just ditch the small one, make one a touch bigger and you'll do a lot better than you are now... also let Nixon and other cool watch companies make a few straps with better style.
While round has an aesthetic appeal for a watch, I think that ship has sailed.
I’d like to see the Watch display get a wider aspect ratio as there’s a lot of real estate on the lower arm and it would allow for better I/O which would improve its overall utility, but I think that’a still likely years away.
Not sure about other people, but I don't find myself interacting with the watch physical UI all that much at all, I use the Watch in a very passive way, only occasionally tapping to pause music, and now and then using the crown to scroll through the Siri watch face. I can't remember the last time I navigated apps, or swiped on the screen. Tbh, I think they could do away with a lot of the interactivity and still have an excellent product that tracks activity, shows notifications, and tells the time. You don't need a touch screen or a huge amount of screen real estate for that, and I think there's probably scope for making the Watch better by pruning rather than adding to its user-exposed feature set. Maybe a line of Apple Watches without proper apps, and make the current watch a Watch Pro? Dunno, just spitballing there.
The point I'm getting at is that, with little physical interactivity, a round face isn't a problem, and may also make it more attractive, which hits the jewellery/accessory angle. I'm in favour, I think the round face looks better on a wrist than the rectangular one.
However I have found the best song for Apple to use if they release a round Watch: The Beach Boys' I Get Around: "Round round get around, I get around, Yeah, Get around round round I get around, I get around". Maybe with this extra lyric: "My buddies and me are getting real well known, Yeah, the SQUARE guys know us and they leave us alone."
After two Apple Watches I've come to dislike the square and techy look. I just feel dorky wearing it. The only ones that seem to look OK are the rose gold ones on women. I went with a Garmin to try a round smart watch. I miss some of the features on the AW but overall the Garmin is great. The two week battery life (FR935) sealed the deal for me.
If Apple comes out with a round one, I may move back but I dont think they will do it anytime soon. They made a statement with the square watch and it would be like going back on their word.
It seems the current form is pernt near perfect at allowing four complications to surround round dial. Quite savory.
Yeah, I agree. There are quite a few stylistically pleasing round watch faces to choose from, too. Then the four complications on the corners and/or one in the centre of the face somewhere and you can get a really cool look.
I personally prefer the square design, but know several folks who would rather wait for an Apple-branded round one, and ignorantly refuse to even try on the square one because “watches are supposed to be round,” lol. Perhaps a round Apple Watch would be a sound business decision. I dunno...
Another agreement here. A round face would completely upend the current complication strategy. The whole complication design strategy would have to be redesigned from scratch. I’ve been completely wrong before, but I don’t see Apple doing that just so they can have a round watch form factor option. I also agree with others that this patent describes a wide range of use cases for a reason. The Watch probably not being a top reason.
It's not like moving the complications inside the dial is an unknown concept, nor particularly difficult from a design or coding perspective.
While round has an aesthetic appeal for a watch, I think that ship has sailed.
I’d like to see the Watch display get a wider aspect ratio as there’s a lot of real estate on the lower arm and it would allow for better I/O which would improve its overall utility, but I think that’a still likely years away.
It seems the current form is pernt near perfect at allowing four complications to surround round dial. Quite savory.
Yeah, I agree. There are quite a few stylistically pleasing round watch faces to choose from, too. Then the four complications on the corners and/or one in the centre of the face somewhere and you can get a really cool look.
I personally prefer the square design, but know several folks who would rather wait for an Apple-branded round one, and ignorantly refuse to even try on the square one because “watches are supposed to be round,” lol. Perhaps a round Apple Watch would be a sound business decision. I dunno...
Another agreement here. A round face would completely upend the current complication strategy. The whole complication design strategy would have to be redesigned from scratch. I’ve been completely wrong before, but I don’t see Apple doing that just so they can have a round watch form factor option. I also agree with others that this patent describes a wide range of use cases for a reason. The Watch probably not being a top reason.
