As for the Swiss and German watchmakers, and watch makers in general, they will most likely get their feet wet with smart watches by adapting their traditional round designs. Apple might find itself the sole rectangular smart watchmaker, if they don't offer a round model. <snip>
There's a lot to be said for round watches from an aesthetic perspective. I don't care for the square smartwatch format because the device tends to look like a cuff rather than a bracelet or a handsome piece of jewelry. And Apple's minimalist choice has basically reduced the watch to an unremarkable black rectangle, which is best distinguished by shape considering the absence of design cues, most notably the face when off, which is the majority of the time.
The interesting thing about this round vs square debate is that a watch most likely was supposed to be more of a bracelet than a bracelet with a big circle on it. The reason that watches are round is because a circular mechanism with hands on it looked better in a circle format because the hands were a fixed length and rotated around the circular mechanism. Does this mean that most people prefer circular watches because the varying space from the edges on a rectangular is atheistically unattractive ... after all, the same high end Swiss and German watchmakers make rectangular models as well as round ones, although they tend to not be as widespread.
Let's move to the Apple Watch which is more of a data device than a time keeper. Data in contemporary times is meant to be shown in rectangular format - we don't have round newspapers, magazines, or books.
Which paradigm do we keep, the time keeper or the content consumption one? For me and for many of the younger generation (although personally I am not ;-) I had given up wearing a watch because I could get time keeping in so many other ways (from my phone, from the corner of my laptop, off of wall clocks, heck off of tickers on the street) and I could still get alarms from my phone in my pocket. I am wearing a watch as an extension of my data device, to reduce the number of times I need to pull my phone out of my pocket, so I prefer a square device that most closely resembles the content consumption device that it mirrors.
I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry.
No, I ordered one a week after they went on sale, 6 weeks later it was still on order so made an appointment to try on one at the Apple Store Soho. For the first time in buying Apple products for 20 plus years I had a negative reaction to its appearance. It felt clunky, and the black (dead) face was unappealing. Once past that I was shown and played around with the interface and frankly I did not see it as much more than an iPhone accessory. I realized to my surprise that it had no real purpose or benefit to what I can do with my iPhone. Maybe someday if its looks improve (thinner, brighter and always on face) and there are several compelling features in the software I would buy one.
I think Apple let this one out of the gate a year too early. Again not a troll, Apple user since the very first PowerMac.
"I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry."
The problem may lie in that Apple has tried to make Apple Watch both of these and has failed on both accounts. This device looks good in photos and video ads but in real life its a little ugly. If it were not made by Apple it would not be selling the way it is nor would everyone here be defending it so much. I see it in its current state as another distraction, why do people have to respond to a text, email or other alerts instantly today. I also see it as yet one more device which needs to be recharged daily and will be a pain when it dies on you.
"I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry."
The problem may lie in that Apple has tried to make Apple Watch both of these and has failed on both accounts. This device looks good in photos and video ads but in real life its a little ugly.
That's amusing, because I've been getting the exact opposite reaction from people.
Also, oddly, there is a HUGE amount of jewellery out there that is, IMHO, ugly as sin, and yet, enough people seem to like it enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars on it.
Teaser video on how the new Samsung smartwatch interface. It's nothing like Apple's. Selections are made using a rotating bezel.
Which is absolutely nothing like using a rotating crown. /s
But seriously, I do think it's different enough that Apple probably won't have a case against it. Even though I definitely believe that the look of that app selection screen is very much inspired by/mimicing the Apple Watch.
Also, the problem with rotating the bezel to select rather than a crown is that you're going to end up covering part of the watch face with your hand at times during rotating. Unless the rotation mechanism is loose enough that you can turn it with one finger. At which point I'd question whether it could be accidentally rotated if the watch brushes up against something.
Yeah they both have something that turns and both use a familiar feature from traditional watches. Just different familiar things.
And if we really break things down, that statement is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. You originally said:
It's nothing like Apple's. Selections are made using a rotating bezel.
My argument (via sarcasm) was against the idea that it's "nothing like Apple's". Using a rotating bezel to manipulate selection is very similar to rotating a crown. The fact that both of these are based on existing watch controls doesn't change the fact that saying they are nothing like each other is plain wrong.
If it's like anything Apple, it most resembles the iPod wheel, but even then with significant differences.
