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 agree with you on the cultural side.
I never wear a watch. Not even before smartphones became commonplace, so all my information comes from the phone itself.
If there were some very thin option for a watch I might be tempted - for some things -but it would have to be round (because of the cultural thing). Rectangular faces have never attracted me.
I've tried to look at Apple Watch and try to accept why it has the shape it has, but it just jars with me. I don't like the big bulky round smartwatches either.
For me, it's round and slim or nothing but I don't think that's technologically possible right now so I'll skip watches completely.
I don't see them coming out with an "all-new" form factor, maybe a slimmer version of the current. Why? It's like the original hard drive based iPod or the white ear buds. They never changed the design because it was a recognizeable form factor. As soon as you saw those white ear buds, you knew that someone had an iPod. As soon as you see someone with a smart watch, you will recognize if it is an Watch imediately. Just my 2¢ though.
I don't see the new watch being a replacement for the old design, Rather I see an expansion of the lineup with new form factors. Why because it is a much jewelry as it is tech.
Jony Ive stated that once a person wears something, there's an expectation of choice. It's really as simple as that.
It's not like Apple hasn't already asked developers to support multiple display form factors that when they went from the 3.5" iPhone to the 4" iPhone, to say nothing of the iPad. Developers didn't even blink at supporting multiple display configurations. The switch from 32 to 64 bit apps is the same, though not as visible, but It's not as if when updating to 64bit, they will stop supporting 32bit. Again, the developers didn't blink. And specific to round and square, consider this -- many developers support the same app on round Android watches as well as Apple square watches. Moreover, they support the same app on non-Apple square watches as well. So in many cases, developers are already supporting multiple screen layouts.
If there's consumer demand, there's nothing to prevent Apple from meeting it, especially if Jony Ive was paying more than lip service with his observation about choice. People wear the watch, so the aesthetics are far more personal than any other device with a display that Apple makes. But something that comes very close is the new HomePod, which also happens to have a round display. Just a coincidence?
Daily charging makes this product something I'd never want. Certainly don't need it with an iPhone in my pocket.
I've worn a watch on my wrist for over 35 years. I've never worn one to bed. Placing my Apple Watch on the charger overnight isn't really a problem for me. In fact when you place it on your night stand on its side it becomes a bedside clock with an alarm. Using a Bluetooth speaker it can even be a beside music player. If I haven't had my charger available I often get about 2 days because I take it off at night. When you don't wear it the Apple Watch uses less battery just as the iPhone uses less battery when it's laying on the desk or just in your pocket. (especially with iOS 11)
Here's a good reason for owning and wearing an Apple Watch; I take blood thinners for a hereditary condition. Last week I started to severely bleed internally and was home by myself. I used the Apple Watch's emergency call feature since I had left my iPhone in another room on my desk. My watch call 911 and I was able to communicate with an operator and the paramedics were there in less than 10 minutes. After I hung up with 911 my Watch automatically called my wife's iPhone while she was at work and I told her what was happening and meet me at the hospital. (the paramedics pounded on me, pinched me, slapped me to keep me awake) The paramedics told me I was close to going into shock from loss of blood. My wife wouldn't have been home for another 6 hours. Without my Apple Watch it's possible that I could have passed out on the bathroom floor and maybe died.
Also those who don't pay attention to Apple Heath on their iPhone, get familiar with it! I had my wife come home and pick up my iPhone from home before heading to the ER. Why? My clinic allows me to download my health record in XML and I had recently downloaded it to my iPhone as shown in an AI article from July 17,17. I was able to provide the information to the ER personnel to help them with my care.
I hope that Apple ADDS TO, rather that REPLACES the current design. Why not have a round, square, rectangular and other shapes?
The same reason that their other windowless OSes aren't changing up the aspect ratio constantly. They put a lot of forethought into changing every aspect ratio and resolution change so that it's as easy as possible for developers. Have at least 4 different UI aspect ratios at any given time for the same OS would just be a nightmare. How about you start by suggesting a second option and argue that the revenue and profits from Watch sales warrant the extra effort. From Apple's perspective, I don't think it does when you consider the heavily calculated approach to the iPhone, its biggest earner, but at least it would be on a footing is actually arguable.