It's not like moving the complications inside the dial is an unknown concept, nor particularly difficult from a design or coding perspective.
[images]
We probably shouldn't assume the future of the Apple Watch will be based on a traditional clock face.
While round has an aesthetic appeal for a watch, I think that ship has sailed.
I’d like to see the Watch display get a wider aspect ratio as there’s a lot of real estate on the lower arm and it would allow for better I/O which would improve its overall utility, but I think that’a still likely years away.
Just sayin’
I don't want to live in that world. Just sayin' ;-)
night9hawk said: Watches were round primarily because they use to be analog devices that made use of of the curved surface. In actuality there's no need for round other than for a "retro" sort of look. Otherwise it's a waste.
Retro?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Do an image search for 'watch' and see how many current watches are round, like most always have been. Then show the date when round watches were no longer a current style.
I don't understand all the FUD regarding round watches. So many are trying to make this an either or thing, when it's not.
It would be almost trivial for Apple to bring a round Watch to market, considering other products, like a phone, that they've done. They're working on some area/areas of vehicle autonomy. And a round Watch is somehow a problem? Bullshit.
All the nervous nellies wouldn't have to buy one IF Apple were to make it. They could stay with the rectangular Watch as their comfort Watch. IF Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well.
night9hawk said: Watches were round primarily because they use to be analog devices that made use of of the curved surface. In actuality there's no need for round other than for a "retro" sort of look. Otherwise it's a waste.
Retro?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Do an image search for 'watch' and see how many current watches are round, like most always have been. Then show the date when round watches were no longer a current style.
Do you now what retro means?
retro | ˈretrō | adjective imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past
Having a round face on a purely digital smartwatch driven by a touchscreen UI that no longer requires the physical hands to be rotate around a center point and to use face faces that imitate that style, fashion, or design is, by definition, retro.
I don't understand all the FUD regarding round watches. So many are trying to make this an either or thing, when it's not.
FUD?
I don't think the acronym means you think it means?
Where is exactly is the fear that you claim people point out that it's a less than advantageous design for a smartwatch?
It would be almost trivial for Apple to bring a round Watch to market, considering other products, like a phone, that they've done. They're working on some area/areas of vehicle autonomy. And a round Watch is somehow a problem? Bullshit.
Almost trivial you say? So not trivial at all. Do you honestly not understand the amount of work that goes into changing the resolution, display size, or aspect ratio of an iPhone display? Clearly you don't when you're using the word trivial to describe a circular display that would require the all the UI elements for the OS and apps to nee rewritten to conform to this new display (which Apple has never done before).
I think the next step is to reduce the bezel on the Apple Watch so the display can be larger without the casing increasing in size, and that itself is also a major undertaking since the resolution will also increase, which requires a lot of work to make sure the all the UI elements look good while being able to take advantage of the new screen real estate. This is not trivial!
All the nervous nellies wouldn't have to buy one IF Apple were to make it. They could stay with the rectangular Watch as their comfort Watch. IF Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well.
If you can't see the difference between "If Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well" and "If Apple were to make a round version, I think it will sell well," then you have no credibility.
If you can't see the difference between "If Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well" and "IfApple were to make a round version, I think it will sell well," then you have no credibility.
If you can't understand that a person saying that something will happen in a theoretical future is always going to be an opinion based on the facts at their disposal, and that "I think" and "in my opinion" are therefore redundant additions, then you have no understanding of the way that the future relates to the present, or the way that people communicate, or both.
Seriously, don't you even get bored of making this same pedantic observation time and time again, to no avail? Surely you'll eventually realise that it's you that has the problem, not the world?
If you can't see the difference between "If Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well" and "IfApple were to make a round version, I think it will sell well," then you have no credibility.
If you can't understand that a person saying that something will happen in a theoretical future is always going to be an opinion based on the facts at their disposal, and that "I think" and "in my opinion" are therefore redundant additions, then you have no understanding of the way that the future relates to the present, or the way that people communicate, or both.
