I suggest you read the definition of retro that you posted again, since you seem to be struggling with the concept.
Imitative of style, fashion, or design (in this case, all three) that requires a center point by which digitally represented hands of a clock turn as if there are gears undernearth that control the arms of a watch. There is opinion hear. That's the fucking definition, but you hate admitting you made a mistake so you'll probably continue lying. It seems Fox News has taught you well.
That's unbelievable. You posted the definition above. Let me post it again:
retro | ˈretrō | adjective imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past
You have, I can only presume, deliberately omitted the final part " from the recent past". I repeat, not for the first time, there are many, many, many, watches currently available for purchase that have round faces. And again, round faces, not analog hands, which you bizarrely are trying to swerve the argument towards (not that it even helps your argument anyway, same point stands) - the topic of this thread, and the topic of the exchange we are having it all about round faces, not analog hands.
In either case, round face or analog hands, there is no question of retro; modern watches have these features, and they are widespread in their commercial availability and appeal. So not retro. By definition. The definition that you posted, and are now trying to worm your way out of.
But you've devolved to complete disingenuous drivel now. Fox News ffs? These are pathetic attempts to discredit an argument that you don't seem to be able to deal with.
Grow up Soli, you're an embarrassment to yourself and everyone around you.
"Recent past" doesn't exclude that it still exists. When old trends become popular they "exist" in the present and are referred to as retro, as are countless technologies. An analog clock face on a computer display is, by definition, retro. Nowhere does the definition state that it has to no longer exist for any period of time for it to be considered retro.
Yes, I would agree, practically no one wears watches like that any more, they're a relic of the past...
"Practically no one" wears a traditional, non-smart watch anymore? is that what you're claiming?
...so an Apple watch face that imitate the style is retro.
Yes.
But not round faces (the topic of the thread) or analog hands (not the topic of the thread, though you seem to want it to be).
An analog clock face on an Apple Watch is retro and a round display on an Apple Watch removes a huge amount potential utility. These are different discussions, Choose one.
It's skeuomorphic, but not retro. For it to be retro it has to be something that is out of fashion, and where its fashionability was in the past. Disco is retro, even though disco has existed since the 70s, because it was fashionable in the 70s, and not so much since, apart from retro comebacks.
Round-faced watches (not analog hands, for the god knows how many-th time, we are talking about round faces, not analog hands) have never been significantly out of fashion. Analog hands haven't either really, but we're not talking about those. Neither are retro. Casio digital watches are retro.
Cute how you just avoid addressing all of your previous bad faith posturing. Got burned much?
I expect an apology for the comment accusing me of lying.
Yes, I would agree, practically no one wears watches like that any more, they're a relic of the past...
"Practically no one" wears a traditional, non-smart watch anymore? is that what you're claiming?
No. Obviously no. What is wrong with you? Why do you make no effort to understand? No one (probably not literally) wears Casio digital watches that were made in the 1980s, when they were significantly popular for a number of years but are no longer so.
An analog clock face on an Apple Watch is retro and a round display on an Apple Watch removes a huge amount potential utility. These are different discussions, Choose one.
You're a maniac. I've always been talking about round displays. This thread has always been about round displays. The comment about it being retro was about round displays. You're the only one talking about analog clock faces.
It's skeuomorphic, but not retro. For it to be retro it has to be something that is out of fashion, and where its fashionability was in the past. Disco is retro, even though disco has existed since the 70s, because it was fashionable in the 70s, and not so much since, apart from retro comebacks.
Round-faced watches (not analog hands, for the god knows how many-th time, we are talking about round faces, not analog hands) have never been significantly out of fashion. Analog hands haven't either really, but we're not talking about those. Neither are retro. Casio digital watches are retro.
Cute how you just avoid addressing all of your previous bad faith posturing. Got burned much?
I expect an apology for the comment accusing me of lying, and until then I'll keep calling you a shit.
