Redesigned Apple Watch with larger screen, enhanced battery life and health features due i...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 60
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,050member
    Bigger screen, not bigger case, please. 42mm is perfect.
    cornchiponeof52AirunJaewatto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 22 of 60
    rossb2rossb2 Posts: 89member
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 60
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    rossb2 said:
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    If I had to guess, I'd say if Apple changes the design such as to become incompatible with the original watch bands, they will continue offering the original design, as a classic AW option, such that the old straps will continue to be relevant, and the new model will use new straps. Most people who wear watches have more than one they rotate into their wardrobe, and therefore, a customer's investment in the original watch bands will be valid for many years to come, since it will be a style choice and not a requirement to upgrade. But Apple has shown repeatedly that if their design dictates a substantial change requiring making existing accessories incompatible, they will not hesitate to do it.
    edited March 2018 patchythepirate
  • Reply 24 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,327member
    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    That looks like the 38mm Watch. I’m looking at my 42mm model, and the borders seem smaller in relation to the screen. But the case needs room, because it has thickness inside of the glass, and the screen has edges that need room.

    i don’t see too much happening with the ratio. A bigger screen will just have empty space that seems less.
  • Reply 25 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,327member

    ...Dear Santa... ...could you please offer us a round option, in sync with the purity of timeless geometry, the iconography of clocks, the persistence of memory (Dali vs FB ?) and melting fascia...?
    Round would really have a waste of space, or a round screen. I don’t know which would be worse.
    GeorgeBMacpatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,327member
    rossb2 said:
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    Apple doesn’t actually do that. They’re very conservative in their design pace. I doubt they would change the strap connection. But they could add wider or narrower versions. Mechanical strap widths are numerous. More than dozen pin widths.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,327member

    mac_128 said:
    rossb2 said:
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    If I had to guess, I'd say if Apple changes the design such as to become incompatible with the original watch bands, they will continue offering the original design, as a classic AW option, such that the old straps will continue to be relevant, and the new model will use new straps. Most people who wear watches have more than one they rotate into their wardrobe, and therefore, a customer's investment in the original watch bands will be valid for many years to come, since it will be a style choice and not a requirement to upgrade. But Apple has shown repeatedly that if their design dictates a substantial change requiring making existing accessories incompatible, they will not hesitate to do it.
    I don’t see them discontinuing that. Adding to it yes. Considering how many “standard” strap widths are available for mechanical watches, there would be precedent. But it would be death to kill the present sizes.

    i also don’t see a need. These attachments will work for thicker and thinner cases. They could sit higher, or lower, on the sides.
    cornchipAirunJaewatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 60
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    I can't believe how much I still enjoy my series 0. Mostly, for wearing day-to-day and running.

    I'm trying to hold off on getting the upgrade until they make a thinner one.

    Best.
    I was in the same spot -- until my Series 0 developed a problem and I ended up with a Series 1.   I was really surprised at the difference and kicked myself for not upgrading sooner.    The difference is particularly noticeable with running.   It's just much snappier...

    Go For It!
    AirunJaewatto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 29 of 60
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 60
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Probably the biggest improvement they could make would be to replace the heart rate sensor with a (Single Lead) EKG.

    Theoretically it's possible because the electric signal read by an EKG actually spreads throughout the body.  But I suspect there are limitations or it would have been done long ago.

    But, assuming that those limitations can be overcome:   Switching to an EKG from the current light based system would:
    1)  Give a more responsive and accurate heart rate.  (Cleveland Clinic tested the chest strap EKG to be 99% accurate and the Apple Watch to be second best at 90%).
    2)  Reduced interference from tattoos and dark skin.
    3)  Reduced errors during weight lifting,etc...
    4)  Improved battery life.  The battery in the chest strap EKGs lasts forever.  The light on the current version eats a lot of juice and can't make through a marathon (at least not at my speed!).
    cornchiponeof52patchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 60
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,544moderator
    foggyhill said:
    Your calculations are way way off. This is a surface yet you increased the dimensions 15% of each sides, and they could change the bezel.

