Pebble Time Round smartwatch moves to circular, thin design with two-day battery life

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    Posting watch photos... in a post about watches? GET OUT OF HERE! NO WAY! :lol:

    Way. Gigabytes of jpegs will be uploaded.
  • Reply 22 of 44
    If I wanted a good looking watch, I would buy an analog watch. The primary feature of the smartwatch is the functionality. Appearance is down the list.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,578member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by john12345 View Post



    If I wanted a good looking watch, I would buy an analog watch. The primary feature of the smartwatch is the functionality. Appearance is down the list.

  • Reply 24 of 44



    It's pretty obvious what they tried to do.

  • Reply 25 of 44
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

     




    We have. Apple Watch is good looking.

  • Reply 26 of 44
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,452member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by john12345 View Post



    If I wanted a good looking watch, I would buy an analog watch. The primary feature of the smartwatch is the functionality. Appearance is down the list.



    Which clearly explains the co-branded ?Watch Hermès. /s

  • Reply 27 of 44
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,578member
    matrix07 wrote: »

    We have. Apple Watch is good looking.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a gadget, it's handsome enough, but as an actual timepiece and watch replacement it leaves much to be desired IMHO. That's probably because to my eye I find a round design to be more beautiful. And that's also why I prefer the Gear S2 Classic. But that's just my personal opinion. With that being said, I also acknowledge that each of you have your own valid design preferences.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,980member
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a gadget, it's handsome enough, but as an actual timepiece and watch replacement it leaves much to be desired IMHO. That's probably because to my eye I find a round design to be more beautiful. And that's also why I prefer the Gear S2 Classic. But that's just my personal opinion. With that being said, I also acknowledge that each of you have your own valid design preferences.
    when you use a dumb phone, its screencan be any shape: oval, square, round or even diamond as we've seen in the past. When it evolved into smart phone, it's had rectangular screen since and unchanged. The same for watch. Round shape is nice for dumb watch and pretty dumb for smart watch.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,146moderator
  • Reply 30 of 44
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,146moderator
    fallenjt wrote: »
    when you use a dumb phone, its screencan be any shape: oval, square, round or even diamond as we've seen in the past. When it evolved into smart phone, it's had rectangular screen since and unchanged. The same for watch. Round shape is nice for dumb watch and pretty dumb for smart watch.

    Almost said it perfectly. Here, I'll fix it for you...

    Round is smart for dumb watch, dumb for smartwatch.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,578member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post





    when you use a dumb phone, its screencan be any shape: oval, square, round or even diamond as we've seen in the past. When it evolved into smart phone, it's had rectangular screen since and unchanged. The same for watch. Round shape is nice for dumb watch and pretty dumb for smart watch.

     

    As I've said before on here, the Apple Watch (to me) is more of a notification tool than an actual fully-functional two-way communication device like my iPhone 6. To put it more bluntly, I can use my iPhone 6 as stand-in for my MacBook Pro when I'm out and about. I can type out emails very quickly, I can surf the web, I can make calls, FaceTime with my wife, take pictures, watch videos, etc. All from the relative comfort of my 4.7-inch screen.

     

    My 38mm Apple Watch Sport, on the other hand, is more or less a one-way device in my everyday use (and I'm completely fine with that). I receive notifications on it, but I rarely send information back out to people with it other than to maybe fire off a quick canned reply in iMessage or Skype. My Apple Watch Sport is more or less a quick way for me to see what email or text just came through, to quickly check the time, see when/where my next appointment is, and to keep track of my daily fitness goals. It's all about quick glances of information. I rarely look at my watch for more than a few seconds at time -- I see what's important, then go to my iPhone or MacBook Pro as needed. 

     

    So since I'm not writing novels with the display, or trying to view a webpage with tiny watch screen, it's all about quick glances of information that are timely and relevant. That can be accomplished with a round display. Again, a smartwatch is not an iPhone replacement, so why are we treating it as such and trying to pigeonhole screen shape as being the end-all-be-all of the usefulness of a wearable?

     

    With that said, I try to take a more optimistic approach to different design philosophies rather than immediately write one off because it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Your mileage may vary...