Anyway, Apple has managed to get devs to buy into 4 different iPhone screen sizes (about to be 5, if the rumors are to be believed). There have been 4 different iPad screen sizes.
In over a decade! Not all at once and every release cycle. They've also only changed one aspect and kept things uniform, like doubling the pixels so that apps would still look and work as they did before until the developer could get up to date, because it is work for the developer every time they evolve the display resolution and aspect ratio.
E.g.: iPhone 4 doubled the pixel density, then 2 years later they kept the pixel density and changed the aspect ratio along one a single axis, then 2 years later they kept the same aspect ratio and pixel density and then increased the size with also meant increasing the resolution, save for the Plus series which included 3x, of which I still I have plenty of apps that still aren't designed for the Plus as noted by how the Status Bar increases in size by 50%. It's been 3 years and still no simple 3x option for more than a dozen apps I use yet we're suppose to believe that Apple can do 4x different aspect ratios every year and that developers will instantly be able to rework everything so that it can support both a rectangular and round display? Come on!
If Apple can do more than 2 Watch sizes in a year, more power to them, and they will surely make changes to the display over time like with the iPhone, but what you're asking for is not something they've ever done before and what feels like an assumption that "Apple can do anything I think of because they're Apple" isn't something that should exist within anyone's mind when all they've ever done is step very carefully when 3rd-party developers are involved.
Why do people assume the bands/straps would need to be different?! Their connection method would work just as well on a slimmer and/or round watch.
Well, if you look and the shape of the band where it meets up with the chassis you'll notice it has the same rounded-square shape of the chassis. A round chassis would need large rounded-square tabs extended off the sides to catch the current style bands. May not be a ideal design choice.
I hope that Apple ADDS TO, rather that REPLACES the current design. Why not have a round, square, rectangular and other shapes?
The same reason that their other windowless OSes aren't changing up the aspect ratio constantly. They put a lot of forethought into changing every aspect ratio and resolution change so that it's as easy as possible for developers. Have at least 4 different UI aspect ratios at any given time for the same OS would just be a nightmare. How about you start by suggesting a second option and argue that the revenue and profits from Watch sales warrant the extra effort. From Apple's perspective, I don't think it does when you consider the heavily calculated approach to the iPhone, its biggest earner, but at least it would be on a footing is actually arguable.
I disagree. They could manage just fine. I'm a designer, and I'd enjoy the challenge of making my ideas work in various configurations.
Apple would set the tone by making Watch faces for each hardware screen configuration with areas in each for developers to drop in complications. Then developers design an implementation for each.
Its not not that different than triggering different CSS for different screen dimensions in front end web Deb work.
Anyway, Apple has managed to get devs to buy into 4 different iPhone screen sizes (about to be 5, if the rumors are to be believed). There have been 4 different iPad screen sizes.
Bottom line, I'm more interested in fashionable watch designs than I am in making it cookie cutter easy for devs to build the front end of their apps. Call me inconsiderate if you like. But Apple is a company that puts form on equal, if not better, footing with function. In a watch, I want something that looks good, tells time, shows me notifications, and has other apps available—in that order.
Yes, exactly right. Not to mention that a developer may already be supporting round designs of the exact same apps for Android and Samsung watches. During the transition, simply taking existing square watch apps and centering them in the round watch will satisfy the need for apps for those who place an emphasis on the aesthetics of something they wear on their bodies over optimized display use. Eventually just like the 4" iPhone, and 4:3 ratio iPad, developers will customize their apps to fill the entire round screen. Once Apple comes up with a round Dev toolkit, then there's little to do but update the app for round and square. The watch is actually easier since it's unlikely ever to significantly increase the amount of usable screen space at that size, unlike the iPhone and iPad which allow for more room on the display at different sizes, not just upscaling everything. And let's not forget that Apple was supporting the iPod nano, a completely different OS and display than anything else, and it wasn't likely selling even a fraction of the volume of the watch. They're now going to be supporting a new round HomePod display with a similar pixel size of the watch. I'm not convinced this is the year for a round watch, but I have no doubt we'll eventually see one from Apple, without a lot of effort, but likely a lot of customers,
Having 10 bands at this point they can do anything but change the band mechanics and fit.
