phablets were comically huge. Look how that turned out. I guess that's why Apple makes larger sizes now. Apple doesn't always get its initial trade offs right.
While others have already offered excellent rebuttals to your comment, I'll add my own, likely echoing what others have said.
Samsung and others made larger screens at the expense of user experience. They made devices that users had to adapt TO. Sure, people can overlook the usability issues and say "this phone is better for me because I can actually read the text". Did those same people even try an iPhone with a 3.5" screen first, or did they automatically just decide that bigger was better? See, it's important to see the user separately from the device, but see them together when it comes to evaluating the user experience. Companies can spew amazing specs all they want, but if those specs do not translate into a great user experience, then what's the point? Apple has effectively delivered a much better user experience for the life of a product without chasing specs. They've focused on performance. They deliver the same or better performance from a dual-core processor as an onto-core processor from a competitor. They deliver touch screens that are accurate, from day one. That matters.
Apple introduced a larger iPhone once the market existed for one, and once the technology could deliver the same great experience. It's not just about the hardware, but also the software. They weren't "correcting a mistake". They established a market and then built on that when the pieces were in place. They did not chase specs. They delivered an unmatched user experience in a larger form factor. That matters.
Well, you obviously think we're idiots who can't recall your other posts... So, guess it all comes out even hmm.
Someone has just placed me into a stereotype that I don't belong in. I agree that size in watches is very important. I haven't the foggiest why you think I would think otherwise unless you think I appreciate Android watches... I don't. My only point on this thread is to say that Apple should really consider including round watches in the future. I acknowledge the obstacles they will face when doing that and that smaller sizes for some people will be an obstacle too. I just don't subscribe to the opinion that those obstacles are insurmountable and aren't worth trying to address.
OK then, I will be try to be concilliant :-) It is possible that when tech allows, Apple will have a round watch. In this case, I'm assuming the screen won't be the primary way of communicating with that device. I'm betting that this won't occur any time in the next 5 years though.
I don't care if you think my comment holds authority or not. It's an opinion. And like everyone else who disagrees with me, you've offered no evidence for why a square screen is better. Just a lazy, "well Apple engineers chose it so it must be better..." explanation.
Like I said, I don't see why a square screen is better than a round one for displaying bite size bits of data. Sure, there's more surface area and screens have traditionally been square or rectangular. But does that make them better on the wrist? I don't think so.
I do think round watches look better. But I really don't care if Apple makes a round one or sticks to square. I can safely say that the Apple watch is probably one Apple product I will never buy.
In the case of the iPhone they were correcting a mistake, the mistake that locked in the iPhone screen size from day one. Remember how the iPhone 5 added a row to the home screen and apps that hadn't been updated didn't fill the screen? At that point, Apple's only choice was to scale the screen so they stuck to the marketing spin that they couldn't deliver the same caliber product with a larger screen...until they changed everything under the hood and got developers to update apps, and only then could they change screen size. It had nothing to do with "an unmatched user experience" of any other such spin.
Pardon my interruption. I, for one, don't dispute much of what you say here. Apple's going to sell way more watches than these other guys, but that has less to do with the shape and more to do with a litany of advantages Apple showcases with every product class.
But in my opinion, a round Apple watch would be a thing of beauty like no other. I appreciate the obstacles that you and others have rightly pointed out about the difficulty of efficiently displaying information on a round screen, but I am not ready to declare those obstacles insurmountable. If anybody could do it, I'll bet Apple can, and I would also bet that they are working on it. Furthermore, the desire for individualism in things that people wear is going to drive a need for more options, shapes, and models. This hasn't been in keeping with Apple's successful MO, but this is the market they entered. Just differentiating via the straps and materials is not going to cut it. Shapes will come.
Cartier, TAG Heuer, Baume and Mercier, Franck Muller and others make gorgeous watches with square faces. I'm hoping that future Apple watches continue with the same shape, albeit a bit thinner.
When Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone he said the killer app was making calls. Of course it's hard to argue now that phone.app is still the killer app on the iPhone. I think we'll see something similar in the smart watch space. Telling time is not going to be the killer app so designing around an analog watch face will be less important.
