You be the judge. It's gigantic and very thick. The Apple Watch is an elegant solution, the Moto, not so much.
(This is my wrist with my Apple Watch, at a Best Buy comparing to the current generation Moto 360.)
I can't really gauge the thickness in that shot, but yes, Moto is clearly bulkier. But that's not the newly announced one, right? I tried on the Apple Watch and found it bulky, not terribly bulky, but bulky. I've seen the Moto on display but never tried it on. That said, I still prefer the round form and in that picture I rather prefer the lack of clutter on the round screen.
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.
Could not agree more. Well put. And the best thing about the look of the ? Watch is its not a jagged or harsh square. It's a beautiful rounded edge design and I love it.
Then again, Apple and most of its fans - me included - thought that those Samsung phablets were comically huge. Look how that turned out. I guess that's why Apple makes larger sizes now. Apple doesn't always get its initial trade offs right.
You've characterized this incorrectly. Apple holds off on some changes, like screen size, until the technology is right. Because Apple also thinks in terms of power efficiency of its devices. IPhonrs have for a long time been more power efficient per unit of performance versus the competition, who have no qualms about just tossing in a larger battery. Apple thinks about how its products effect the environment, and hundreds of millions of iPhones using less energy to deliver the same computing performance adds up to a lot of aggregate energy savings. Multiple power plants worth. This is just one of the hidden aspects of engineering and design most don't give consideration to and that make Apple a company apart from the usual.
I did get your point, just I felt a bit like teasing
I think that the overall shape will also be determined by how much the current tech can shrink. If the watch is thinner, maybe some functions transferred to the bands, then the trade off between round and larger shape might work. Honestly, I'm already amazed what they can put into the small housing and seeing that battery tech is currently not about to make a step change, and future models of the watch will rather contain more features than less I don't really believe in substantial reduction of volume over the next generations. Unfortunately, I have to add.
Regarding your comparison to the iPhone I'm still in between. Whenever I pickup my old 5s I'm happy how easily it fits in my hands and how well it is suited for one hand use. And that's really convenient. When I switch back to the 6 I'm always happy about the screen estate. Funny thing is, before the 6 I never missed that, and I have my iPad mini around for reading.
On the aesthetics side until now I never felt the apple watch unpleasant or less beautiful to look at from an overall design perspective. Of course I adore my mechanical watches and the craftsmanship is as amazing to me as in case of the Apple watch. The only thing I feel really pity about is that the Apple watch is designed as a consumer produxt with very short lifecycle when compared to the mechanical ones. Maybe it's just a question of getting used to, but the idea of replacing the watch every other year makes me feel slightly uneasy, while I never had such a feeling related to the phone.
Don't worry, the price, in current dollars, you likely paid for a high end mechanical watch, spread out over all the future [cheaper] dollars you'll spend to upgrade your Apple Watch every other year, and counting the trade-in value you'll get on your old Apple Watch each time you upgrade, will be a wash after 25-30 years. In other words, the Apple Watch, at its price point, doesn't have to last as long as a luxury mechanical watch, because it costs so much less. This is true at all levels; the Sport model costs far less than a mid-level Tag, for example. The Watch model costs far less than a Rolex, and the Rdition model costs far less than the top end ($200k) luxury mechanical watches. At whichever level you place yourself, you'll get a good number of Apple Watch upgrades for the net present value of the cost of the comparable level luxury mechanical watch.
So why is Apple courting the elite of the fashion world? Why is Apple actively courting the world's most exclusive boutiques, why is the ?Watch being sold along side Rolexes at New York's high end London Jewelers? Or The Hour Glass in Malaysia?
You keep making this assertion that Huwei and others are trying to fool somebody. Do you think Fossil makes and sells this watch to people who think it looks as good as the real thing?
Once again your lack of imagination is not proof that it can't be done effectively.
As far as your tired argument goes, since the watch is square to maximize the ability to read text, why on Earth are you even using an analogue watch face at all? It just takes up unnecessary room for all those complications. There's only one appropriate watch face for your rectangle and that's this one:
You've characterized this incorrectly. Apple holds off on some changes, like screen size, until the technology is right. Because Apple also thinks in terms of power efficiency of its devices. IPhonrs have for a long time been more power efficient per unit of performance versus the competition, who have no qualms about just tossing in a larger battery. Apple thinks about how its products effect the environment, and hundreds of millions of iPhones using less energy to deliver the same computing performance adds up to a lot of aggregate energy savings. Multiple power plants worth. This is just one of the hidden aspects of engineering and design most don't give consideration to and that make Apple a company apart from the usual.
