Sure, the Huawei is missing some real estate in the corners, but it has extra real estate along the horizontal center. I think that the total surface area is probably on par. I think one could find a design to fit the complications, especially if one either simplifies the numerals (and lines) or entirely replaces some of them with complications. (Many traditional watches use this approach.)
I never said Apple Watch's form factor was innovative. And what's innovative about round? It's obviously not difficult since every Android Wear OEM is doing it now.
I'm just looking at my ?Watch display right now. In order for all of that information to fit in a round display the watch face would need to be much bigger and would look ridiculous on my wrist. Also I wouldn't give up the taptic engine for anything so if Apple had to go square to make that work than square it is. But I'm someone who went 4-5 years without wearing a watch so I'm not partial to a specific style.
I think making a round screen work for a smart watch is pretty innovative, given the obvious benefits of a square screen. That said, I haven't used any of the Android watches, so I have no comment on the UI. Maybe they suck. I agree that the square shape is much better for displaying more information, but that doesn't preclude someone from coming up with an innovative way to make a smart watch UI work on a round screen. After all, most people didn't think browsing the web would ever be a good experience on a cell phone...until the iPhone came along.
Curious, is there some reason the taptic engine can't work in a round form factor?
I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years, but I do care about how something looks. I never liked square watches back when I wore a watch and nothing has changed. I think a lot of people here are just slamming anything that isn't Apple without being remotely honest in their critiques. People complain about the Moto being too fat, flat tire, etc. But have they looked at the Apple Watch? It's a big, thick blob. It's no better - or worse - looking than the Moto 360 in my opinion. Both are kind of fat and bulky.
These aren't watches anymore than an iPhone is a "phone". Round works well for a device that's mainly a circular dial - that's why most watches are round.
There's a reason almost all content is presented in a rectangular layout... It's more efficient use of two-dimensional space.
Yes, round watches look nicer, because thats what we're used to seeing... But functionality wise, it's a horrible form factor.
I fully agree. Just because there is the word "watch" in "Apple watch" doesn't mean it is directly comparable to classic mechanical watches. It is ALSO a time piece. But mainly a wrist worn computer. Therefore, I don't see why it would have to be round. Or why the discussion of comparing the two product categories applies here.
You missed the point of the comparison. Soulless or ugly, whatever suits your fancy is a valid criticism of the Apple Watch, but form follows function and Apple Watch is more of a wearable computer and less of a traditional watch. IOW, there's no good reason for the display of a wearable computer to be round, just as there is no good reason for a TV screen to be round.
Here's the thing. All these android wear round watches can look very nice when they're displaying an analog watch face. But if I just want a nice watch that tells time why would I buy a smart watch? Perhaps calling ?Watch a watch wasn't the right idea but I don't hear anyone saying iPhone is a dumb name even though the phone app is probably one of the least used apps on the device these days.
Were you trying to make a point? If so, try a little harder next time. There's no connection between computer and TV screen shape and watch shape. That's just silly. The vast majority of watches and clocks have been round for...forever. The square shape has been tried many times by many watch makers and while square watches are available on the market, they aren't particularly popular. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist? Round is classic and timeless. Apple's Watch design is not. Sorry. Might be a great product, but it looks quite pedestrian compared to a nice high-end round watch face.
Square, rectangular and round faced watches have been around for more than a hundred years and the fact that square and rectangular watches are still made proves that they sell unless you can put up figures to prove otherwise. having tried on both the Moto and the Apple Watch I found that the Apple Watch felt much smaller in profile than the Moto which both felt and looked huge and stupid on my wrist.
How sure are you about that? I think it's a key point, because it it approached the limit of ridiculousness but didn't quite get there, I think that would be perfect!
I've tried on the Moto 360 and it did look comically huge on my wrist. I guess hence why they have a smaller size now.
Sure, the Huawei is missing some real estate in the corners, but it has extra real estate along the horizontal center. I think that the total surface area is probably on par. I think one could find a design to fit the complications, especially if one either simplifies the numerals (and lines) or entirely replaces some of them with complications. (Many traditional watches use this approach.)
But sticking all the complications in the center of the display would take away from the watch face IMO. I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons. And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
You probably use your phone for time, do you complain about it being rectangular verse being a round time piece.