Seriously, don't you even get bored of making this same pedantic observation time and time again, to no avail? Surely you'll eventually realise that it's you that has the problem, not the world?
No, it's people like you that have the problem which is why people like you probably blindly believe stupid shit like vaccines causing autism, that Hillary runs a child sex traffic ring out of a pizza parlor, that your religion is the only one that's real, or countless other crap you go out of your away to accept blindly because having your world shattered by critical thinking scares the bejeezus out of you.
if you choose to be cognitively lazy, choose not to not communicate as clearly as possible, or do it on purpose so you can say "that's not what I meant" when you're called out on it (which is inarguably worse), then you're the problem, not the rest of humanity. Some of us prefer writing with clear intent, instead of being passive-aggressive cunts. If your pusillanimous mentality is the future of humanity then it's my opinion that we're all fucking doomed.
PS: It's funny that you jump to macgui's defense in a post where he claims night9hawk's use of retro is wrong despite it being the correct use of the term.
If you can't see the difference between "If Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well" and "IfApple were to make a round version, I think it will sell well," then you have no credibility.
If you can't understand that a person saying that something will happen in a theoretical future is always going to be an opinion based on the facts at their disposal, and that "I think" and "in my opinion" are therefore redundant additions, then you have no understanding of the way that the future relates to the present, or the way that people communicate, or both.
Seriously, don't you even get bored of making this same pedantic observation time and time again, to no avail? Surely you'll eventually realise that it's you that has the problem, not the world?
No, it's people like you that have the problem which is why people like you probably blindly believe stupid shit like vaccines causing autism, that Hillary runs a child sex traffic ring out of a pizza parlor, that your religion is the only one that's real, or countless other crap you go out of your away to accept blindly because having your world shattered by critical thinking scares the bejeezus out of you.
if you choose to be cognitively lazy, choose not to not communicate as clearly as possible, or do it on purpose so you can say "that's not what I meant" when you're called out on it (which is inarguably worse), then you're the problem, not the rest of humanity. Some of us prefer writing with clear intent, instead of being passive-aggressive cunts. If your pusillanimous mentality is the future of humanity then it's my opinion that we're all fucking doomed.
PS: It's funny that you jump to macgui's defense in a post where he claims night9hawk's use of retro is wrong despite it being the correct use of the term.
Fully vaccinated (apart from TB, which I will sort out one of these days), Hillary supporting (over Trump at least, she's not without issues), atheist (not agnostic, atheist, don't give me any "we can't possibly know" bullshit) here, so I have literally no idea where you've pulled that bonkers list from. Nice attempt at an association fallacy though, delightfully disingenuous.
cognitively lazy. Point out where please.
choose not to not communicate as clearly as possible. I communicate as clearly as I possibly can, but I also expect the person who I am communicating with to take reasonable measures to understand me, and not to be a pedantic, argumentative ass. Since not a single human has the ability to see the future then I expect every single human to understand that when I talk about the future, I am expressing an opinion, because the facts literally do not exist. Only a moron would not understand this, there is no avenue for miscommunication because it is literally impossible for anyone to speak about the future as a fact.
or do it on purpose so you can say "that's not what I meant" when you're called out on it. Point out where please.
then you're the problem, not the rest of humanity. Since you're the only person who ever gets their panties in a twist over this, then I would suggest that I am not the sole problem, since I appear to be in the majority.
Some of us prefer writing with clear intent. Good for you, so do I. But insisting that everybody else be fully declarative in everything they say even when their meaning is plain to see is obnoxious and a waste of words.
instead of being passive-aggressive cunts. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's not the correct use of retro, since a large proportion (possibly most? I have no idea) watches do have round screens. Both in the past, when the Apple Watch was released, and, crucially, right now. From your own dictionary definition... "imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past". That's past as in not-present. So you're unequivocally wrong by your own definition.
Do you have some sort of issue understand the difference between past, present and future?
