Redesigned Apple Watch with larger screen, enhanced battery life and health features due i...

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 60
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    rossb2 said:
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Sometimes Apple change designs to regain control and profits  of the accessories market. At least for a while until the fake companies make new ones. Personally I would not want a change, I spent ages buying 6 straps.
    Source? Because watch straps sales are likely a rounding error for Apple’s revenue. 
    Maybe they wouldn’t be if they were a bit cheaper (at least the sport models). I guess Apple is fine with people buying cheap crap off Amazon and eBay,
  • Reply 42 of 60
    airnerdairnerd Posts: 693member
    the LTE S3 was my first venture into Apple watch and I think quite a few are with me.  Not sure how many people will upgrade the watch like they do their phones.  I'd love to have the EKG feature if that happens (hypochondriac perhaps) but would have to see what the resale value of my LTE watch would bring, I guess.  


    Also, Apple needs to quash these 'activation' fees for watches if they want people to constantly upgrade.  They are much more affordable than phones, but gonna tick  me off to have to pay more every time I upgrade :)
    AirunJae
  • Reply 43 of 60
    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Yup.  We need an Apple Watch X, with the display all the way to the rounded edges.
    And a notch :)
    retrogusto
  • Reply 44 of 60
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 112member
    netrox said:
    And longer battery life too as I use it for sleep as well to monitor my sleep habits.
    I use the app Pillow to monitor my sleep.  Now I know why I'm so tired every morning.  My sleep pattern absolutely sucks.
    watto_cobraGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 45 of 60
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 112member
    i’m all for this, but please apple please please please keep the bands usable in the next apple watch iteration. i’ve collected a ton already and want to be able to use them in the next series. thanks.
    Absolutely!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 60
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Can't see Apple changing the case such that current watch bands don't fit.  Apple has focused a lot on watch bands, having new spring colours and fall colours each year.  The backlash would be profound, for a device that is starting to hit its stride and within a year or so the tech media may have to come around to its outstanding success.

    Certainly some room to increase the watch face size by reducing bezels (won't comment if 15% is doable or not).  

    As for a bigger Apple Watch - many (traditional) watches are larger.  For men at least, I could easily see a 44mm version that would bring better battery life, some with larger wrists might prefer it, and helps to raise or maintain the ASP.  I wouldn't count that out.

    Don't know why people keep brining up the point about "people won't necessarily upgrade their watch every year", as though this is expected when a new model comes out.  People - it is "not all about you"!  Someone that purchased a Series 1 or 2 might want to upgrade, or someone who purchases for first time might want a latest model.  It is OK if you don't upgrade your Series 3 for years...but don't claim that there is no use for a new model ever year...
    PickUrPoisonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 60
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    Nope. I overlaid the current 42mm Apple Watch display onto the current 42mm Huawei. Apples to Apples. When Apple enlarges their display area within the 42mm case, that will be a different story (though as my illustration demonstrates more or less equal), but as of today, the existing round watch face has more display area at the same size.
  • Reply 48 of 60
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 112member

    Big Ben is a bell. It doesn’t have a clockface on it 
    Big Ben plays for the Steelers
    AirunJaeGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 49 of 60
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 393member
    As long as my 11 watch bands will still fit the new model I am good with it.
    patchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 60
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,009member
    Plus is there anyone who wants a physically bigger Apple Watch? I doubt it.
    I know what you mean (and I agree), but bigger, fatter and heavier has been the direction that iPhones have been going in the past 3 1/2 years, and that seems to go against what most people would say they want, and most of Apple’s history too. I think they’ve shown in recent years that they are willing to sacrifice sleekness and a certain degree of convenience when they are confident in their vision of the future. 
    edited March 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 60
    urashidurashid Posts: 123member
    urashid said:
    ...Dear Santa... ...could you please offer us a round option, in sync with the purity of timeless geometry, the iconography of clocks, the persistence of memory (Dali vs FB ?) and melting fascia...?
    I am also looking forward to a round design. The layout of app icons on applewatch was designed to accommodate both square and round shapes. I hope it happens this year.

    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.

    You make valid points, but a watch is more than just a device to tell time.  It is also a piece of jewellery, an adornment, a statement.  Tradition plays a much bigger role in those dimensions.