I agree with your thoughts about Apple here, but I don't think I mischaracterised Apple. Instead, I think you left something out. I am pretty sure that Apple was hell bent on maintaining one-handed use until it was shown by the market not to be a mandatory thing. I think that was one of the few things that Steve got wrong and it took a while for Apple to turn the corner.
Pardon me Newton, but there is a reason for a watch to be round: elegance and vanity. It may not seem like a good reason to you, but I know two females that won't use a wearable computer if it looks like a wearable computer. Make it more round and elegant, and they're in. (Mind you, these girls don't even wear watches today, but they are interested in the new uses that the ? Watch might bring. Just not enough to go with the computerish look.)
We are geeks, and they are not. Maybe you think that's just vanity and it's just silly. But like it or not, it's a force in our society that Apple will likely have to face one day.
Man, for someone so in tune with esthetics (sic), your tone deft when it comes to women's fashion.
This the size distribution of women's watches sold on Nordstrom's web site
461 Under 30mm (yes, this is very small...)
822 Under 38mm
253 38mm Size of the small Apple Watch
500 39-42 (the smallest size for a competing Android Wear Watch is bigger than 42mm)
200 43-53
15 55-58
If round is important... Why not size?
Seems that's very very important too isn't it. Considering what's for sale right now.
Android watches are not even close to being OK for 85% women out there
I'm a 6 foot tall women with a slight build and on me they look utterly ridiculous.
Yes, women have a slighter build than man... Guess tech companies need to wake up to that.
Considering being all roundy (your preferred style) forces the watch to be bigger to provide the same function, that's an even bigger consideration. Since to get the function of the 38mm apple watch you'd need a bigger than 42mm round watch.
Historically, women's watches were even smaller than I reported there. They have trended a bit bigger over the last decade.
You sure have a lot of time on your hands. I guess that's how you rack up 15K posts bashing others.
Well, you obviously think we're idiots who can't recall your other posts... So, guess it all comes out even hmm.
As for "bulkyness"... It's smaller than the average current male watch per volume (thus not bulky) and much smaller than all the Android wear watch that preceeded it by volume. And I'm talking about the 42mm one. The 38mm one is ridiculously small.
Want me to dig up the stats on size, volume, weight an demonstrate that scientiically? Yes, it would require time; want to comment on how I should not use my tie to properly put that tired trope to rest?
Still rmember the "Kool aid" comment... Yup, high on Kool-aid I am.
I agree with your thoughts about Apple here, but I don't think I mischaracterised Apple. Instead, I think you left something out. I am pretty sure that Apple was hell bent on maintaining one-handed use until it was shown by the market not to be a mandatory thing. I think that was one of the few things that Steve got wrong and it took a while for Apple to turn the corner.
I think that's also a mischaracterization of the facts. Remember Steve Jobs saying that Apple will never do a smaller iPad because people would need to file down their fingers to use it? Well, even when he said that it was a bit strange; after all, people were using much smaller displays - the iPhone - without having to file down their fingers. So you have to read between the lines with respect to the message Apple, or any company delivers to the market about products it doesn't currently offer but its competition does. In the case of large screen iPhones, Apple actually did have verifiable technical reservations that matched up with Tim Cook's comments. But given that the competition did have large screen smartphones on the market, Apple's marketing message was shaped to draw a favorable comparison to its own smaller screen iPhones. Note that you no longer hear Apple talking about one-handed use now that they have larger iPhones to sell, so this is the message you should discount, not the other way around.