1) It is skeuomorphic, it is imitative, and it is retro. OMG, something can be multiple things at once. :gasp:
2) I understand that you're upset that Apple went with a round watch face. Maybe you'll get your wish and Apple will decide to do a crazy amount of extra effort so your round UI can be supported because you have an overwhelming desire for aesthetics over utility. I have no reason for you not to get your wish, so I'm on board with your desire, but nothing about the current trend tells me it's going to happen.
It's skeuomorphic, but not retro. For it to be retro it has to be something that is out of fashion, and where its fashionability was in the past. Disco is retro, even though disco has existed since the 70s, because it was fashionable in the 70s, and not so much since, apart from retro comebacks.
Round-faced watches (not analog hands, for the god knows how many-th time, we are talking about round faces, not analog hands) have never been significantly out of fashion. Analog hands haven't either really, but we're not talking about those. Neither are retro. Casio digital watches are retro.
Cute how you just avoid addressing all of your previous bad faith posturing. Got burned much?
I expect an apology for the comment accusing me of lying, and until then I'll keep calling you a shit.
1) It is skeuomorphic, it is imitative, and it is retro. OMG, something can be multiple things at once. :gasp:
They can, (point out where I’ve said otherwise before indulging in pathetic attempts to mock and demean) but only two out of those three.
2) I understand that you're upset that Apple went with a round watch face. Maybe you'll get your wish and Apple will decide to do a crazy amount of extra effort so your round UI can be supported because you have an overwhelming desire for aesthetics over utility. I have no reason for you not to get your wish, so I'm on board with your desire, but nothing about the current trend tells me it's going to happen.
Apple didn’t go with a round face so not sure why I’d be upset. I’m not upset at all, the Apple Watch on my wrist is testament to that, though I think a round one would be cool (though not for retro reasons).
I’m not in favour of aesthetics over utility, but all other things being equals I’d like for things to be more aesthetically pleasing than less, just like every other human on the planet.
You’re still a shit, and appear to be incapable of debating in good faith.
Apple didn’t go with a round face so not sure why I’d be upset. I’m not upset at all, the Apple Watch on my wrist is testament to that, though I think a round one would be cool (though not for retro reasons).
I’m not in favour of aesthetics over utility, but all other things being equals I’d like for things to be more aesthetically pleasing than less, just like every other human on the planet.
Post #45 has you "spitballing" about a watch with a round face that is less useable because 1) you like the aesthetic more, and 2) you don't interact with your watch that much. You're literally calling for something that has less utility and more fashionable. You specifically state that you want "little physical interactivity," "the jewellery/accessory angle," and "the round face looks better" in just two sentences. But sure, I'm making it all up—you clearly have no desire for a Watch with less utility and more aesthetic appeal¡
You’re still a shit, and appear to be incapable of debating in good faith.
Says the guy who just makes ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with his comments. Brilliant¡
Apple didn’t go with a round face so not sure why I’d be upset. I’m not upset at all, the Apple Watch on my wrist is testament to that, though I think a round one would be cool (though not for retro reasons).
I’m not in favour of aesthetics over utility, but all other things being equals I’d like for things to be more aesthetically pleasing than less, just like every other human on the planet.
Post #45 has you "spitballing" about a watch with a round face that is less useable because 1) you like the aesthetic more, and 2) you don't interact with your watch that much. You're literally calling for something that has less utility and more fashionable. You specifically state that you want "little physical interactivity," "the jewellery/accessory angle," and "the round face looks better" in just two sentences. But sure, I'm making it all up—you clearly have no desire for a Watch with less utility and more aesthetic appeal¡
It’s not utility if you don’t find it useful.
Would a watch with a built in toaster be appealing to you? Apps are the built-in toaster for me. Not utility. If other features were added that were useful to me and necessitated a square screen then I would prefer that over a round screen. As it is, I cannot see anything that I find useful being degraded by a round screen.
You’re still a shit, and appear to be incapable of debating in good faith.
Says the guy who just makes ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with his comments. Brilliant¡
Oh I won’t deny enjoying a good ad hominem. Especially against people who I have no respect for. But I’ll always (ok, maybe not always, but mostly always) back it up with reasoned, proportionate argument. You’ve called me a liar, mis-attributed views to me, been incredibly selective about the bits of quotes that you used, littered your posts with profanity and hysteria. Most of my sins were in response to yours.