Maestro, the difference is that you don't wear your phone. Or your iPad. Or your TV. Or your computer. Or anything else that people here are using to poo-poo the notion that people want round watches. The fact that you wear it makes a difference to a hell of a lot of people. The fact that people here don't understand that only proves that we are not vain about what we wear. Some of us are too geeky to care, while others are just too practical to care. But I am certain that there is a large set of people who do not wear watches at all today but would gladly wear an ? Watch for all of the utility it brings, provided it looked more elegant. Jony has done a fantastic job, no doubt, but it needs more refinement and more shape options. Round >> rectangle from an elegance perspective. The evidence is all around you in the world.
By the way, I went through much the same process as you just described, and I love my ? Watch. But I do wish that there were a larger round option that circumscribed my current rectangular screen. If the bezel is lost, the result would be slightly taller and maybe 25% wider. (I'm going to model it out on paper and see someday.)
Here is what it does for me on daily bases, it allows me not to look at my phone all the time especially in meeting with Senior management. I can quickly glance down at it to get updates on things, as well as seeting text and seeing who is calling and decide to answer or not. It taps on my wrist and reminds me a I have meeting I need to be at when I am not infront of my computer.
You probably use your phone for time, do you complain about it being rectangular verse being a round time piece.
I thought long and hard about getting Apple watch since I too did not see value in it beyond it being a watch. But I was in the market for a new everyday watch along with a fitness device, and realize to get both it would cost the same as the Apple watch for the feature I wanted. I got it for a watch and fitness features, but soon found myself using it for lots of things. Just last week I used it for updates on my flights and also for the boarding pass to get through security and onto the plane. I did not have to open my bag to get the tickets out or pull the phone from my pocket, I just walled up and put my watch to the reader and I was done. The same goes for apple pay. Can not tell you how many time I seen people drop their phone as they trying to do mobile payment or boarding passes becuase the juggling bags and trying to do something else. People are noticing how much it makes things easier.
Every time I do this I get lots of looks and people saying did you see what he just did.
The people I hear saying it not worth is it is useless are people who never trying it. I normally am not the first in on technology like this, I give it time and watch and see. This time I took the leap of faith and trusted Apple got it right, and bought in.
I'm glad you like your Watch. Everything you've described sounds good, a collection of many little benefits that add up to something much bigger. But nothing you describe can't be done on a round screen. Phones and watches aren't comparable. Watches have always been fashion items. I'm not complaining about the Watch being square. I just don't like how it looks. Just like I never liked square watches before smart watches existed. I've simply never cared for the look of a square watch on the wrist.
The way you use your Apple Watch doesn't really resonate with me either. I work for myself. I set my own schedule. My life is not highly scheduled. I'm not particularly concerned about jumping to read every new text, email, message, etc. the minute it arrives. But then again, I don't work a job that requires me to respond ASAP to everything that comes my way.
As for fitness, I'm probably in better shape than 95% of people my age and I don't need a fitness tracker to motivate me to work out. I'm also not remotely interested in tracking a bunch of health data. Good health is pretty simple when it comes down to it. Don't eat crap and exercise. Pretty easy. But I get the appeal of these features for others. That said, I still don't see why a square form factor is necessary to make any of these things work.
Square, rectangular and round faced watches have been around for more than a hundred years and the fact that square and rectangular watches are still made proves that they sell unless you can put up figures to prove otherwise. having tried on both the Moto and the Apple Watch I found that the Apple Watch felt much smaller in profile than the Moto which both felt and looked huge and stupid on my wrist.
I never said square watches don't sell. Don't put words in my mouth. I said they don't sell nearly as well as round ones or we'd be seeing a lot more square ones out there. Look around. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist versus a round one?
Personally I think both the Moto and the Apple Watch are too bulky and blob-like to be attractive on any wrist, but I agree that the Apple Watch looks and feels smaller. I still don't like, nor would I ever wear, a square watch.
But sticking all the complications in the center of the display would take away from the watch face IMO.
That's why I pointed out what current watch makers do: they put some complications on the perimeter but leave off some of the elements there... such as the "3" numeral which is replaced by a date or whatever. There's no reason why a smartwatch couldn't duplicate a traditional watch's positioning of elements, and some of these watches are chock full of complications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons.
And with that one sentence we reach the thrust of my argument: people are going to be wearing these things, and many people actually care about the aesthetics of what they wear. You aren't thinking about the "non-Rogifans" of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
People who tell you that are simply short-sighted, thinking only about the status quo with traditional watches, so it's a completely irrelevant argument. Here's the real way to look at it:
(1) the reason many (not all) people don't wear watches anymore is because they became largely redundant and unnecessary, since they only provided the time. Now that the smartwatch has arrived on the scene, bit-by-bit people will become interested again. And as we go through this process, the aesthetics will matter. The shape, too, will matter, because...