And if the only purpose of these products was to look at them side-by-side in a museum, I'd agree. However, there is a functional element here that you're glossing over: the purpose of the rotation is to change the selected item. And in that regard, they are very much the same.
EDIT: I changed "selected app" to "selected item" since I later realized that rotating the crown on the home screen of an Apple Watch just zooms into the app in the centre of the display rather than changing the selected app. However, rotating the crown within many apps does change the selected item when there are a list of items, which is where my confusion arose.
And if we really break things down, that statement is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">You originally said:</span>
My argument (via sarcasm) was against the idea that it's "nothing like Apple's". Using a rotating bezel to manipulate selection is very similar to rotating a crown. The fact that both of these are based on existing watch controls doesn't change the fact that saying they are nothing like each other is plain wrong.
That sounds a bit silly really. Hardly similar except by a looong stretch of imagination, but whatever. There's things Samsung may do similar or even identical to an Apple feature. This would not be one of them.
That sounds a bit silly really. Hardly similar except by a looong stretch of imagination
I'm trying to understand how rotating a round object that's facing you in order to cycle through items is hardly similar to/nothing like rotating a smaller round object that's perpendicular to you in order to do the same. The only differences are the angle and size of the object you're rotating.
I'm not saying that Apple has any reason to sue over this since, as you pointed out, there's nothing really new here. I'm just saying that it's essentially the same style of control just laid out differently.
Nevermind. You've made up your mind they're pretty much the same thing. So are milk and water I suppose. They're both wet and drinkable.
And what you're saying is, if I have an audio mixing board with a big knob that controls the volume on the face, and a small knob that controls the volume on the side, they are nothing like each other.
I'm not saying that Apple has any reason to sue over this ..
I'm sure they wouldn't. Samsung's patent work on a rotating bezel for a smartwatch dates back over 7 years, long before the Apple Watch rotating crown was a glimmer in Sir Ive's eye. http://www.google.com/patents/EP1832969A2?cl=zh
The Samsung one most relevant to this particular use is from 2013 I believe.
And what you're saying is, if I have an audio mixing board with a big knob that controls the volume on the face, and a small knob that controls the volume on the side, they are nothing like each other.
Comments
As for the Swiss and German watchmakers, and watch makers in general, they will most likely get their feet wet with smart watches by adapting their traditional round designs. Apple might find itself the sole rectangular smart watchmaker, if they don't offer a round model. <snip>
There's a lot to be said for round watches from an aesthetic perspective. I don't care for the square smartwatch format because the device tends to look like a cuff rather than a bracelet or a handsome piece of jewelry. And Apple's minimalist choice has basically reduced the watch to an unremarkable black rectangle, which is best distinguished by shape considering the absence of design cues, most notably the face when off, which is the majority of the time.
The interesting thing about this round vs square debate is that a watch most likely was supposed to be more of a bracelet than a bracelet with a big circle on it. The reason that watches are round is because a circular mechanism with hands on it looked better in a circle format because the hands were a fixed length and rotated around the circular mechanism. Does this mean that most people prefer circular watches because the varying space from the edges on a rectangular is atheistically unattractive ... after all, the same high end Swiss and German watchmakers make rectangular models as well as round ones, although they tend to not be as widespread.
Let's move to the Apple Watch which is more of a data device than a time keeper. Data in contemporary times is meant to be shown in rectangular format - we don't have round newspapers, magazines, or books.
Which paradigm do we keep, the time keeper or the content consumption one? For me and for many of the younger generation (although personally I am not ;-) I had given up wearing a watch because I could get time keeping in so many other ways (from my phone, from the corner of my laptop, off of wall clocks, heck off of tickers on the street) and I could still get alarms from my phone in my pocket. I am wearing a watch as an extension of my data device, to reduce the number of times I need to pull my phone out of my pocket, so I prefer a square device that most closely resembles the content consumption device that it mirrors.
I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry.
Uhhh...
square watch
[VIDEO]
Cool. That looks good!
No, I ordered one a week after they went on sale, 6 weeks later it was still on order so made an appointment to try on one at the Apple Store Soho. For the first time in buying Apple products for 20 plus years I had a negative reaction to its appearance. It felt clunky, and the black (dead) face was unappealing. Once past that I was shown and played around with the interface and frankly I did not see it as much more than an iPhone accessory. I realized to my surprise that it had no real purpose or benefit to what I can do with my iPhone. Maybe someday if its looks improve (thinner, brighter and always on face) and there are several compelling features in the software I would buy one.