A reasonable person would be able to see how something can be useful even if it's not personally useful to them.
Who says I don’t? I haven’t demanded the taking of utility away from other people, just shared my experiences, and some random ideas of things I’d quite like.
These attempts to deflect the argument away from your repeated brain farts earlier are cute, by the way.
This tactic of “only an unreasonable person would say the thing that I’m inferring that you said (even though you didn’t actually say it)” is pretty despicable.
For someone who can’t rationalise an “I think” into a place where it obviously belongs you sure have no problem filling in fantastical blanks when it fits your purposes.
A reasonable person would be able to see how something can be useful even if it's not personally useful to them.
Who says I don’t? I haven’t demanded the taking of utility away from other people, just shared my experiences, and some random ideas of things I’d quite like.
These attempts to deflect the argument away from your repeated brain farts earlier are cute, by the way. Ever the shit.
I stand my comments. You did lie. You've changed up your story when you got called out and got abusive when nothing else worked… and that didn't work since I'm still calling you out on it. It says a lot about your character, but I'd rather focus on the conversation. If you make a reasonable comment I'll vote that up because I literally don't care about your previous lies or narcissistic statements from one post or thread to another.
This tactic of “only an unreasonable person would say the thing that I’m inferring that you said (even though you didn’t actually say it)” is pretty despicable.
For someone who can’t rationalise an “I think” into a place where it obviously belongs you sure have no problem filling in fantastical blanks when it fits your purposes.
Au contraire, I absolutely believe you think that something is void of utility if you personally don't have a need for it, hence my comment about it being an unreasonable statement. You've made that crystal clear.
So disingenuous it beggars belief. My story hasn’t changed a bit, whereas you’ve desperately tried to change the subject at every turn. Hell, I didn’t even comment on the retro thing until you inserted it into the debate to distract from something else.
Every time you claimed that the analog watch faces I pointed out weren't imitations from the recent past. I even gave you a picture of an iPad Nano which stopped selling neatly a year ago an additional example of the recent past as that stopped being sold nearly a year ago since you have this odd notion that recent past excluded it existing in present in any way, despite all the examples of the contrary. I even included an image showing a retro watch face on the 6th gen Nano that imitates a traditional clock with internal gears around with a centrically placed cannon pinion resides. I think we're well beyond you simply being mistaken.
But my attempts to come to your level is irreverent. What is germane the how the traditional clock face is retro for a digital era with a modern, pixel-based display for presentation. Retro is short for retrograde and, as stated, using clearlyreverting to an earlier and inferior condition. None of this means that you can't prefer the aesthetic—knock yourself out—but it's a head scratcher to see some so adamantly against it, just like people said the Apple Watch would be a failure because of this or that reason with how Swiss watch makers produce works of art. If that's your motivation over personal utility, then more power to you, but don't say that there's no utility if you personally don't need it.
Literally no idea what you're talking about. Again you're talking about analog watch faces when I've always been focussed on a round form factor, the subject of the thread. I never claimed that Apple Watch analog-style faces (I presume that's what you're talking about since your first sentence is rather difficult to parse - what faces did you point out?) weren't imitations of other analog faces. That would be insane, they obviously take design queues from the rest of the watch industry. I don't know what your allusions to the recent past has to do with it though, unless you're claiming that the Apple Watch analog-style faces are imitating very specific watch faces from the past that thereby qualify them as retro. I don't believe they do, they simply imitate generic analog stylings, and all of them are very modern. If there's one with roman numerals on it I might well concede that one being retro, but I'm not aware of such a face. Actually there is one: the Mickey Mouse one I would say is consciously retro, but more for the Mickey than the clock hands. I've been very clear throughout that "retro" is not just about being an imitation, but about being a fashionably anachronistic imitation. The word retro means backwards for heavens sake, it's about being backwards looking, specifically in fashion. You haven't given any good account of why that's wrong, and certainly not to the extent that it might be called a lie, and since there's countless watches on the market with both round faces and analog internal gears and centrally placed cannon pinions (why are you trying to show off your knowledge of how watches are constructed? No one cares) then I think you're a fool for hanging onto this.