(2) as for the people that do wear watches, the majority choose round. And no, that's not just because the watch face fits there naturally. Many people also prefer round or curved necklace pendants to rectangular or linear ones. Same for earrings. Same for Apple Campuses and Mac Pros. Curves are more elegant than straight lines. (I'll take the St. Louis Arch over Seattle's Space Needle any day.) Even Apple's rectangles do their very best to become round. Think about it.
That's why I pointed out what current watch makers do: they put some complications on the perimeter but leave off some of the elements there... such as the "3" numeral which is replaced by a date or whatever. There's no reason why a smartwatch couldn't duplicate a traditional watch's positioning of elements, and some of these watches are chock full of complications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons.
And with that one sentence we reach the thrust of my argument: people are going to be wearing these things, and many people actually care about the aesthetics of what they wear. You aren't thinking about the "non-Rogifans" of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
People who tell you that are simply short-sighted, thinking only about the status quo with traditional watches, so it's a completely irrelevant argument. Here's the real way to look at it:
(1) the reason many (not all) people don't wear watches anymore is because they became largely redundant and unnecessary, since they only provided the time. Now that the smartwatch has arrived on the scene, bit-by-bit people will become interested again. And as we go through this process, the aesthetics will matter. The shape, too, will matter, because...
(2) as for the people that do wear watches, the majority choose round. And no, that's not just because the watch face fits there naturally. Many people also prefer round or curved necklace pendants to rectangular or linear ones. Same for earrings. Same for Apple Campuses and Mac Pros. Curves are more elegant than straight lines. Even Apple's rectangles do their very best to become round. Think about it.
So next time I will buy round stationary as it is more elegant ;-)
I think you left "function" when making your points.
The Mac Pro doesn't serve as display. Neither do earrings, or the other examples you gave.
Straight, or rectangular, shapes have it's place as well. For a good reason.
And while I follow your idea about round watches, the AppleWatch, again, is a wearable computer with a display. Here, Form actually follows Function. And within today's boundaries of available tech, feasible packaging and features, the display of the AppleWatch is good the way it is. You may not like it, but that's simply a question of taste. Apart form that, do you remember pics of people from let's say 100 years ago and the fashion at that time? Things change. Who says that fashion will not move towards less round watches? ( I consciously use the word fashion, here)
I never said square watches don't sell. Don't put words in my mouth. I said they don't sell nearly as well as round ones or we'd be seeing a lot more square ones out there. Look around. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist versus a round one?
Personally I think both the Moto and the Apple Watch are too bulky and blob-like to be attractive on any wrist, but I agree that the Apple Watch looks and feels smaller. I still don't like, nor would I ever wear, a square watch.
I'm with you on this one, robbyx.
I do in fact own and wear an ? Watch, and I really do like it. But I would strongly prefer it be round and as elegant as, say, the black and gold Gucci that I used to wear. I would be willing to have either a slightly larger watch or a slightly smaller central rectangle for displaying current and future apps that display rows of text, etc, provided the watch faces and other apps made use of the entire circular area.
I'm glad you like your Watch. Everything you've described sounds good, a collection of many little benefits that add up to something much bigger. But nothing you describe can't be done on a round screen.
I can't imagine that Apple did not consider the round vs. rectangle form factors for many months if not a year before coming to the conclusion that the rectangle shape fit their usage plan better than round. The ?Watch is a mini computer and much of the content is designed for the rectangular shape. The Calendar app, the Stocks app, the Maps app and many more that use scroll lists are just much better suited for the rectangular screen shape. Any small screen device is going to be a collection of compromises, but I think Apple decided that it would be easier to make a rectangular watch elegant than to make a round watch display what is traditionally rectangular content, and for good reason, because it is easier to interact with.
With a Sport watch, the fashion aspect is less of a concern. Once you get into the SS and gold materials, there is plenty of elegance in the ?Watch. When it was first announced I didn't like the look very much because it seemed a little thick in the photos but I ordered the SS with the Milanese Loop and I like it fine now. I like the look of traditional chronometers because of their heavy duty construction but dress watches like Rolex are a bit stodgy in my opinion.