I think Apple let this one out of the gate a year too early. Again not a troll, Apple user since the very first PowerMac.
"I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry."
The problem may lie in that Apple has tried to make Apple Watch both of these and has failed on both accounts. This device looks good in photos and video ads but in real life its a little ugly. If it were not made by Apple it would not be selling the way it is nor would everyone here be defending it so much. I see it in its current state as another distraction, why do people have to respond to a text, email or other alerts instantly today. I also see it as yet one more device which needs to be recharged daily and will be a pain when it dies on you.
Cool. That looks good!
"I understand that some people may still be attached to those round watches, but I look at that more as jewelry than as a functional device, and for me, the Apple Watch is a functional device, not a piece of jewelry."
The problem may lie in that Apple has tried to make Apple Watch both of these and has failed on both accounts. This device looks good in photos and video ads but in real life its a little ugly.
That's amusing, because I've been getting the exact opposite reaction from people.
Also, oddly, there is a HUGE amount of jewellery out there that is, IMHO, ugly as sin, and yet, enough people seem to like it enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars on it.
Teaser video on how the new Samsung smartwatch interface. It's nothing like Apple's. Selections are made using a rotating bezel.
Which is absolutely nothing like using a rotating crown. /s
But seriously, I do think it's different enough that Apple probably won't have a case against it. Even though I definitely believe that the look of that app selection screen is very much inspired by/mimicing the Apple Watch.
Also, the problem with rotating the bezel to select rather than a crown is that you're going to end up covering part of the watch face with your hand at times during rotating. Unless the rotation mechanism is loose enough that you can turn it with one finger. At which point I'd question whether it could be accidentally rotated if the watch brushes up against something.
If it's like anything Apple, it most resembles the iPod wheel, but even then with significant differences.
I think it's a really nice and clean interface. I was surprised Apple didn't do something like this on the AppleWatch.
Yeah they both have something that turns and both use a familiar feature from traditional watches. Just different familiar things.
And if we really break things down, that statement is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. You originally said:
My argument (via sarcasm) was against the idea that it's "nothing like Apple's". Using a rotating bezel to manipulate selection is very similar to rotating a crown. The fact that both of these are based on existing watch controls doesn't change the fact that saying they are nothing like each other is plain wrong.
Not really.
If it's like anything Apple, it most resembles the iPod wheel, but even then with significant differences.
And if the only purpose of these products was to look at them side-by-side in a museum, I'd agree. However, there is a functional element here that you're glossing over: the purpose of the rotation is to change the selected item. And in that regard, they are very much the same.
EDIT: I changed "selected app" to "selected item" since I later realized that rotating the crown on the home screen of an Apple Watch just zooms into the app in the centre of the display rather than changing the selected app. However, rotating the crown within many apps does change the selected item when there are a list of items, which is where my confusion arose.
That sounds a bit silly really. Hardly similar except by a looong stretch of imagination
I'm trying to understand how rotating a round object that's facing you in order to cycle through items is hardly similar to/nothing like rotating a smaller round object that's perpendicular to you in order to do the same. The only differences are the angle and size of the object you're rotating.
I'm not saying that Apple has any reason to sue over this since, as you pointed out, there's nothing really new here. I'm just saying that it's essentially the same style of control just laid out differently.
Nevermind. You've made up your mind they're pretty much the same thing. So are milk and water I suppose. They're both wet and drinkable.
And what you're saying is, if I have an audio mixing board with a big knob that controls the volume on the face, and a small knob that controls the volume on the side, they are nothing like each other.
I'm sure they wouldn't. Samsung's patent work on a rotating bezel for a smartwatch dates back over 7 years, long before the Apple Watch rotating crown was a glimmer in Sir Ive's eye.
http://www.google.com/patents/EP1832969A2?cl=zh
The Samsung one most relevant to this particular use is from 2013 I believe.
I'm sure they wouldn't. Samsung's patent for the rotating bezel dates back to 2013.
I'm astounded no one came up with such a simple and intuitive means of watch control until then. Truly on another plane of thinking Samsung is.
Not really.
If it's like anything Apple, it most resembles the iPod wheel, but even then with significant differences.
I think it's a really nice and clean interface. I was surprised Apple didn't do something like this on the AppleWatch.
Wow, this is so last decade ... ;-) http://gizmodo.com/a-visual-history-of-the-ipod-click-wheel-r-i-p-1632640054