    Evolution is good and watches have steadily provided more and more information (day, date, celestial movements, and now text messages). I am sure many people are happy with a watch that looks like a computer terminal.  My personal preference is for a more traditional shape and I think there is room for both.
  • Reply 52 of 60
    mavemufcmavemufc Posts: 326member
    mac_128 said:

    mavemufc said:
    Don’t want a bigger one tbh the 42mm is perfect, not too sure about a re-design either..
    38mm and 42mm are perfect. I also think they are going to remove the bezels display-wise.
    Perfect for you two. But there's a pretty big audience out there, some of whom may want a bigger, and smaller watch (especially if the bezels are going to shrink). The watch is doing well enough that Apple can afford to start customizing a few more options to expand the pool of customers.
    Yes, perfect for me and anyone else I've spoke to, I just think a bigger watch will look more like something Android would make, do hope the bezels shrink and we get more screen space though.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 60
    MThomas08MThomas08 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    lukei said:
    roake said:
    kenaustus said:

    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 im

    ents 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."


    Considering how long there has been circular watches/clocks I don't believe that a digital design would be available for a very long time.  Just think of Big Ben on the Tower of London.  Circular is the best design for traditional time pieces - digital would look really dorky on the Tower of London.

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 


    As far as the Watch 4 goes, my fo us is going to be advances/enhancements in the Health area.  I'll be 74 when it is released andI'm going to want all the information I can get.  

    I agree that a digital Big Ben would look dorky on the Tower of London for a few reasons:

    1. Big Ben is on Westminster Palace, not the Tower of London.  Would look strange to move it to the Tower.
    2. Any other clock would look dorky on Westminster Palace, since people come to expect a certain thing and a changed clock would break the now-established norm.
    3. A square, digital would certainly have looked dorky in 1859 when Big Ben was completed.  Maybe “dorky” wouldn’t be the right word so much as “magical,” or probably “possessed.”  People get used to a thing, and something that comes along and shakes their foundation scares ‘em.

    But true, I can see the logic of thinking Apple should emulate a 158 year-old clock with their newest cutting-edge timepiece.  If it was good enough for a couple centuries ago, it should be good enough for Apple.

    P.S. What’s the best way to display incoming calls on Big Ben?  You never know!
    Big Ben is a bell. It doesn’t have a clockface on it 
    Big Ben is an American football player in Pennsylvania. He is tall, but I have no idea what his relationship is to Westminster Palace, so you’ve lost me there. 

    Why not not just give him his own choice if he prefers a traditional round face watch or a square digital? There are plenty of options out there. 
    mavemufc
  • Reply 54 of 60
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,177member
    kenaustus said:

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 

    ... really? Are people not able to do basic subtraction on the fly these days?
    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 55 of 60
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,177member

    lukei said:
    roake said:
    kenaustus said:

    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 im

    ents 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."


    Considering how long there has been circular watches/clocks I don't believe that a digital design would be available for a very long time.  Just think of Big Ben on the Tower of London.  Circular is the best design for traditional time pieces - digital would look really dorky on the Tower of London.

    Another feature of the traditional circular hand design is that it tells. us how long after the hour it is and how long until the next hour.  If you can glance at a traditional watch and see it is, say, 5:40 you also simultaneous see it is 20 minutes to 6:00.  That "time until" can often be as important as the "time past".  Might be one reason why Apple provides for the traditional round watch face as the new era digital. 


    As far as the Watch 4 goes, my fo us is going to be advances/enhancements in the Health area.  I'll be 74 when it is released andI'm going to want all the information I can get.  

    I agree that a digital Big Ben would look dorky on the Tower of London for a few reasons:

    1. Big Ben is on Westminster Palace, not the Tower of London.  Would look strange to move it to the Tower.
    2. Any other clock would look dorky on Westminster Palace, since people come to expect a certain thing and a changed clock would break the now-established norm.
    3. A square, digital would certainly have looked dorky in 1859 when Big Ben was completed.  Maybe “dorky” wouldn’t be the right word so much as “magical,” or probably “possessed.”  People get used to a thing, and something that comes along and shakes their foundation scares ‘em.

    But true, I can see the logic of thinking Apple should emulate a 158 year-old clock with their newest cutting-edge timepiece.  If it was good enough for a couple centuries ago, it should be good enough for Apple.