Were you trying to make a point? If so, try a little harder next time. There's no connection between computer and TV screen shape and watch shape. That's just silly. The vast majority of watches and clocks have been round for...forever. The square shape has been tried many times by many watch makers and while square watches are available on the market, they aren't particularly popular. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist? Round is classic and timeless. Apple's Watch design is not. Sorry. Might be a great product, but it looks quite pedestrian compared to a nice high-end round watch face.
Timeless!? The only reason watches became round is because hour, minute, and second hands were moving in a circle, and made it look more aesthetic given that constraint.
Sundials (the time keeping devices that preceded watches) were not circular by any means.
So next time I will buy round stationary as it is more elegant ;-)
I think you left "function" when making your points.
The Mac Pro doesn't serve as display. Neither do earrings, or the other examples you gave.
Straight, or rectangular, shapes have it's place as well. For a good reason.
And while I follow your idea about round watches, the AppleWatch, again, is a wearable computer with a display. Here, Form actually follows Function. And within today's boundaries of available tech, feasible packaging and features, the display of the AppleWatch is good the way it is. You may not like it, but that's simply a question of taste. Apart form that, do you remember pics of people from let's say 100 years ago and the fashion at that time? Things change. Who says that fashion will not move towards less round watches? ( I consciously use the word fashion, here)
Ha, touche, but I spoke too much and diluted my own point, which was:
(1) many people care more about aesthetics when they have to wear the object, and
(2) round things are in general more aesthetically pleasing than straight things
Yes, fashion will certainly evolve, and advancements in tech can force that issue. Who knows whether rectangles can make a comeback as most favored of watch shapes? Could be.
But in answer I assert that at this point in time it would be foolish for Apple to completely dismiss the lure of the round smartwatch. With regard to form following function, I believe that rectangular is currently better for the task, but I do believe that there will be a way to answer both in either rectangular or round formats. It will just take some study to get it right. (I bet you Apple is studying that right now in top secret labs.)
Apple temporarily missed out on the larger phone sizes by being pigheaded about the trade-off between one-handed use versus screen size, and I think they may lose out on a large number of watch sales if they get pigheaded about the trade-off between watch size/shape versus area that can be used specifically for lists. I believe there is a way to make elegant round smartwatches that also perform all functions well. I'm certain of it. If not Apple, then somebody else will do it, and they will be the temporary king like Samsung was with its big screen phones, until Apple comes in and does it even better.
Seriously. Can these guys not make their own material? Pathetic.
Like Apple invented that.
Um... Why not 3 screen sizes and 2 models? Or 3 and 3? Or 2 and 4, 5, 6, or 7? Or... Well, you get the point.
I'd love to know which major watch company had easily interchangeable bands prior to Apple.
You're such an Android apologist. But, whatever works for you....
All of them had interchangable bands. Funny how when Apple goes to 2 screen sizes on the iPhone it's not copying but if someone does something Apple does it's copying. That's called hypocrisy, and I don't need to be an apologist of anyone to see it.
Comments
And where do complications go on that display?
Sure, the Huawei is missing some real estate in the corners, but it has extra real estate along the horizontal center. I think that the total surface area is probably on par. I think one could find a design to fit the complications, especially if one either simplifies the numerals (and lines) or entirely replaces some of them with complications. (Many traditional watches use this approach.)
I never said Apple Watch's form factor was innovative. And what's innovative about round? It's obviously not difficult since every Android Wear OEM is doing it now.
I'm just looking at my ?Watch display right now. In order for all of that information to fit in a round display the watch face would need to be much bigger and would look ridiculous on my wrist. Also I wouldn't give up the taptic engine for anything so if Apple had to go square to make that work than square it is. But I'm someone who went 4-5 years without wearing a watch so I'm not partial to a specific style.
I think making a round screen work for a smart watch is pretty innovative, given the obvious benefits of a square screen. That said, I haven't used any of the Android watches, so I have no comment on the UI. Maybe they suck. I agree that the square shape is much better for displaying more information, but that doesn't preclude someone from coming up with an innovative way to make a smart watch UI work on a round screen. After all, most people didn't think browsing the web would ever be a good experience on a cell phone...until the iPhone came along.
Curious, is there some reason the taptic engine can't work in a round form factor?
I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years, but I do care about how something looks. I never liked square watches back when I wore a watch and nothing has changed. I think a lot of people here are just slamming anything that isn't Apple without being remotely honest in their critiques. People complain about the Moto being too fat, flat tire, etc. But have they looked at the Apple Watch? It's a big, thick blob. It's no better - or worse - looking than the Moto 360 in my opinion. Both are kind of fat and bulky.