  • Reply 32 of 44
    Quote:

     


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

     

     

    As I've said before on here, the Apple Watch (to me) is more of a notification tool than an actual fully-functional two-way communication device like my iPhone 6. To put it more bluntly, I can use my iPhone 6 as stand-in for my MacBook Pro when I'm out and about. I can type out emails very quickly, I can surf the web, I can make calls, FaceTime with my wife, take pictures, watch videos, etc. All from the relative comfort of my 4.7-inch screen.

     

    My 38mm Apple Watch Sport, on the other hand, is more or less a one-way device in my everyday use (and I'm completely fine with that). I receive notifications on it, but I rarely send information back out to people with it other than to maybe fire off a quick canned reply in iMessage or Skype. My Apple Watch Sport is more or less a quick way for me to see what email or text just came through, to quickly check the time, see when/where my next appointment is, and to keep track of my daily fitness goals. It's all about quick glances of information. I rarely look at my watch for more than a few seconds at time -- I see what's important, then go to my iPhone or MacBook Pro as needed. 

     

    So since I'm not writing novels with the display, or trying to view a webpage with tiny watch screen, it's all about quick glances of information that are timely and relevant. That can be accomplished with a round display. Again, a smartwatch is not an iPhone replacement, so why are we treating it as such and trying to pigeonhole screen shape as being the end-all-be-all of the usefulness of a wearable?

     

    With that said, I try to take a more optimistic approach to different design philosophies rather than immediately write one off because it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Your mileage may vary...


    I largely agree with the exception that I dictate a lot of text messages now. I probably dictate more to my Watch than I tap out on the phone.

  • Reply 33 of 44
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    As I've said before on here, the Apple Watch (to me) is more of a notification tool than an actual fully-functional two-way communication device like my iPhone 6. To put it more bluntly, I can use my iPhone 6 as stand-in for my MacBook Pro when I'm out and about. I can type out emails very quickly, I can surf the web, I can make calls, FaceTime with my wife, take pictures, watch videos, etc. All from the relative comfort of my 4.7-inch screen.

    My 38mm Apple Watch Sport, on the other hand, is more or less a one-way device in my everyday use (and I'm completely fine with that). I receive notifications on it, but I rarely send information back out to people with it other than to maybe fire off a quick canned reply in iMessage or Skype. My Apple Watch Sport is more or less a quick way for me to see what email or text just came through, to quickly check the time, see when/where my next appointment is, and to keep track of my daily fitness goals. It's all about quick glances of information. I rarely look at my watch for more than a few seconds at time -- I see what's important, then go to my iPhone or MacBook Pro as needed. 

    So since I'm not writing novels with the display, or trying to view a webpage with tiny watch screen, it's all about quick glances of information that are timely and relevant. That can be accomplished with a round display. Again, a smartwatch is not an iPhone replacement, so why are we treating it as such and trying to pigeonhole screen shape as being the end-all-be-all of the usefulness of a wearable?

    With that said, I try to take a more optimistic approach to different design philosophies rather than immediately write one off because it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Your mileage may vary...
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    As I've said before on here, the Apple Watch (to me) is more of a notification tool than an actual fully-functional two-way communication device like my iPhone 6. To put it more bluntly, I can use my iPhone 6 as stand-in for my MacBook Pro when I'm out and about. I can type out emails very quickly, I can surf the web, I can make calls, FaceTime with my wife, take pictures, watch videos, etc. All from the relative comfort of my 4.7-inch screen.

    My 38mm Apple Watch Sport, on the other hand, is more or less a one-way device in my everyday use (and I'm completely fine with that). I receive notifications on it, but I rarely send information back out to people with it other than to maybe fire off a quick canned reply in iMessage or Skype. My Apple Watch Sport is more or less a quick way for me to see what email or text just came through, to quickly check the time, see when/where my next appointment is, and to keep track of my daily fitness goals. It's all about quick glances of information. I rarely look at my watch for more than a few seconds at time -- I see what's important, then go to my iPhone or MacBook Pro as needed. 

    So since I'm not writing novels with the display, or trying to view a webpage with tiny watch screen, it's all about quick glances of information that are timely and relevant. That can be accomplished with a round display. Again, a smartwatch is not an iPhone replacement, so why are we treating it as such and trying to pigeonhole screen shape as being the end-all-be-all of the usefulness of a wearable?