Well, like it or not, it wouldn't be the first time I've owned a lot of Apple accessories that I had to throw out the door when I upgraded to a new model, and most of those were far more expensive than the watch bands. That said, the bands are not suddenly rendered useless -- they will still work on both current generations of the watch, and more than likely Apple will continue selling the Series 2 as they move forward. Personally, I view the Apple watches like every watch I've ever owned -- I have a collection of them, and wear the one I think looks the best, or has the functions I need for a specific outfit/occasion. If the third gen actually does have a different incompatible shape, it doesn't mean I will stop wearing the old one. When I see comments about the bands like this, I think, though not necessarily true, that the person does not come from a background of wearing watches. Jony Ive does, so switching up the bands doesn't affect him -- his investment in the original bands will still work with the original watch he'll likely keep wearing alongside the new one as occasion dictates, as he is accustom to doing with his mechanical watches. Or you can just sell them on eBay and start over With the new model.
I hope that Apple ADDS TO, rather that REPLACES the current design. Why not have a round, square, rectangular and other shapes?
The same reason that their other windowless OSes aren't changing up the aspect ratio constantly. They put a lot of forethought into changing every aspect ratio and resolution change so that it's as easy as possible for developers. Have at least 4 different UI aspect ratios at any given time for the same OS would just be a nightmare. How about you start by suggesting a second option and argue that the revenue and profits from Watch sales warrant the extra effort. From Apple's perspective, I don't think it does when you consider the heavily calculated approach to the iPhone, its biggest earner, but at least it would be on a footing is actually arguable.
Anyway, Apple has managed to get devs to buy into 4 different iPhone screen sizes (about to be 5, if the rumors are to be believed). There have been 4 different iPad screen sizes.
In over a decade! Not all at once and every release cycle. They've also only changed one aspect and kept things uniform, like doubling the pixels so that apps would still look and work as they did before until the developer could get up to date, because it is work for the developer every time they evolve the display resolution and aspect ratio.
E.g.: iPhone 4 doubled the pixel density, then 2 years later they kept the pixel density and changed the aspect ratio along one a single axis, then 2 years later they kept the same aspect ratio and pixel density and then increased the size with also meant increasing the resolution, save for the Plus series which included 3x, of which I still I have plenty of apps that still aren't designed for the Plus as noted by how the Status Bar increases in size by 50%. It's been 3 years and still no simple 3x option for more than a dozen apps I use yet we're suppose to believe that Apple can do 4x different aspect ratios every year and that developers will instantly be able to rework everything so that it can support both a rectangular and round display? Come on!
If Apple can do more than 2 Watch sizes in a year, more power to them, and they will surely make changes to the display over time like with the iPhone, but what you're asking for is not something they've ever done before and what feels like an assumption that "Apple can do anything I think of because they're Apple" isn't something that should exist within anyone's mind when all they've ever done is step very carefully when 3rd-party developers are involved.
Perhaps you missed my earlier comment where I suggest they give us a new form every so often. As in: maybe we get one more form this year for a total of 2 right now. aybe another in another couple years.
Nixon, Cartier & Rolex started modestly with fewer designs in their early days. No need to get ahead of ourselves.
I hope that Apple ADDS TO, rather that REPLACES the current design. Why not have a round, square, rectangular and other shapes?
The same reason that their other windowless OSes aren't changing up the aspect ratio constantly. They put a lot of forethought into changing every aspect ratio and resolution change so that it's as easy as possible for developers. Have at least 4 different UI aspect ratios at any given time for the same OS would just be a nightmare. How about you start by suggesting a second option and argue that the revenue and profits from Watch sales warrant the extra effort. From Apple's perspective, I don't think it does when you consider the heavily calculated approach to the iPhone, its biggest earner, but at least it would be on a footing is actually arguable.
Anyway, Apple has managed to get devs to buy into 4 different iPhone screen sizes (about to be 5, if the rumors are to be believed). There have been 4 different iPad screen sizes.