I fully agree. Just because there is the word "watch" in "Apple watch" doesn't mean it is directly comparable to classic mechanical watches. It is ALSO a time piece. But mainly a wrist worn computer. Therefore, I don't see why it would have to be round. Or why the discussion of comparing the two product categories applies here.
Here's the thing. All these android wear round watches can look very nice when they're displaying an analog watch face. But if I just want a nice watch that tells time why would I buy a smart watch? Perhaps calling ?Watch a watch wasn't the right idea but I don't hear anyone saying iPhone is a dumb name even though the phone app is probably one of the least used apps on the device these days.
Square, rectangular and round faced watches have been around for more than a hundred years and the fact that square and rectangular watches are still made proves that they sell unless you can put up figures to prove otherwise. having tried on both the Moto and the Apple Watch I found that the Apple Watch felt much smaller in profile than the Moto which both felt and looked huge and stupid on my wrist.
I've tried on the Moto 360 and it did look comically huge on my wrist. I guess hence why they have a smaller size now.
But sticking all the complications in the center of the display would take away from the watch face IMO. I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons. And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
You probably use your phone for time, do you complain about it being rectangular verse being a round time piece.
Maestro, the difference is that you don't wear your phone. Or your iPad. Or your TV. Or your computer. Or anything else that people here are using to poo-poo the notion that people want round watches. The fact that you wear it makes a difference to a hell of a lot of people. The fact that people here don't understand that only proves that we are not vain about what we wear. Some of us are too geeky to care, while others are just too practical to care. But I am certain that there is a large set of people who do not wear watches at all today but would gladly wear an ? Watch for all of the utility it brings, provided it looked more elegant. Jony has done a fantastic job, no doubt, but it needs more refinement and more shape options. Round >> rectangle from an elegance perspective. The evidence is all around you in the world.
By the way, I went through much the same process as you just described, and I love my ? Watch. But I do wish that there were a larger round option that circumscribed my current rectangular screen. If the bezel is lost, the result would be slightly taller and maybe 25% wider. (I'm going to model it out on paper and see someday.)
Here is what it does for me on daily bases, it allows me not to look at my phone all the time especially in meeting with Senior management. I can quickly glance down at it to get updates on things, as well as seeting text and seeing who is calling and decide to answer or not. It taps on my wrist and reminds me a I have meeting I need to be at when I am not infront of my computer.
You probably use your phone for time, do you complain about it being rectangular verse being a round time piece.
I thought long and hard about getting Apple watch since I too did not see value in it beyond it being a watch. But I was in the market for a new everyday watch along with a fitness device, and realize to get both it would cost the same as the Apple watch for the feature I wanted. I got it for a watch and fitness features, but soon found myself using it for lots of things. Just last week I used it for updates on my flights and also for the boarding pass to get through security and onto the plane. I did not have to open my bag to get the tickets out or pull the phone from my pocket, I just walled up and put my watch to the reader and I was done. The same goes for apple pay. Can not tell you how many time I seen people drop their phone as they trying to do mobile payment or boarding passes becuase the juggling bags and trying to do something else. People are noticing how much it makes things easier.
Every time I do this I get lots of looks and people saying did you see what he just did.
The people I hear saying it not worth is it is useless are people who never trying it. I normally am not the first in on technology like this, I give it time and watch and see. This time I took the leap of faith and trusted Apple got it right, and bought in.
I'm glad you like your Watch. Everything you've described sounds good, a collection of many little benefits that add up to something much bigger. But nothing you describe can't be done on a round screen. Phones and watches aren't comparable. Watches have always been fashion items. I'm not complaining about the Watch being square. I just don't like how it looks. Just like I never liked square watches before smart watches existed. I've simply never cared for the look of a square watch on the wrist.
The way you use your Apple Watch doesn't really resonate with me either. I work for myself. I set my own schedule. My life is not highly scheduled. I'm not particularly concerned about jumping to read every new text, email, message, etc. the minute it arrives. But then again, I don't work a job that requires me to respond ASAP to everything that comes my way.
As for fitness, I'm probably in better shape than 95% of people my age and I don't need a fitness tracker to motivate me to work out. I'm also not remotely interested in tracking a bunch of health data. Good health is pretty simple when it comes down to it. Don't eat crap and exercise. Pretty easy. But I get the appeal of these features for others. That said, I still don't see why a square form factor is necessary to make any of these things work.
