Major 'Apple Watch X' redesign rumored to arrive in 2024

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited August 2023

Apple may be preparing a big refresh of the Apple Watch as early as 2024, a report claims, with changes to the design potentially reworking how bands are attached to the wearable device.




Apple is currently anticipated to bring out the Apple Watch Series 9 this fall, but rumors are already circulating about the next model along. For the "Apple Watch X," a milestone release, Apple may have something big planned for the product line.

Writing in the "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman claims Apple is scheduling the Apple Watch X for launch sometime in 2024 or 2025. The theory is that it will be a celebration in line with the 10th anniversary of the Apple Watch itself.

As part of the refresh, Apple will make a number of key changes, and will be a major update rather than smaller incremental changes that the device has gone through over a number of years.

The big change could be in a change to how bands attach to the Apple Watch body. Instead of fitting into slots, it is claimed that a magnetic system is being planned.

Sources supposedly involved in the development of the Apple Watch said that the existing slot system takes up a lot of space at either end of the body. This eats up a lot of internal space that could be used by other components, such as a larger battery.

Given that Gurman also says that a thinner overall design is also in the works, a change to a magnetic-based system would help designers fit as much as they can into the thinner body, by lengthening the available internal cavity.

The Apple Watch Series 9 updates, due this fall, is expected to largely consist of a performance bump, but Gurman has previously said that other hardware updates "will be anything but major."

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    jfabula1jfabula1 Posts: 138member
    Sounds like the X of Elon Musk, did I say that??
  • Reply 2 of 32
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,647member
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    I don’t buy the whole “takes up a lot of space” argument.  The current band method is secure an elegant.   It’s 1000x better than the stupid spring-pin method used by conventional watches.   It’s clean.   It works.   

    The band attachment method is external.  It does not take up space inside the watch.  It does not make the watch significantly larger.   It’s a part of the watch.   It’s required.  

    Magnetic attachment is weak and lame.   

    A thinner watch would be neat, but the battery life is horrendous already and will only be worse if thinner.    

    Sorry, Gurman,    I call shenanigans.  

    anonymouseAnilu_777applebynaturewilliamlondonbonobobappleinsideruserqwerty52chasmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 32
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. Yes, I know square is better for displaying data but I do not usually read a lot of my watch...lol. Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    edited August 2023
  • Reply 4 of 32
    d_2d_2 Posts: 118member
    eriamjh said:
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    Yeah, Apple has never been successful with “X” naming for major products… Max OS X … iPhone X … /s
    mike1slow n easywilliamlondonmacguibeowulfschmidtqwerty52thtentropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 32
    d_2 said:
    eriamjh said:
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    Yeah, Apple has never been successful with “X” naming for major products… Max OS X … iPhone X … /s
    Exactly. I was sifting through the comments to see if someone would bring this up. Apple was first. Musk copied Apple.
    williamlondonqwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 32
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 842member
    eriamjh said:
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    I don’t buy the whole “takes up a lot of space” argument.  The current band method is secure an elegant.   It’s 1000x better than the stupid spring-pin method used by conventional watches.   It’s clean.   It works.   

    The band attachment method is external.  It does not take up space inside the watch.  It does not make the watch significantly larger.   It’s a part of the watch.   It’s required.  

    Magnetic attachment is weak and lame.   

    A thinner watch would be neat, but the battery life is horrendous already and will only be worse if thinner.    

    Sorry, Gurman,    I call shenanigans.  

    It's not the letter X... it's the roman numeral for 10 which has been in use for like, 3000 years. Apple has used X previously for MacOS 10 and iPhone 10, so now we have the Watch 10. 

    The Apple Watch body has empty "tubes" on top and bottom to accommodate the attachment "pins" of watch bands that slide into them. That now empty space could be put to better use without increasing the size of the watch body. 

    I have a big investment in Apple Watch bands, so I wouldn't be thrilled with a new attachment method. That said, my current Nomad titanium link band uses a magnetic closure, which is way more convenient than any other method and has never opened by accident--nor do I expect it ever will. So magnetic attachments, properly executed, could definitely work and, if Apple were to release such an attachment method, I'm sure their execution of it would be great. And maybe there would be an adapter for existing bands to work. High quality watch bands aren't cheap and I think it would be a serious crimp in new Watch sales if ten years worth of watch bands were suddenly obsolete. We shall see. 