Those who believe round is the appropriate form for a smartwatch should look at watch bands. The part of a watch that covers the rest of your wrist, wrapping all the way around the wrist, does not have round protrusions. It's got straight sides all the way around the wrist, protruding at the clasp/buckle only out of necessity, to accommodate the clasp/buckle mechanism. Why aren't there round protrusions all along the edges of the bands, if rounded forms are so desirable? This goes back to the origin of wristwatches. The face/body of most mechanical watches really is round due to the rotating circular movement that drives the watch and for no other good reason. Thus, the hands of the watch describe a circle and even the representation of time, so simply stated as a number, is instead laboriously laid out along the circle to accommodate the nature of how watch movements move. Children today who so readily and naturally adapt to tablets and smartphones, by touching and exploring, must be taught how to read a traditional watch face. It is not intuitive, even if it seems so to those of us indoctrinated in that paradigm.
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.
Well, you obviously think we're idiots who can't recall your other posts... So, guess it all comes out even hmm.
As for "bulkyness"... It's smaller than the average current male watch per volume (thus not bulky) and much smaller than all the Android wear watch that preceeded it by volume. And I'm talking about the 42mm one. The 38mm one is ridiculously small.
Want me to dig up the stats on size, volume, weight an demonstrate that scientiically? Yes, it would require time; want to comment on how I should not use my tie to properly put that tired trope to rest?
Still rmember the "Kool aid" comment... Yup, high on Kool-aid I am.
I have no problem with anything I've posted. I actually try to comment on the topic and I don't immediately get condescending and insulting to anyone who has a different opinion. Of course if you push my buttons, I'm not shy. There are a handful of people on this forum who simply spoil the experience for everyone with endless condescension, labeling people trolls, etc. We all know who they are. Maybe you want to live in an echo chamber where your views are endlessly reinforced. I don't. I prefer educated discussion any day.
You can geek out on watch size and volume etc all you want. That's not going to convince me that the Apple Watch is anything more than mediocre in terms of aesthetics. You're free to disagree, but please don't waste your time looking up data I couldn't care less about. I tried one on. It's bulky. It's too thick. Its a bit awkward pulling a shirt sleeve over it because of the thickness. My opinion. Disagree all you like but you are not the arbiter of what is bulky and what isn't.
Man, for someone so in tune with esthetics (sic), your tone deft when it comes to women's fashion.
This the size distribution of women's watches sold on Nordstrom's web site
461 Under 30mm (yes, this is very small...)
822 Under 38mm
253 38mm Size of the small Apple Watch
500 39-42 (the smallest size for a competing Android Wear Watch is bigger than 42mm)
200 43-53
15 55-58
If round is important... Why not size?
Seems that's very very important too isn't it. Considering what's for sale right now.
Android watches are not even close to being OK for 85% women out there
I'm a 6 foot tall women with a slight build and on me they look utterly ridiculous.
Yes, women have a slighter build than man... Guess tech companies need to wake up to that.
Considering being all roundy (your preferred style) forces the watch to be bigger to provide the same function, that's an even bigger consideration. Since to get the function of the 38mm apple watch you'd need a bigger than 42mm round watch.
Historically, women's watches were even smaller than I reported there. They have trended a bit bigger over the last decade.
Someone has just placed me into a stereotype that I don't belong in. I agree that size in watches is very important. I haven't the foggiest why you think I would think otherwise unless you think I appreciate Android watches... I don't. My only point on this thread is to say that Apple should really consider including round watches in the future. I acknowledge the obstacles they will face when doing that and that smaller sizes for some people will be an obstacle too. I just don't subscribe to the opinion that those obstacles are insurmountable and aren't worth trying to address.
I can't really gauge the thickness in that shot, but yes, Moto is clearly bulkier. But that's not the newly announced one, right? I tried on the Apple Watch and found it bulky, not terribly bulky, but bulky. I've seen the Moto on display but never tried it on. That said, I still prefer the round form and in that picture I rather prefer the lack of clutter on the round screen.
And for me that Moto 360 screen seems like a lot of wasted space. Plus the white is a bit blinding. I much prefer a black interface (please let that come to iPhone, Apple!).