I just wanted to make sure I captured your claim that analog watch face on an OLED display is in no way "imitative" of a traditional watch before you edit your post.
I just wanted to make sure I captured your claim that analog watch face on an OLED display is in no way "imitative" of a traditional watch before you edit your post.
I'll quote it as well because that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know why you think retro and imitative are synonyms. They're not.
Also, what are you on about "analog watch face"; we're talking about roundness, nothing else. And FYI, Apple Watch already has analog-style watch faces.
A round Apple Watch would of course be imitative of other watch designs (while we're here, telling the time, having a wristband, and having a crown are also imitative of other watch designs). But because those watch designs are contemporary and widespread (note: as well as traditional, I'm not denying tradition here) it can hardly be called retro.
A pocket watch would be retro (sure they exist now too, but they're not widespread and are definite appeals to tweetradition), a hypercolor watch band would be retro, a round watch face, not so.
Why do you not understand that this is a temporal issue? Why don't you seem to understand anything?
I suggest you read the definition of retro that you posted again, since you seem to be struggling with the concept.
Imitative of style, fashion, or design (in this case, all three) that requires a center point by which digitally represented hands of a clock turn as if there are gears undernearth that control the arms of a watch. There is opinion hear. That's the fucking definition, but you hate admitting you made a mistake so you'll probably continue lying. It seems Fox News has taught you well.
I suggest you read the definition of retro that you posted again, since you seem to be struggling with the concept.
Imitative of style, fashion, or design (in this case, all three) that requires a center point by which digitally represented hands of a clock turn as if there are gears undernearth that control the arms of a watch. There is opinion hear. That's the fucking definition, but you hate admitting you made a mistake so you'll probably continue lying. It seems Fox News has taught you well.
That's unbelievable. You posted the definition above. Let me post it again:
retro | ˈretrō | adjective imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past
You have, I can only presume, deliberately omitted the final part " from the recent past". I repeat, not for the first time, there are many, many, many, watches currently available for purchase that have round faces. And again, round faces, not analog hands, which you bizarrely are trying to swerve the argument towards (not that it even helps your argument anyway, same point stands) - the topic of this thread, and the topic of the exchange we are having it all about round faces, not analog hands.
In either case, round face or analog hands, there is no question of retro; modern watches have these features, and they are widespread in their commercial availability and appeal. So not retro. By definition. The definition that you posted, and are now trying to worm your way out of.
But you've devolved to complete disingenuous drivel now. Fox News ffs? These are pathetic attempts to discredit an argument that you don't seem to be able to deal with.
Grow up Soli, you're an embarrassment to yourself and everyone around you.
I just noticed the screenshot you posted! Oh my god, do you think that helps your case?! Read the text:
Sport an analog face for a formal event, go digital for a retro feel
Apple are saying that it's the digital face that is the retro feel, i.e. faces that imitate this:
Yes, I would agree, practically no one wears watches like that any more, they're a relic of the past, so an Apple watch face that imitate the style is retro. But not round faces (the topic of the thread) or analog hands (not the topic of the thread, though you seem to want it to be).
Comments
Just sayin’
The point I'm getting at is that, with little physical interactivity, a round face isn't a problem, and may also make it more attractive, which hits the jewellery/accessory angle. I'm in favour, I think the round face looks better on a wrist than the rectangular one.
If Apple comes out with a round one, I may move back but I dont think they will do it anytime soon. They made a statement with the square watch and it would be like going back on their word.
We probably shouldn't assume the future of the Apple Watch will be based on a traditional clock face.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Do an image search for 'watch' and see how many current watches are round, like most always have been. Then show the date when round watches were no longer a current style.
I don't understand all the FUD regarding round watches. So many are trying to make this an either or thing, when it's not.
It would be almost trivial for Apple to bring a round Watch to market, considering other products, like a phone, that they've done. They're working on some area/areas of vehicle autonomy. And a round Watch is somehow a problem? Bullshit.