    You can get a bigger screen with just less bezels, so not sure why you get 44 and 48mm, that makes no sense.
    In fact, it's much more probable it will stay the same size with almost no bezel.

    say current size is 1.25 x 1   , if you increase size 5% on each axis, you'd get 1.3175 x 1.05 , thus 10% more surface

    So, even with the same bezel as now, 15% would only be 41mm, 45mm.

    They only need to reduce the bezel 1.5mm to fit that screen in the current 38mm and 42mm format.

    They may get as bigger watch out, but its not probable they'll get rid of the 38mm
    Beat me to it.  This has always been an issue in these forums of people failing to consider area, which as you show, implies a calculation of X*Y dimensions and not merely a difference as measured by the  diagonal.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 60
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,544moderator
    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Yup.  We need an Apple Watch X, with the display all the way to the rounded edges.
    StrangeDaysoneof52AirunJae
  • Reply 33 of 60
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,544moderator
    urashid said:
    ...Dear Santa... ...could you please offer us a round option, in sync with the purity of timeless geometry, the iconography of clocks, the persistence of memory (Dali vs FB ?) and melting fascia...?
    I am also looking forward to a round design. The layout of app icons on applewatch was designed to accommodate both square and round shapes. I hope it happens this year.

    Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece.  Apple has simply set aside that imperative and determined that the best form is a watch body with straight sides, that simply extend the straight lines of the band around the wrist.  It's a more functionally elegant solution to the problem once you free yourself of the need to accommodate circular movements and the circular watch face those impose.  Today, traditional round watch faces are a cultural tradition, but culture evolves and so do forms and the fashions that reflect them.  Apple will not build round smartwatches, as they are not the appropriate form for the smartwatch paradigm.  It's just that simple.  The rest are doing so in order to differentiate from Apple and to take advantage of the existing cultural dogma.  The future will take care to correct their error.

    fastasleepcornchipStrangeDaysoneof52AirunJaewatto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 34 of 60
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,177member
    urashid said:
    ...Dear Santa... ...could you please offer us a round option, in sync with the purity of timeless geometry, the iconography of clocks, the persistence of memory (Dali vs FB ?) and melting fascia...?
    I am also looking forward to a round design. The layout of app icons on applewatch was designed to accommodate both square and round shapes. I hope it happens this year.

    Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece.  Apple has simply set aside that imperative and determined that the best form is a watch body with straight sides, that simply extend the straight lines of the band around the wrist.  It's a more functionally elegant solution to the problem once you free yourself of the need to accommodate circular movements and the circular watch face those impose.  Today, traditional round watch faces are a cultural tradition, but culture evolves and so do forms and the fashions that reflect them.  Apple will not build round smartwatches, as they are not the appropriate form for the smartwatch paradigm.  It's just that simple.  The rest are doing so in order to differentiate from Apple and to take advantage of the existing cultural dogma.  The future will take care to correct their error.

    This exactly. The functional radial arm movement of the traditional analog watch should by no means dictate the shape of a digital watch. The fact we have "analog" radial watch face skeuomorphism is as close as you're going to get to a round watch from Apple, I think.
    radarthekatcornchipStrangeDaysAirunJaewatto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 35 of 60
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Considering how much Apple has invested in watch bands I can’t see them redesigning the watch to be incomparable with existing bands. Plus is there anyone who wants a physically bigger Apple Watch? I doubt it.
    radarthekatAirunJae
  • Reply 36 of 60
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,259member
    rossb2 said:
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    Source? Because watch straps sales are likely a rounding error for Apple’s revenue. 
    edited March 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 60
    kenaustuskenaustus Posts: 916member

    Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece.  Apple has simply set aside that im

    ents and the circular watch face those impose.  Today, traditional round watch faces are a cultural tradition, but culture evolves and so do forms and the fashions that reflect them.  Apple will not build round smartwatches, as they are not the appropriate form for the smartwatch paradigm.  It's just that simple.  The rest are doing so in order to differentiate from Apple and to take advantage of the existing cultural dogma.  The future will take care to correct their error."


    Considering how long there has been circular watches/clocks I don't believe that a digital design would be available for a very long time.  Just think of Big Ben on the Tower of London.  Circular is the best design for traditional time pieces - digital would look really dorky on the Tower of London.