Square, rectangular and round faced watches have been around for more than a hundred years and the fact that square and rectangular watches are still made proves that they sell unless you can put up figures to prove otherwise. having tried on both the Moto and the Apple Watch I found that the Apple Watch felt much smaller in profile than the Moto which both felt and looked huge and stupid on my wrist.
I never said square watches don't sell. Don't put words in my mouth. I said they don't sell nearly as well as round ones or we'd be seeing a lot more square ones out there. Look around. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist versus a round one?
Personally I think both the Moto and the Apple Watch are too bulky and blob-like to be attractive on any wrist, but I agree that the Apple Watch looks and feels smaller. I still don't like, nor would I ever wear, a square watch.
But sticking all the complications in the center of the display would take away from the watch face IMO.
That's why I pointed out what current watch makers do: they put some complications on the perimeter but leave off some of the elements there... such as the "3" numeral which is replaced by a date or whatever. There's no reason why a smartwatch couldn't duplicate a traditional watch's positioning of elements, and some of these watches are chock full of complications.
Quote:
I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons.
And with that one sentence we reach the thrust of my argument: people are going to be wearing these things, and many people actually care about the aesthetics of what they wear. You aren't thinking about the "non-Rogifans" of the world.
Quote:
And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
People who tell you that are simply short-sighted, thinking only about the status quo with traditional watches, so it's a completely irrelevant argument. Here's the real way to look at it:
(1) the reason many (not all) people don't wear watches anymore is because they became largely redundant and unnecessary, since they only provided the time. Now that the smartwatch has arrived on the scene, bit-by-bit people will become interested again. And as we go through this process, the aesthetics will matter. The shape, too, will matter, because...
(2) as for the people that do wear watches, the majority choose round. And no, that's not just because the watch face fits there naturally. Many people also prefer round or curved necklace pendants to rectangular or linear ones. Same for earrings. Same for Apple Campuses and Mac Pros. Curves are more elegant than straight lines. (I'll take the St. Louis Arch over Seattle's Space Needle any day.) Even Apple's rectangles do their very best to become round. Think about it.
That's why I pointed out what current watch makers do: they put some complications on the perimeter but leave off some of the elements there... such as the "3" numeral which is replaced by a date or whatever. There's no reason why a smartwatch couldn't duplicate a traditional watch's positioning of elements, and some of these watches are chock full of complications.
Quote:
I suppose there's a way it could work but I still think it's a lot of effort for purely aesthetic reasons.
And with that one sentence we reach the thrust of my argument: people are going to be wearing these things, and many people actually care about the aesthetics of what they wear. You aren't thinking about the "non-Rogifans" of the world.
Quote:
And since we keep being told how people don't wear watches anymore is the round aesthetic that important?
People who tell you that are simply short-sighted, thinking only about the status quo with traditional watches, so it's a completely irrelevant argument. Here's the real way to look at it:
(1) the reason many (not all) people don't wear watches anymore is because they became largely redundant and unnecessary, since they only provided the time. Now that the smartwatch has arrived on the scene, bit-by-bit people will become interested again. And as we go through this process, the aesthetics will matter. The shape, too, will matter, because...
(2) as for the people that do wear watches, the majority choose round. And no, that's not just because the watch face fits there naturally. Many people also prefer round or curved necklace pendants to rectangular or linear ones. Same for earrings. Same for Apple Campuses and Mac Pros. Curves are more elegant than straight lines. Even Apple's rectangles do their very best to become round. Think about it.
So next time I will buy round stationary as it is more elegant ;-)
I think you left "function" when making your points.
The Mac Pro doesn't serve as display. Neither do earrings, or the other examples you gave.
Straight, or rectangular, shapes have it's place as well. For a good reason.
And while I follow your idea about round watches, the AppleWatch, again, is a wearable computer with a display. Here, Form actually follows Function. And within today's boundaries of available tech, feasible packaging and features, the display of the AppleWatch is good the way it is. You may not like it, but that's simply a question of taste. Apart form that, do you remember pics of people from let's say 100 years ago and the fashion at that time? Things change. Who says that fashion will not move towards less round watches? ( I consciously use the word fashion, here)
I never said square watches don't sell. Don't put words in my mouth. I said they don't sell nearly as well as round ones or we'd be seeing a lot more square ones out there. Look around. How often do you see a square watch on someone's wrist versus a round one?