Those who believe round is the appropriate form for a smartwatch should look at watch bands. The part of a watch that covers the rest of your wrist, wrapping all the way around the wrist, does not have round protrusions. It's got straight sides all the way around the wrist, protruding at the clasp/buckle only out of necessity, to accommodate the clasp/buckle mechanism. Why aren't there round protrusions all along the edges of the bands, if rounded forms are so desirable? This goes back to the origin of wristwatches. The face/body of most mechanical watches really is round due to the rotating circular movement that drives the watch and for no other good reason. Thus, the hands of the watch describe a circle and even the representation of time, so simply stated as a number, is instead laboriously laid out along the circle to accommodate the nature of how watch movements move. Children today who so readily and naturally adapt to tablets and smartphones, by touching and exploring, must be taught how to read a traditional watch face. It is not intuitive, even if it seems so to those of us indoctrinated in that paradigm.
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.
Good points. No question the square shape is more functional. But this is a fashion item and in fashion function follows form. If Apple or anyone else wants to create a product with broad appeal, they're going to have to pay attention to the whims of fashion, function be damned. Digital watches have existed for a long time and square shapes remain far less popular. It might be dogma keeping watches round...or perhaps round ones simply look better on the wrist?
Considering being all roundy (your preferred style) forces the watch to be bigger to provide the same function, that's an even bigger consideration. Since to get the function of the 38mm apple watch you'd need a bigger than 42mm round watch.
And for me that Moto 360 screen seems like a lot of wasted space. Plus the white is a bit blinding. I much prefer a black interface (please let that come to iPhone, Apple!).
Agreed on the white! It's garish. But I appreciate the sparse design. I don't see the space as wasted necessarily, just more focused. But that pic also shows each watch doing very different things, so probably not fair to compare the interfaces.
I think that's also a mischaracterization of the facts. Remember Steve Jobs saying that Apple will never do a smaller iPad because people would need to file down their fingers to use it? Well, even when he said that it was a bit strange; after all, people were using much smaller displays - the iPhone - without having to file down their fingers. So you have to read between the lines with respect to the message Apple, or any company delivers to the market about products it doesn't currently offer but its competition does. In the case of large screen iPhones, Apple actually did have verifiable technical reservations that matched up with Tim Cook's comments. But given that the competition did have large screen smartphones on the market, Apple's marketing message was shaped to draw a favorable comparison to its own smaller screen iPhones. Note that you no longer hear Apple talking about one-handed use now that they have larger iPhones to sell, so this is the message you should discount, not the other way around.
I don't think anyone can say for sure which message should be discounted unless you are omniscient. It seems very likely to me that Steve and Apple have been wrong on many occasions (including the one you cited here as well as others) but are willing to change direction on a dime when the facts change. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's one of Steve's qualities that his friends have gladly spoken of in interviews.
Those who believe round is the appropriate form for a smartwatch should look at watch bands. The part of a watch that covers the rest of your wrist, wrapping all the way around the wrist, does not have round protrusions. It's got straight sides all the way around the wrist, protruding at the clasp/buckle only out of necessity, to accommodate the clasp/buckle mechanism. Why aren't there round protrusions all along the edges of the bands, if rounded forms are so desirable? This goes back to the origin of wristwatches. The face/body of most mechanical watches really is round due to the rotating circular movement that drives the watch and for no other good reason. Thus, the hands of the watch describe a circle and even the representation of time, so simply stated as a number, is instead laboriously laid out along the circle to accommodate the nature of how watch movements move. Children today who so readily and naturally adapt to tablets and smartphones, by touching and exploring, must be taught how to read a traditional watch face. It is not intuitive, even if it seems so to those of us indoctrinated in that paradigm.
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.
I personally think that both rectangular and round forms of smartwatch need be considered by Apple. As a worn item, Apple is going to need far more variety than the strap color and style combinations they have come up with. In other words, the watch casing itself needs more variability than just size and material. People generally don't like walking into a social scene only to find out that the new shirt they are wearing is also worn by someone else (or perhaps two others). They don't mind so much about having the same phone, but if it's wearable there's this awkward feeling when you discover a "twinsie".
I recognize the technical challenges here, but Apple just decided to enter a market that is not going to be kind to a limited SKU plan.
But that pic also shows each watch doing very different things, so probably not fair to compare the interfaces.
You want to talk about a crowded interface? Here's the 38mm and 42mm Watch display's showing the exact same information: the 38mm Watch customers definitely got the short end of the stick.
Comments
You sure have a lot of time on your hands.
Yes, I do indeed have some great time on my hands.
I wear an AppleWatch, after all.