In over a decade! Not all at once and every release cycle. They've also only changed one aspect and kept things uniform, like doubling the pixels so that apps would still look and work as they did before until the developer could get up to date, because it is work for the developer every time they evolve the display resolution and aspect ratio.
E.g.: iPhone 4 doubled the pixel density, then 2 years later they kept the pixel density and changed the aspect ratio along one a single axis, then 2 years later they kept the same aspect ratio and pixel density and then increased the size with also meant increasing the resolution, save for the Plus series which included 3x, of which I still I have plenty of apps that still aren't designed for the Plus as noted by how the Status Bar increases in size by 50%. It's been 3 years and still no simple 3x option for more than a dozen apps I use yet we're suppose to believe that Apple can do 4x different aspect ratios every year and that developers will instantly be able to rework everything so that it can support both a rectangular and round display? Come on!
If Apple can do more than 2 Watch sizes in a year, more power to them, and they will surely make changes to the display over time like with the iPhone, but what you're asking for is not something they've ever done before and what feels like an assumption that "Apple can do anything I think of because they're Apple" isn't something that should exist within anyone's mind when all they've ever done is step very carefully when 3rd-party developers are involved.
Nixon, Cartier & Rolex started modestly with fewer designs in their early days. No need to get ahead of ourselves.
How is that a relevant factor? The iPod started with a single model and Apple diversified and switched up the resolution and aspect ratio of the Nano frequently but there was no 3rd-party development with the Nano so it wasn't something Apple had to plan out many generations ahead so that developers can update their apps and users can enjoy the apps on their Apple devices. This is not something to be done willy nilly by experimenting with different screen shapes YoY.
The battery is one of the biggest problems in wearables (all mobile devices really). It takes up so much of the internal space:
When it's removed, it's not that big on its own:
The Watch could be much thinner if they could integrate the battery into the band. This way you'd never need to charge the Watch itself, just the band and then switch the band. Different bands can have different capacities. But it has to be water resistant and this could compromise the design of the bands. It would make the Watch more durable as battery expansion wouldn't damage the Watch itself. It might not mean having to buy batteries with every strap though. If they had the battery split in two and integrated into a strap connector, it could slot in between the strap and the Watch on each side, which keeps the strap independent of the battery and avoids putting power all down the strap.
With so much internal space, they can change the Watch shape quite a bit. Making it much thinner would be the obvious step. They could also put a curve on it so that it conforms more to the wrist, like they do with the buckle underneath, the profile of the Watch would be more like the bottom of the following image vs the top:
Some battery advances can make it thinner internally, solid state batteries will replace current ones when they can manufacture them at scale:
I hope that Apple ADDS TO, rather that REPLACES the current design. Why not have a round, square, rectangular and other shapes?
The same reason that their other windowless OSes aren't changing up the aspect ratio constantly. They put a lot of forethought into changing every aspect ratio and resolution change so that it's as easy as possible for developers. Have at least 4 different UI aspect ratios at any given time for the same OS would just be a nightmare. How about you start by suggesting a second option and argue that the revenue and profits from Watch sales warrant the extra effort. From Apple's perspective, I don't think it does when you consider the heavily calculated approach to the iPhone, its biggest earner, but at least it would be on a footing is actually arguable.
Anyway, Apple has managed to get devs to buy into 4 different iPhone screen sizes (about to be 5, if the rumors are to be believed). There have been 4 different iPad screen sizes.
In over a decade! Not all at once and every release cycle. They've also only changed one aspect and kept things uniform, like doubling the pixels so that apps would still look and work as they did before until the developer could get up to date, because it is work for the developer every time they evolve the display resolution and aspect ratio.
E.g.: iPhone 4 doubled the pixel density, then 2 years later they kept the pixel density and changed the aspect ratio along one a single axis, then 2 years later they kept the same aspect ratio and pixel density and then increased the size with also meant increasing the resolution, save for the Plus series which included 3x, of which I still I have plenty of apps that still aren't designed for the Plus as noted by how the Status Bar increases in size by 50%. It's been 3 years and still no simple 3x option for more than a dozen apps I use yet we're suppose to believe that Apple can do 4x different aspect ratios every year and that developers will instantly be able to rework everything so that it can support both a rectangular and round display? Come on!