We keep hearing about how people don't wear watches any more. What that tells me is people were wearing watches for utility more than fashion or some sort of status symbol (otherwise they'd still be wearing them). And once the phone in their pocket could give them the time they no longer needed a watch on their wrist. So if they are putting something back on their wrist does it need to look like the previous thing they took off their wrist years ago? And those that still wear mechanical watches for fashion or status reasons, will they give up their Rolex, Omega, Breitling, etc. for a smartwatch? I'm assuming people paying thousands of dollars for a mechanical watch are doing so for a specific reason and I don't see how a skeuomorphic watch face delivered by software can compete with a high end mechanical watch. I'm sorry but Huawei and Lenovo don't have the same brand cache as a luxury watch maker.
what other smartwatches made those product decisions? exactly?
er, no. for centuries round watches made more sense than square due to the arms of a watch always, always making a circular sweeping motion. better use of case space. not so much fashion.
now there's a compelling reason for them to be rectangular. Apple designs things along the Braun line of thinking -- the device must be honest and true to its purpose.
incorrect. watch faces with arms provide a subtle additional piece of info -- relativity. how much time until somethinng (top of the hour, etc) visually. also, there is no seconds hand on the textual watch face. and because the AW is rectangular, I can fill the corners of the screen with aux data while keeping hands.
nonsense. that was my concern until the moment I put one on (42). I even wore a dress shirt to the store for that reason. not s problem in the slightest, since the AW is much slimmer than ALL of the other men's watches my coworkers are wearing. every one.
and the 38mm is anything but bulky. in fact it's so not bulky that I canceled my 38 after trying on the 42.
they were. without a doubt.
as a non watch wearer before AW, I don't give a shit about somebody else wearing the same leather strap watch on his wrist. we aren't peacocking our wrists around. but if I were that sort, I'd probably wear a special watch to this hypothetical event.
yes, because looking at notifications isn't the ONLY thing you do on AW. I routinely scroll thru my activity data. or thru a long text. and even a couple short emails, which require some scrolling. only for two or three moments, but scrolling nonetheless.
I re-watched the Jony Ive Condé Nast interview. He said when they were developing the iPhone the motivation was they all hated their phones and wanted to make a better phone. With the watch the motivation was different. It wasn't that they hated their watches and thought they could make a better watch or wanted to compete with traditional watch makers (they love and collect mechanical watches). The motivation was believing the wrist was the right place to bring technology to.
When Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone he said the killer app was making calls. Of course it's hard to argue now that phone.app is still the killer app on the iPhone. I think we'll see something similar in the smart watch space. Telling time is not going to be the killer app so designing around an analog watch face will be less important.
We keep hearing about how people don't wear watches any more. What that tells me is people were wearing watches for utility more than fashion or some sort of status symbol (otherwise they'd still be wearing them). And once the phone in their pocket could give them the time they no longer needed a watch on their wrist. So if they are putting something back on their wrist does it need to look like the previous thing they took off their wrist years ago? And those that still wear mechanical watches for fashion or status reasons, will they give up their Rolex, Omega, Breitling, etc. for a smartwatch? I'm assuming people paying thousands of dollars for a mechanical watch are doing so for a specific reason and I don't see how a skeuomorphic watch face delivered by software can compete with a high end mechanical watch. I'm sorry but Huawei and Lenovo don't have the same brand cache as a luxury watch maker.
I also keep hearing people do not wear watches, but reality on the tube or in my office tells otherwise: actually a lot of people are wearing a watch!
So the question is: will the Apple Watch win people over to see the benefit of having a functional device on their wrist, or will they continue to see a watch as fashion/jewelry? Time will tell.
I personally like the functional device (Apple watch) on my wrist during work hours, but in social settings, I almost always put on a fashion or jewelry watch. The Apple Watch looks utilitarian, not really pretty. It is inoffensive, so not ugly, but not pretty.
But others have a different opinion. It does not really matter, the Apple watch will sell a lot, do we really need to discuss here whats is nice about it and what isn't? And how it compares to a Rolex? Aren't we comparing a (well spec'd) Volkswagen Golf to a Ferrari? Two things for different purposes.
Exactly. People make it sound like this is so simple. Just like those who think it would be easy for Apple to make an ARM tablet with OS X on it. The fact is Apple thinks about these things longer and harder than anyone on an Internet message board does.
Exactly. People make it sound like this is so simple. Just like those who think it would be easy for Apple to make an ARM tablet with OS X on it. The fact is Apple thinks about these things longer and harder than anyone on an Internet message board does.
Thanks you! Apple people are not stupid; they are among the smartest in the business and I am sure they thought about the Apple Watch and what it should look like A LOT! (but neither are they infallible, and neither are Motorola people stupid, lets not forget that when raining sarcasm over them).
I could see something like this happening in the future.