Personally I think both the Moto and the Apple Watch are too bulky and blob-like to be attractive on any wrist, but I agree that the Apple Watch looks and feels smaller. I still don't like, nor would I ever wear, a square watch.
I'm with you on this one, robbyx.
I do in fact own and wear an ? Watch, and I really do like it. But I would strongly prefer it be round and as elegant as, say, the black and gold Gucci that I used to wear. I would be willing to have either a slightly larger watch or a slightly smaller central rectangle for displaying current and future apps that display rows of text, etc, provided the watch faces and other apps made use of the entire circular area.
I'm glad you like your Watch. Everything you've described sounds good, a collection of many little benefits that add up to something much bigger. But nothing you describe can't be done on a round screen.
I can't imagine that Apple did not consider the round vs. rectangle form factors for many months if not a year before coming to the conclusion that the rectangle shape fit their usage plan better than round. The ?Watch is a mini computer and much of the content is designed for the rectangular shape. The Calendar app, the Stocks app, the Maps app and many more that use scroll lists are just much better suited for the rectangular screen shape. Any small screen device is going to be a collection of compromises, but I think Apple decided that it would be easier to make a rectangular watch elegant than to make a round watch display what is traditionally rectangular content, and for good reason, because it is easier to interact with.
With a Sport watch, the fashion aspect is less of a concern. Once you get into the SS and gold materials, there is plenty of elegance in the ?Watch. When it was first announced I didn't like the look very much because it seemed a little thick in the photos but I ordered the SS with the Milanese Loop and I like it fine now. I like the look of traditional chronometers because of their heavy duty construction but dress watches like Rolex are a bit stodgy in my opinion.
Um... Why not 3 screen sizes and 2 models? Or 3 and 3? Or 2 and 4, 5, 6, or 7? Or... Well, you get the point.
I'd love to know which major watch company had easily interchangeable bands prior to Apple.
You're such an Android apologist. But, whatever works for you....
Timeless!?
Sundials (the time keeping devices that preceded watches) were not circular by any means.
Some day you'll figure it out.
So next time I will buy round stationary as it is more elegant ;-)
I think you left "function" when making your points.
The Mac Pro doesn't serve as display. Neither do earrings, or the other examples you gave.
Straight, or rectangular, shapes have it's place as well. For a good reason.
And while I follow your idea about round watches, the AppleWatch, again, is a wearable computer with a display. Here, Form actually follows Function. And within today's boundaries of available tech, feasible packaging and features, the display of the AppleWatch is good the way it is. You may not like it, but that's simply a question of taste. Apart form that, do you remember pics of people from let's say 100 years ago and the fashion at that time? Things change. Who says that fashion will not move towards less round watches? ( I consciously use the word fashion, here)
Ha, touche, but I spoke too much and diluted my own point, which was:
(1) many people care more about aesthetics when they have to wear the object, and
(2) round things are in general more aesthetically pleasing than straight things
Yes, fashion will certainly evolve, and advancements in tech can force that issue. Who knows whether rectangles can make a comeback as most favored of watch shapes? Could be.
But in answer I assert that at this point in time it would be foolish for Apple to completely dismiss the lure of the round smartwatch. With regard to form following function, I believe that rectangular is currently better for the task, but I do believe that there will be a way to answer both in either rectangular or round formats. It will just take some study to get it right. (I bet you Apple is studying that right now in top secret labs.)
Apple temporarily missed out on the larger phone sizes by being pigheaded about the trade-off between one-handed use versus screen size, and I think they may lose out on a large number of watch sales if they get pigheaded about the trade-off between watch size/shape versus area that can be used specifically for lists. I believe there is a way to make elegant round smartwatches that also perform all functions well. I'm certain of it. If not Apple, then somebody else will do it, and they will be the temporary king like Samsung was with its big screen phones, until Apple comes in and does it even better.
All of them had interchangable bands. Funny how when Apple goes to 2 screen sizes on the iPhone it's not copying but if someone does something Apple does it's copying. That's called hypocrisy, and I don't need to be an apologist of anyone to see it.
Yep, and the sales figures for the Watch compared to android wearables would suggest that there are a lot of beholders.
The kind you could do yourself, or had to get done at a store (or with some fancy watch tools)?
Which major watchmaker? Please provide a link. Or move along. Enough trolling.