    With that said, I try to take a more optimistic approach to different design philosophies rather than immediately write one off because it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Your mileage may vary...
  • Reply 34 of 44
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    As I've said before on here, the Apple Watch (to me) is more of a notification tool than an actual fully-functional two-way communication device like my iPhone 6. To put it more bluntly, I can use my iPhone 6 as stand-in for my MacBook Pro when I'm out and about. I can type out emails very quickly, I can surf the web, I can make calls, FaceTime with my wife, take pictures, watch videos, etc. All from the relative comfort of my 4.7-inch screen.

    My 38mm Apple Watch Sport, on the other hand, is more or less a one-way device in my everyday use (and I'm completely fine with that). I receive notifications on it, but I rarely send information back out to people with it other than to maybe fire off a quick canned reply in iMessage or Skype. My Apple Watch Sport is more or less a quick way for me to see what email or text just came through, to quickly check the time, see when/where my next appointment is, and to keep track of my daily fitness goals. It's all about quick glances of information. I rarely look at my watch for more than a few seconds at time -- I see what's important, then go to my iPhone or MacBook Pro as needed. 

    So since I'm not writing novels with the display, or trying to view a webpage with tiny watch screen, it's all about quick glances of information that are timely and relevant. That can be accomplished with a round display. Again, a smartwatch is not an iPhone replacement, so why are we treating it as such and trying to pigeonhole screen shape as being the end-all-be-all of the usefulness of a wearable?

    With that said, I try to take a more optimistic approach to different design philosophies rather than immediately write one off because it doesn't fit a certain narrative. Your mileage may vary...

    Well said.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,452member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post

     

     

    I largely agree with the exception that I dictate a lot of text messages now. I probably dictate more to my Watch than I tap out on the phone.




    Again, doesn't necessitate a rectangular screen. Indeed, when I'm driving, I dictate messages to my iPhone all the time, without ever looking at the phone. Siri reads the texts as they come in, and she reads my responses back to me before I ask her to send. The future of wearables is not in gleaning information from a 1" screen. It's most likely in audio interaction.

     

    Jony Ive did not design the watch for the user to consume large amounts of visual data -- he's on record that the ?Watch was designed for quick "glances". Anything requiring more attention and one should take out their iPhones. Wise advice from the guy who designed the watch.

  • Reply 36 of 44
    Pebble is going the wrong way, price wise.

    Their selling point was a smart-watch with good battery life, that compromised on the display, cpu, etc, making a judgement that most people want a watch with smart functions, not a wrist computer with watch functions.

    However with each new revision, the cost has been going up, but the compromises are still there. Low resolution eInk screen with 64-colours max - check. Wide bezel - check. UI limited by eInk speed and slow CPU - check.

    I'm all for the underdog, but we have a situation where a watch case strap costs $100, the innards cost $30, R&D $50, and there's profit on top. You can keep the same case strap, use $60 of innards and get something 10x better these days for a smaller increment in cost.
  • Reply 37 of 44



    I think the bezel is so that they can use a square screen underneath... It seems to fit perfectly:

     

  • Reply 38 of 44
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    The problem with the round versus square debate is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong!

    A square design is undeniably better for the presentation of information but a round design could definitely be used to present useful "smart" information. Purchasers want different things out of a watch - some are obviously drawn to the aesthetics of a round device and don't necessarily need or want to consume as much content on their wrist. For them, a round design that displays notifications, the weather and has all the cool sensors for health and fitness tracking might be the perfect product for them! And for those that want to read emails, web-pages, etc, the square design is perfect for them. The problem comes in when members of either camp try to force their use cases on members of the other camp. People are different, their use cases are different and their idea of what looks good is different - so let them be! It's clear from the number of postings here - and from the proliferation of round watches from the competition - that there is a sizeable portion of the market that would prefer to wear a round smart watch and are willing to sacrifice the display area in order to wear something they find more appealing...but Apple has obviously decided that although there may be a sizeable market for a round watch, it's a smaller market than those that want a square one and that square makes more sense for delivering ALL of the features they wanted to provide. That being said, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Apple releases a round version sometime soon.