If Apple can do more than 2 Watch sizes in a year, more power to them, and they will surely make changes to the display over time like with the iPhone, but what you're asking for is not something they've ever done before and what feels like an assumption that "Apple can do anything I think of because they're Apple" isn't something that should exist within anyone's mind when all they've ever done is step very carefully when 3rd-party developers are involved.
Nixon, Cartier & Rolex started modestly with fewer designs in their early days. No need to get ahead of ourselves.
How is that a relevant factor? The iPod started with a single model and Apple diversified and switched up the resolution and aspect ratio of the Nano frequently but there was no 3rd-party development with the Nano so it wasn't something Apple had to plan out many generations ahead so that developers can update their apps and users can enjoy the apps on their Apple devices. This is not something to be done willy nilly by experimenting with different screen shapes YoY.
It's relevant because those fashion watch brands are Apple's competition and they offer a lot of variety in forms. But they didn't have all that variety on day one. I'm sure they developed the breadth of their product willy-nilly over time.
I disagree with your idea that Apple can't create novel forms for the watch. Or that developers would all give up and move on to...something...else... ? If Apple did make new forms.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, because I adapt branding and content to various forms for a living. It's not that difficult. Especially if new forms are introduced at a reasonable pace. In my world, once I find a solution for a particular format, i can generally reuse that solution over & over with much less work than I did the first time through. If I only get a new form once a year for a major project, I can certainly keep up with that pace of innovation.
The battery is one of the biggest problems in wearables (all mobile devices really). It takes up so much of the internal space:
When it's removed, it's not that big on its own:
The Watch could be much thinner if they could integrate the battery into the band. This way you'd never need to charge the Watch itself, just the band and then switch the band. Different bands can have different capacities. But it has to be water resistant and this could compromise the design of the bands. It would make the Watch more durable as battery expansion wouldn't damage the Watch itself. It might not mean having to buy batteries with every strap though. If they had the battery split in two and integrated into a strap connector, it could slot in between the strap and the Watch on each side, which keeps the strap independent of the battery and avoids putting power all down the strap.
With so much internal space, they can change the Watch shape quite a bit. Making it much thinner would be the obvious step. They could also put a curve on it so that it conforms more to the wrist, like they do with the buckle underneath, the profile of the Watch would be more like the bottom of the following image vs the top:
Some battery advances can make it thinner internally, solid state batteries will replace current ones when they can manufacture them at scale:
If they could, they would put it in the band; but the current liquid lithium batteries would be a dubious durability in a band (not to mention the high risk of punctures, fires, whatever in a battery that's so exposed). Only solid state ones makes sense in a band.
Speaking as someone who wore a watch 23.8 hours a day before the Apple Watch, putting the watch on the nightstand while sleeping is no big deal.
You sleep for 12 minutes a day?
I don't think it's the most clear statement, but I'm gathering that that the wore, the paste tense of wear, and simple mention of watch in lowercase is key. IOW, I'm assuming that he used to wear a traditional watch all day, every day, except for when he was in the shower, and that now he wears an Apple Watch which he has no problem putting on its charger at night before bed.
Comments
I never wear a watch. Not even before smartphones became commonplace, so all my information comes from the phone itself.
If there were some very thin option for a watch I might be tempted - for some things -but it would have to be round (because of the cultural thing). Rectangular faces have never attracted me.
I've tried to look at Apple Watch and try to accept why it has the shape it has, but it just jars with me. I don't like the big bulky round smartwatches either.
For me, it's round and slim or nothing but I don't think that's technologically possible right now so I'll skip watches completely.
The only issue is whether it is technologically optimal.
It's not like Apple hasn't already asked developers to support multiple display form factors that when they went from the 3.5" iPhone to the 4" iPhone, to say nothing of the iPad. Developers didn't even blink at supporting multiple display configurations. The switch from 32 to 64 bit apps is the same, though not as visible, but It's not as if when updating to 64bit, they will stop supporting 32bit. Again, the developers didn't blink. And specific to round and square, consider this -- many developers support the same app on round Android watches as well as Apple square watches. Moreover, they support the same app on non-Apple square watches as well. So in many cases, developers are already supporting multiple screen layouts.