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 


    As far as the Watch 4 goes, my fo us is going to be advances/enhancements in the Health area.  I'll be 74 when it is released andI'm going to want all the information I can get.  

    mac daddy zee
  • Reply 38 of 60
    I agree that removing bezels is the logical solution.

    But brainstorming...  how about a landscape orientation watch.

    Three benefits:
      1. Matches desktop/laptop monitor aspect ratio, so more closely shows same content (e.g., photos)
      2. Watch movies (really small!) without cropping (if ever enough battery)
      3. Allow lengthening the long side because the long dimension is in the same direction as the arm, not rotated 90 degrees where the chasis awkwardly hits the edge of the arm.

    I doubt this will happen, but it’s interesting to consider as a truly new form factor.
    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 39 of 60
    roakeroake Posts: 790member
    kenaustus said:

    Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece.  Apple has simply set aside that im

    ents and the circular watch face those impose.  Today, traditional round watch faces are a cultural tradition, but culture evolves and so do forms and the fashions that reflect them.  Apple will not build round smartwatches, as they are not the appropriate form for the smartwatch paradigm.  It's just that simple.  The rest are doing so in order to differentiate from Apple and to take advantage of the existing cultural dogma.  The future will take care to correct their error."


    Considering how long there has been circular watches/clocks I don't believe that a digital design would be available for a very long time.  Just think of Big Ben on the Tower of London.  Circular is the best design for traditional time pieces - digital would look really dorky on the Tower of London.

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 


    As far as the Watch 4 goes, my fo us is going to be advances/enhancements in the Health area.  I'll be 74 when it is released andI'm going to want all the information I can get.  

    I agree that a digital Big Ben would look dorky on the Tower of London for a few reasons:

    1. Big Ben is on Westminster Palace, not the Tower of London.  Would look strange to move it to the Tower.
    2. Any other clock would look dorky on Westminster Palace, since people come to expect a certain thing and a changed clock would break the now-established norm.
    3. A square, digital would certainly have looked dorky in 1859 when Big Ben was completed.  Maybe “dorky” wouldn’t be the right word so much as “magical,” or probably “possessed.”  People get used to a thing, and something that comes along and shakes their foundation scares ‘em.

    But true, I can see the logic of thinking Apple should emulate a 158 year-old clock with their newest cutting-edge timepiece.  If it was good enough for a couple centuries ago, it should be good enough for Apple.

    P.S. What’s the best way to display incoming calls on Big Ben?  You never know!
    fastasleepwatto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 40 of 60
    lukeilukei Posts: 373member
    roake said:
    kenaustus said:

    Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece.  Apple has simply set aside that im

    ents and the circular watch face those impose.  Today, traditional round watch faces are a cultural tradition, but culture evolves and so do forms and the fashions that reflect them.  Apple will not build round smartwatches, as they are not the appropriate form for the smartwatch paradigm.  It's just that simple.  The rest are doing so in order to differentiate from Apple and to take advantage of the existing cultural dogma.  The future will take care to correct their error."


    Considering how long there has been circular watches/clocks I don't believe that a digital design would be available for a very long time.  Just think of Big Ben on the Tower of London.  Circular is the best design for traditional time pieces - digital would look really dorky on the Tower of London.

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 


    As far as the Watch 4 goes, my fo us is going to be advances/enhancements in the Health area.  I'll be 74 when it is released andI'm going to want all the information I can get.  

    I agree that a digital Big Ben would look dorky on the Tower of London for a few reasons:

    1. Big Ben is on Westminster Palace, not the Tower of London.  Would look strange to move it to the Tower.
    2. Any other clock would look dorky on Westminster Palace, since people come to expect a certain thing and a changed clock would break the now-established norm.
    3. A square, digital would certainly have looked dorky in 1859 when Big Ben was completed.  Maybe “dorky” wouldn’t be the right word so much as “magical,” or probably “possessed.”  People get used to a thing, and something that comes along and shakes their foundation scares ‘em.

    But true, I can see the logic of thinking Apple should emulate a 158 year-old clock with their newest cutting-edge timepiece.  If it was good enough for a couple centuries ago, it should be good enough for Apple.

    P.S. What’s the best way to display incoming calls on Big Ben?  You never know!
    Big Ben is a bell. It doesn’t have a clockface on it 
Sign In or Register to comment.