    So to the people who are arguing for a round watch - we get it. You prefer round - and round could work for smart watch - but it will never be able to display information as well as a square design while taking up an equivalent footprint on the wrist (wristprint?). I hope that Apple makes one for you and is able to capture a good chunk of the entire market - but don't try to present claims that the round shape is "better" than the square shape. It's clearly not.

    For those that like the existing design - we know that the square is better for the presentation of data, but can we not admit that the market is clearly split and that a round smart watch could be a perfect fit for someone that was less concerned with the consumption of data and was happy just to use it for notifications and the collection of data? If not, then you're part of the problem! There's definitely room in the marketplace for more than one Apple design and I'm sure we'll see that soon enough.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,578member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tenly View Post



    The problem with the round versus square debate is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong!



    A square design is undeniably better for the presentation of information but a round design could definitely be used to present useful "smart" information. Purchasers want different things out of a watch - some are obviously drawn to the aesthetics of a round device and don't necessarily need or want to consume as much content on their wrist. For them, a round design that displays notifications, the weather and has all the cool sensors for health and fitness tracking might be the perfect product for them! And for those that want to read emails, web-pages, etc, the square design is perfect for them. The problem comes in when members of either camp try to force their use cases on members of the other camp. People are different, their use cases are different and their idea of what looks good is different - so let them be! It's clear from the number of postings here - and from the proliferation of round watches from the competition - that there is a sizeable portion of the market that would prefer to wear a round smart watch and are willing to sacrifice the display area in order to wear something they find more appealing...but Apple has obviously decided that although there may be a sizeable market for a round watch, it's a smaller market than those that want a square one. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple released a round version sometime soon.



    So to the people who are arguing for a round watch - we get it. You prefer round - and round could work for smart watch - but it will never be able to display information as well as a square design while taking up an equivalent footprint on the wrist (wristprint?). I hope that Apple makes one for you and is able to capture a good chunk of the entire market - but don't try to present claims that the round shape is "better" than the square shape. It's clearly not.



    For this that like the existing design - we know that the square is better for the presentation of data, but can we not admit that the market is clearly split and that a round smart watch could be a perfect fit for someone that was less concerned with the consumption of data and was happy just to use it for notifications and the collection of data? If not, then you're part of the problem! There's definitely room in the marketplace for more than one Apple design and I'm sure we'll see that soon enough.

     

    See, that's the thing. I'm not trying to force my opinion on someone else, just explaining my reasoning. I even went so far as to say that I value all of your opinions with regards to design. Nor did I say that round is superior (don't know if you're directing that at me or not), just that if we're talking about taking a quick glance at an email subject line or the weather or the time, or a iMessage, that a round shape works just fine.



    It's not matter of one being better than the other, it's as you say, a personal preference to what design suits a particular person. I just don't like it when a "certain" company makes a design decision and another company goes a different route, that's it's automatically considered inferior or disregarded off-hand ... that is until said company releases their own similar product ;)

     

    Wearing a watch is part utility, part fashion. I consider my Apple Watch Sport to be mainly utility, but would like a round watch that had the utility + fashion aspect (in my eyes, a round design accelerates the fashion aspect).

  • Reply 40 of 44
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,146moderator
    A square smartwatch will struggle against the prevailing fashion for round wristwatches. A fashion born of rotating mechanics, which made the round watch face the obvious form-follows-function decision from the beginning. In the world of mechanical timepieces, the square or rectangular watch face has always been something of an outlier, a design experiment guided more by a desire to go a different direction and be unique versus any functional considerations. And so, for now, the square/rectangular smartwatch is also measured by the antiquated round form of watches that has become the accepted form.

    But fashion evolves, usually based upon underlying functional imperatives. Apple understands this. The many new tasks smartwatches will take on imply a data-dense presentation, and the efficient means of providing that is via a square/rectangular form. The future lies in that direction. It's only in the short term that round displays will hold any weight in the choice of form, only until fashion fades away from that form. But for round displays, the problem of efficient presentation of information will not fade away; that problem is permanent for that form versus the square/rectangular form. Apple has looked to the future in this regard.
Sign In or Register to comment.