All the nervous nellies wouldn't have to buy one IF Apple were to make it. They could stay with the rectangular Watch as their comfort Watch. IF Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well.
Having a round face on a purely digital smartwatch driven by a touchscreen UI that no longer requires the physical hands to be rotate around a center point and to use face faces that imitate that style, fashion, or design is, by definition, retro.
FUD?
I don't think the acronym means you think it means?
Where is exactly is the fear that you claim people point out that it's a less than advantageous design for a smartwatch?
Almost trivial you say? So not trivial at all. Do you honestly not understand the amount of work that goes into changing the resolution, display size, or aspect ratio of an iPhone display? Clearly you don't when you're using the word trivial to describe a circular display that would require the all the UI elements for the OS and apps to nee rewritten to conform to this new display (which Apple has never done before).
I think the next step is to reduce the bezel on the Apple Watch so the display can be larger without the casing increasing in size, and that itself is also a major undertaking since the resolution will also increase, which requires a lot of work to make sure the all the UI elements look good while being able to take advantage of the new screen real estate. This is not trivial!
If you can't see the difference between "If Apple were to make a round version, it would sell well" and "If Apple were to make a round version, I think it will sell well," then you have no credibility.
Seriously, don't you even get bored of making this same pedantic observation time and time again, to no avail? Surely you'll eventually realise that it's you that has the problem, not the world?
if you choose to be cognitively lazy, choose not to not communicate as clearly as possible, or do it on purpose so you can say "that's not what I meant" when you're called out on it (which is inarguably worse), then you're the problem, not the rest of humanity. Some of us prefer writing with clear intent, instead of being passive-aggressive cunts. If your pusillanimous mentality is the future of humanity then it's my opinion that we're all fucking doomed.
PS: It's funny that you jump to macgui's defense in a post where he claims night9hawk's use of retro is wrong despite it being the correct use of the term.
It's not the correct use of retro, since a large proportion (possibly most? I have no idea) watches do have round screens. Both in the past, when the Apple Watch was released, and, crucially, right now. From your own dictionary definition... "imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past". That's past as in not-present. So you're unequivocally wrong by your own definition.
Do you have some sort of issue understand the difference between past, present and future?
Good use of pusillanimous though, kudos.
Also, what are you on about "analog watch face"; we're talking about roundness, nothing else. And FYI, Apple Watch already has analog-style watch faces.
A round Apple Watch would of course be imitative of other watch designs (while we're here, telling the time, having a wristband, and having a crown are also imitative of other watch designs). But because those watch designs are contemporary and widespread (note: as well as traditional, I'm not denying tradition here) it can hardly be called retro.
A pocket watch would be retro (sure they exist now too, but they're not widespread and are definite appeals to tweetradition), a hypercolor watch band would be retro, a round watch face, not so.
Why do you not understand that this is a temporal issue? Why don't you seem to understand anything?
You have, I can only presume, deliberately omitted the final part " from the recent past". I repeat, not for the first time, there are many, many, many, watches currently available for purchase that have round faces. And again, round faces, not analog hands, which you bizarrely are trying to swerve the argument towards (not that it even helps your argument anyway, same point stands) - the topic of this thread, and the topic of the exchange we are having it all about round faces, not analog hands.
In either case, round face or analog hands, there is no question of retro; modern watches have these features, and they are widespread in their commercial availability and appeal. So not retro. By definition. The definition that you posted, and are now trying to worm your way out of.
But you've devolved to complete disingenuous drivel now. Fox News ffs? These are pathetic attempts to discredit an argument that you don't seem to be able to deal with.
Grow up Soli, you're an embarrassment to yourself and everyone around you.
Apple are saying that it's the digital face that is the retro feel, i.e. faces that imitate this:
Yes, I would agree, practically no one wears watches like that any more, they're a relic of the past, so an Apple watch face that imitate the style is retro. But not round faces (the topic of the thread) or analog hands (not the topic of the thread, though you seem to want it to be).