You be the judge. It's gigantic and very thick. The Apple Watch is an elegant solution, the Moto, not so much.
(This is my wrist with my Apple Watch, at a Best Buy comparing to the current generation Moto 360.)
I can't really gauge the thickness in that shot, but yes, Moto is clearly bulkier. But that's not the newly announced one, right? I tried on the Apple Watch and found it bulky, not terribly bulky, but bulky. I've seen the Moto on display but never tried it on. That said, I still prefer the round form and in that picture I rather prefer the lack of clutter on the round screen.
Could not agree more. Well put. And the best thing about the look of the ? Watch is its not a jagged or harsh square. It's a beautiful rounded edge design and I love it.
You've characterized this incorrectly. Apple holds off on some changes, like screen size, until the technology is right. Because Apple also thinks in terms of power efficiency of its devices. IPhonrs have for a long time been more power efficient per unit of performance versus the competition, who have no qualms about just tossing in a larger battery. Apple thinks about how its products effect the environment, and hundreds of millions of iPhones using less energy to deliver the same computing performance adds up to a lot of aggregate energy savings. Multiple power plants worth. This is just one of the hidden aspects of engineering and design most don't give consideration to and that make Apple a company apart from the usual.
Don't worry, the price, in current dollars, you likely paid for a high end mechanical watch, spread out over all the future [cheaper] dollars you'll spend to upgrade your Apple Watch every other year, and counting the trade-in value you'll get on your old Apple Watch each time you upgrade, will be a wash after 25-30 years. In other words, the Apple Watch, at its price point, doesn't have to last as long as a luxury mechanical watch, because it costs so much less. This is true at all levels; the Sport model costs far less than a mid-level Tag, for example. The Watch model costs far less than a Rolex, and the Rdition model costs far less than the top end ($200k) luxury mechanical watches. At whichever level you place yourself, you'll get a good number of Apple Watch upgrades for the net present value of the cost of the comparable level luxury mechanical watch.
Or the Foot-tapping Mickey face. Lol
Pardon me Newton, but there is a reason for a watch to be round: elegance and vanity. It may not seem like a good reason to you, but I know two females that won't use a wearable computer if it looks like a wearable computer. Make it more round and elegant, and they're in. (Mind you, these girls don't even wear watches today, but they are interested in the new uses that the ? Watch might bring. Just not enough to go with the computerish look.)
We are geeks, and they are not. Maybe you think that's just vanity and it's just silly. But like it or not, it's a force in our society that Apple will likely have to face one day.
Man, for someone so in tune with esthetics (sic), your tone deft when it comes to women's fashion.
This the size distribution of women's watches sold on Nordstrom's web site
461 Under 30mm (yes, this is very small...)
822 Under 38mm
253 38mm Size of the small Apple Watch
500 39-42 (the smallest size for a competing Android Wear Watch is bigger than 42mm)
200 43-53
15 55-58
If round is important... Why not size?
Seems that's very very important too isn't it. Considering what's for sale right now.
Android watches are not even close to being OK for 85% women out there
I'm a 6 foot tall women with a slight build and on me they look utterly ridiculous.
Yes, women have a slighter build than man... Guess tech companies need to wake up to that.
Considering being all roundy (your preferred style) forces the watch to be bigger to provide the same function, that's an even bigger consideration. Since to get the function of the 38mm apple watch you'd need a bigger than 42mm round watch.
Historically, women's watches were even smaller than I reported there. They have trended a bit bigger over the last decade.
You sure have a lot of time on your hands. I guess that's how you rack up 15K posts bashing others.
Well, you obviously think we're idiots who can't recall your other posts... So, guess it all comes out even hmm.
As for "bulkyness"... It's smaller than the average current male watch per volume (thus not bulky) and much smaller than all the Android wear watch that preceeded it by volume. And I'm talking about the 42mm one. The 38mm one is ridiculously small.
Want me to dig up the stats on size, volume, weight an demonstrate that scientiically? Yes, it would require time; want to comment on how I should not use my tie to properly put that tired trope to rest?
Still rmember the "Kool aid" comment... Yup, high on Kool-aid I am.