If there's consumer demand, there's nothing to prevent Apple from meeting it, especially if Jony Ive was paying more than lip service with his observation about choice. People wear the watch, so the aesthetics are far more personal than any other device with a display that Apple makes. But something that comes very close is the new HomePod, which also happens to have a round display. Just a coincidence?
Here's a good reason for owning and wearing an Apple Watch; I take blood thinners for a hereditary condition. Last week I started to severely bleed internally and was home by myself. I used the Apple Watch's emergency call feature since I had left my iPhone in another room on my desk. My watch call 911 and I was able to communicate with an operator and the paramedics were there in less than 10 minutes. After I hung up with 911 my Watch automatically called my wife's iPhone while she was at work and I told her what was happening and meet me at the hospital. (the paramedics pounded on me, pinched me, slapped me to keep me awake) The paramedics told me I was close to going into shock from loss of blood. My wife wouldn't have been home for another 6 hours. Without my Apple Watch it's possible that I could have passed out on the bathroom floor and maybe died.
Also those who don't pay attention to Apple Heath on their iPhone, get familiar with it! I had my wife come home and pick up my iPhone from home before heading to the ER. Why? My clinic allows me to download my health record in XML and I had recently downloaded it to my iPhone as shown in an AI article from July 17,17. I was able to provide the information to the ER personnel to help them with my care.
For example Swatch Skin thinness.
E.g.: iPhone 4 doubled the pixel density, then 2 years later they kept the pixel density and changed the aspect ratio along one a single axis, then 2 years later they kept the same aspect ratio and pixel density and then increased the size with also meant increasing the resolution, save for the Plus series which included 3x, of which I still I have plenty of apps that still aren't designed for the Plus as noted by how the Status Bar increases in size by 50%. It's been 3 years and still no simple 3x option for more than a dozen apps I use yet we're suppose to believe that Apple can do 4x different aspect ratios every year and that developers will instantly be able to rework everything so that it can support both a rectangular and round display? Come on!
If Apple can do more than 2 Watch sizes in a year, more power to them, and they will surely make changes to the display over time like with the iPhone, but what you're asking for is not something they've ever done before and what feels like an assumption that "Apple can do anything I think of because they're Apple" isn't something that should exist within anyone's mind when all they've ever done is step very carefully when 3rd-party developers are involved.
aybe another in another couple years.
Nixon, Cartier & Rolex started modestly with fewer designs in their early days. No need to get ahead of ourselves.
And if they're ever going to add sleep-tracking, they're gonna have to make it last through the night, as well.
(That's what she said.)
When it's removed, it's not that big on its own:
The Watch could be much thinner if they could integrate the battery into the band. This way you'd never need to charge the Watch itself, just the band and then switch the band. Different bands can have different capacities. But it has to be water resistant and this could compromise the design of the bands. It would make the Watch more durable as battery expansion wouldn't damage the Watch itself. It might not mean having to buy batteries with every strap though. If they had the battery split in two and integrated into a strap connector, it could slot in between the strap and the Watch on each side, which keeps the strap independent of the battery and avoids putting power all down the strap.
With so much internal space, they can change the Watch shape quite a bit. Making it much thinner would be the obvious step. They could also put a curve on it so that it conforms more to the wrist, like they do with the buckle underneath, the profile of the Watch would be more like the bottom of the following image vs the top:
Some battery advances can make it thinner internally, solid state batteries will replace current ones when they can manufacture them at scale:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-03/tech-guru-bill-joy-unveils-a-battery-to-challenge-lithium-ion
I disagree with your idea that Apple can't create novel forms for the watch. Or that developers would all give up and move on to...something...else... ? If Apple did make new forms.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic, because I adapt branding and content to various forms for a living. It's not that difficult. Especially if new forms are introduced at a reasonable pace. In my world, once I find a solution for a particular format, i can generally reuse that solution over & over with much less work than I did the first time through. If I only get a new form once a year for a major project, I can certainly keep up with that pace of innovation.