    P.S. What’s the best way to display incoming calls on Big Ben?  You never know!
    Big Ben is a bell. It doesn’t have a clockface on it 
    Big Ben is a bell that belongs to a clock, which has a face, in a tower, all of which is commonly referred to under the term Big Ben. 
    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 56 of 60
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    Nope. I overlaid the current 42mm Apple Watch display onto the current 42mm Huawei. Apples to Apples. When Apple enlarges their display area within the 42mm case, that will be a different story (though as my illustration demonstrates more or less equal), but as of today, the existing round watch face has more display area at the same size.
    I don't if you compared it to BigBen -- you drew the circle on the inside of the rectangle.  That's a neat way of proving a false point -- but it's not comparing like to like.
    The only thing that matters is the space a watch takes on the wrist.  Since the corners of the rectangle take no space, cutting them off (as you did) serves only to justify a lie.
  • Reply 57 of 60
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    Nope. I overlaid the current 42mm Apple Watch display onto the current 42mm Huawei. Apples to Apples. When Apple enlarges their display area within the 42mm case, that will be a different story (though as my illustration demonstrates more or less equal), but as of today, the existing round watch face has more display area at the same size.
    I don't if you compared it to BigBen -- you drew the circle on the inside of the rectangle.  That's a neat way of proving a false point -- but it's not comparing like to like.
    The only thing that matters is the space a watch takes on the wrist.  Since the corners of the rectangle take no space, cutting them off (as you did) serves only to justify a lie.
    I have no idea what you're going on about. My picture is an honest comparison of current screen space between two actual 42mm watches. I overlaid the rectangle on top of the circle. There's no lies, or false points.
  • Reply 58 of 60
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    Nope. I overlaid the current 42mm Apple Watch display onto the current 42mm Huawei. Apples to Apples. When Apple enlarges their display area within the 42mm case, that will be a different story (though as my illustration demonstrates more or less equal), but as of today, the existing round watch face has more display area at the same size.
    I don't if you compared it to BigBen -- you drew the circle on the inside of the rectangle.  That's a neat way of proving a false point -- but it's not comparing like to like.
    The only thing that matters is the space a watch takes on the wrist.  Since the corners of the rectangle take no space, cutting them off (as you did) serves only to justify a lie.
    I have no idea what you're going on about. My picture is an honest comparison of current screen space between two actual 42mm watches. I overlaid the rectangle on top of the circle. There's no lies, or false points.
    LOL...  What I have been saying is that your your comparison is NOT an honest one.   It's a very, very, false one.designed to prove the point you wanted to make.
  • Reply 59 of 60
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:
    mac_128 said:

    zroger73 said:
    There seems to be a lot of wasted space on the Apple Watch around the display - just look at that wide border! My aging eyes would welcome a larger screen as long as it didn't make the body of the watch larger. Anything larger than the body of the 38mm Apple Watch looks "too big" on my small wrist.


    Exactly so. There's no reason the 38mm watch needed such a small display, except they kept it visually similar to the 42mm. Enlarging the bezel is going to level the playing field as far as round watches having more physical display area.

     


    You drew the square on the inside of the circle.  It should have been on the outside -- which refutes your whole theory.   The corners add to screen volume without taking up space on your wrist.

    Or:   do this the other way:  Draw a circle inside the rectangle of the watch and see how screen you lose.
    Nope. I overlaid the current 42mm Apple Watch display onto the current 42mm Huawei. Apples to Apples. When Apple enlarges their display area within the 42mm case, that will be a different story (though as my illustration demonstrates more or less equal), but as of today, the existing round watch face has more display area at the same size.
    I don't if you compared it to BigBen -- you drew the circle on the inside of the rectangle.  That's a neat way of proving a false point -- but it's not comparing like to like.
    The only thing that matters is the space a watch takes on the wrist.  Since the corners of the rectangle take no space, cutting them off (as you did) serves only to justify a lie.
    I have no idea what you're going on about. My picture is an honest comparison of current screen space between two actual 42mm watches. I overlaid the rectangle on top of the circle. There's no lies, or false points.
    LOL...  What I have been saying is that your your comparison is NOT an honest one.   It's a very, very, false one.designed to prove the point you wanted to make.
    Evidently just your opinion as you have proven nothing of the kind. in fact I'd say you're making a dishonest claim -- a very, very, false one, to further whatever agenda you have. Whereas, I've provided incontrovertible graphic proof that confirms my statements: the current 42mm Apple Watch has less display space than a current 42mm round watch.
  • Reply 60 of 60
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Apple Watches are not going to get any larger. It would be a huge mistake to do so anyway. They’re more than large enough already and still a bit to ‘fat’. Like others have said here, there’s plenty of excess bezel they can reduce to make the screens larger without increasing the size of the watches themselves. It would be nice to see them get slimmer too, but I don’t think that’ll be happening anytime soon due to technological limitations.
    edited April 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.