I agree with your thoughts about Apple here, but I don't think I mischaracterised Apple. Instead, I think you left something out. I am pretty sure that Apple was hell bent on maintaining one-handed use until it was shown by the market not to be a mandatory thing. I think that was one of the few things that Steve got wrong and it took a while for Apple to turn the corner.
I think that's also a mischaracterization of the facts. Remember Steve Jobs saying that Apple will never do a smaller iPad because people would need to file down their fingers to use it? Well, even when he said that it was a bit strange; after all, people were using much smaller displays - the iPhone - without having to file down their fingers. So you have to read between the lines with respect to the message Apple, or any company delivers to the market about products it doesn't currently offer but its competition does. In the case of large screen iPhones, Apple actually did have verifiable technical reservations that matched up with Tim Cook's comments. But given that the competition did have large screen smartphones on the market, Apple's marketing message was shaped to draw a favorable comparison to its own smaller screen iPhones. Note that you no longer hear Apple talking about one-handed use now that they have larger iPhones to sell, so this is the message you should discount, not the other way around.
Those who believe round is the appropriate form for a smartwatch should look at watch bands. The part of a watch that covers the rest of your wrist, wrapping all the way around the wrist, does not have round protrusions. It's got straight sides all the way around the wrist, protruding at the clasp/buckle only out of necessity, to accommodate the clasp/buckle mechanism. Why aren't there round protrusions all along the edges of the bands, if rounded forms are so desirable? This goes back to the origin of wristwatches. The face/body of most mechanical watches really is round due to the rotating circular movement that drives the watch and for no other good reason. Thus, the hands of the watch describe a circle and even the representation of time, so simply stated as a number, is instead laboriously laid out along the circle to accommodate the nature of how watch movements move. Children today who so readily and naturally adapt to tablets and smartphones, by touching and exploring, must be taught how to read a traditional watch face. It is not intuitive, even if it seems so to those of us indoctrinated in that paradigm.
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.
I have no problem with anything I've posted. I actually try to comment on the topic and I don't immediately get condescending and insulting to anyone who has a different opinion. Of course if you push my buttons, I'm not shy. There are a handful of people on this forum who simply spoil the experience for everyone with endless condescension, labeling people trolls, etc. We all know who they are. Maybe you want to live in an echo chamber where your views are endlessly reinforced. I don't. I prefer educated discussion any day.
You can geek out on watch size and volume etc all you want. That's not going to convince me that the Apple Watch is anything more than mediocre in terms of aesthetics. You're free to disagree, but please don't waste your time looking up data I couldn't care less about. I tried one on. It's bulky. It's too thick. Its a bit awkward pulling a shirt sleeve over it because of the thickness. My opinion. Disagree all you like but you are not the arbiter of what is bulky and what isn't.
Someone has just placed me into a stereotype that I don't belong in. I agree that size in watches is very important. I haven't the foggiest why you think I would think otherwise unless you think I appreciate Android watches... I don't. My only point on this thread is to say that Apple should really consider including round watches in the future. I acknowledge the obstacles they will face when doing that and that smaller sizes for some people will be an obstacle too. I just don't subscribe to the opinion that those obstacles are insurmountable and aren't worth trying to address.
And for me that Moto 360 screen seems like a lot of wasted space. Plus the white is a bit blinding. I much prefer a black interface (please let that come to iPhone, Apple!).
Good points. No question the square shape is more functional. But this is a fashion item and in fashion function follows form. If Apple or anyone else wants to create a product with broad appeal, they're going to have to pay attention to the whims of fashion, function be damned. Digital watches have existed for a long time and square shapes remain far less popular. It might be dogma keeping watches round...or perhaps round ones simply look better on the wrist?
Considering being all roundy (your preferred style) forces the watch to be bigger to provide the same function, that's an even bigger consideration. Since to get the function of the 38mm apple watch you'd need a bigger than 42mm round watch.
Wrong.
Agreed on the white! It's garish. But I appreciate the sparse design. I don't see the space as wasted necessarily, just more focused. But that pic also shows each watch doing very different things, so probably not fair to compare the interfaces.
I recognize the technical challenges here, but Apple just decided to enter a market that is not going to be kind to a limited SKU plan.
You want to talk about a crowded interface? Here's the 38mm and 42mm Watch display's showing the exact same information: the 38mm Watch customers definitely got the short end of the stick.