So I don't think I'm mistaken, or lying, and if I am either then it's inadvertently. You on the other hand have been very deliberate in your odious misattributions of opinions to me, your ridiculous doctoring of your own dictionary definitions to remove the inconvenient parts, and your flagrant attempts to shift the subject. It's hardly worth the time to point this out, you're so transparently floundering.
If that's your motivation over personal utility, then more power to you, but don't say that there's no utility if you personally don't need it.
More of this nonsense. If I say "It’s not utility if you don’t find it useful" I'm very clearly talking about a subjective perspective. There's a "you" in there!
People speak from their own perspective. Learn to deal with that.
Comments
And I'll thank you not to accuse me of lying over a disagreement. I haven't lied.
Yes.
An analog clock face on an Apple Watch is retro and a round display on an Apple Watch removes a huge amount potential utility. These are different discussions, Choose one.
Round-faced watches (not analog hands, for the god knows how many-th time, we are talking about round faces, not analog hands) have never been significantly out of fashion. Analog hands haven't either really, but we're not talking about those. Neither are retro. Casio digital watches are retro.
Cute how you just avoid addressing all of your previous bad faith posturing. Got burned much?
I expect an apology for the comment accusing me of lying.
Why do I need to spell out the obvious?
You're a maniac. I've always been talking about round displays. This thread has always been about round displays. The comment about it being retro was about round displays. You're the only one talking about analog clock faces.
What is wrong with you?
2) I understand that you're upset that Apple went with a round watch face. Maybe you'll get your wish and Apple will decide to do a crazy amount of extra effort so your round UI can be supported because you have an overwhelming desire for aesthetics over utility. I have no reason for you not to get your wish, so I'm on board with your desire, but nothing about the current trend tells me it's going to happen.
Apple didn’t go with a round face so not sure why I’d be upset. I’m not upset at all, the Apple Watch on my wrist is testament to that, though I think a round one would be cool (though not for retro reasons).
I’m not in favour of aesthetics over utility, but all other things being equals I’d like for things to be more aesthetically pleasing than less, just like every other human on the planet.
You’re still a shit, and appear to be incapable of debating in good faith.
Says the guy who just makes ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with his comments. Brilliant¡
Would a watch with a built in toaster be appealing to you? Apps are the built-in toaster for me. Not utility. If other features were added that were useful to me and necessitated a square screen then I would prefer that over a round screen. As it is, I cannot see anything that I find useful being degraded by a round screen.
Oh I won’t deny enjoying a good ad hominem. Especially against people who I have no respect for. But I’ll always (ok, maybe not always, but mostly always) back it up with reasoned, proportionate argument. You’ve called me a liar, mis-attributed views to me, been incredibly selective about the bits of quotes that you used, littered your posts with profanity and hysteria. Most of my sins were in response to yours.
A reasonable person would be able to see how something can be useful even if it's not personally useful to them.
These attempts to deflect the argument away from your repeated brain farts earlier are cute, by the way.
For someone who can’t rationalise an “I think” into a place where it obviously belongs you sure have no problem filling in fantastical blanks when it fits your purposes.
But my attempts to come to your level is irreverent. What is germane the how the traditional clock face is retro for a digital era with a modern, pixel-based display for presentation. Retro is short for retrograde and, as stated, using clearly reverting to an earlier and inferior condition. None of this means that you can't prefer the aesthetic—knock yourself out—but it's a head scratcher to see some so adamantly against it, just like people said the Apple Watch would be a failure because of this or that reason with how Swiss watch makers produce works of art. If that's your motivation over personal utility, then more power to you, but don't say that there's no utility if you personally don't need it.
So I don't think I'm mistaken, or lying, and if I am either then it's inadvertently. You on the other hand have been very deliberate in your odious misattributions of opinions to me, your ridiculous doctoring of your own dictionary definitions to remove the inconvenient parts, and your flagrant attempts to shift the subject. It's hardly worth the time to point this out, you're so transparently floundering.
People speak from their own perspective. Learn to deal with that.