    A thinner watch could easily be the result of further miniaturization of other parts -- it doesn't have to mean a smaller battery. And even if it did, chips keep improving efficiency all the time so there probably wouldn't be a hit to battery life. 
    StrangeDaysmanfred zornwilliamhwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 32
    eriamjh said:
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    I don’t buy the whole “takes up a lot of space” argument.  The current band method is secure an elegant.   It’s 1000x better than the stupid spring-pin method used by conventional watches.   It’s clean.   It works.   

    The band attachment method is external.  It does not take up space inside the watch.  It does not make the watch significantly larger.   It’s a part of the watch.   It’s required.  

    Magnetic attachment is weak and lame.   

    A thinner watch would be neat, but the battery life is horrendous already and will only be worse if thinner.    

    Sorry, Gurman,    I call shenanigans.  

    As someone who has invested a lot in Watch bands over the years (I have 31 from Apple and from Spartan Watches) I’d be really pissed if they changed the connector!
    williamlondonthtmanfred zornwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 32
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,523member
    d_2 said:
    eriamjh said:
    If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

    Yeah, Apple has never been successful with “X” naming for major products… Max OS X … iPhone X … /s
    Exactly. I was sifting through the comments to see if someone would bring this up. Apple was first. Musk copied Apple.
    Apple did not copy Musk and Musk never copied Apple.

    If you really want to go down the whole “who did X first” rabbit hole it’d be Musk. He was using it in the 90’s. Far before Mac OS X was a thing.
    edited August 2023 designrbluefire1williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 32
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    designr said:
    Isn't series 9 the 10th generation of the Watch?

    I get that next year's watch will likely be named "X", but it will be the 11th generation, right?

    iPhone
    iPhone 3G
    iPhone 3GS
    iPhone 4
    iPhone 4S
    iPhone 5 + iPhone 5c
    iPhone 5s
    iPhone 6/6+
    iPhone 7/7+
    iPhone 8/8+

    But this count the iPhone 8 series was the 10th generation.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 32
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. Yes, I know square is better for displaying data but I do not usually read a lot of my watch...lol. Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    There will never be a round Apple Watch.  

    I wrote this here in 2015:
    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.


    designrqwerty52h4y3sStrangeDaysthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 32
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    If the band connection goes magnetic I imagine there will still be a small hook to the attachment, so that the band will not come free merely under tension.  It would not be efficient to create a flat-surface magnetic connection sufficiently strong to prevent disconnect should you hook your wrist on some obstacle, or to prevent a thief from pulling it off your wrist.  
    entropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. Yes, I know square is better for displaying data but I do not usually read a lot of my watch...lol. Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    There will never be a round Apple Watch.  

    I wrote this here in 2015:
    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. I’ve been saying the same thing. Yes, I know a lot of people, for some reason, think that round is the correct shape for a watch. But it’s just a historical anomaly to fit the hands that go around in a circle, and round is easier to machine than any other shape. But plenty of watches have been rectangular or square. Many extremely expensive watches aren’t even that. They have very odd shapes.

    one reason why many people don’t like the shape of the app,emwatch is that they don’t use, or like any Apple products, or Apple, as a company. So it was easy for them to laugh at the Watch when it came out. I remember when the Motorola watch came out, those posting in Arstechnica were saying that it was the most beautiful watch ever. But really, and I’ve had some very expensive, beautiful watches, it was cheap and ugly looking. It even had that cheap display with the connector at the bottom instead of the back so it was cut off.

    ive seen lots of Android watches with cheap plated zinc cases. It makes me shiver. Whether people like the shape or not, it’s far superior to round for a digital watch, and it’s beautifully designed, with attention to detail. The new Android watches do finally look as if they’ve upped their game, and look a lot better. I hope Apple doesn’t abandon the slide in bands. Not changing what was an excellent design is an advantage. If they do, I suppose we’ll get used to it, but I hate to think of all those bands out there along with the ones I have. Though, I can’t really wear any of them with my Ultra as they really don’t look right, including my beloved Apple black stainless bracelet, which is the best bracelet I’ve ever had for any watch.
    designrradarthekatStrangeDayscg27watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member

    designr said:
    I recently read an article (that I cannot find) about how Apple spent a boatload of money on machines to be able to do the (extremely) precise (and unique) springs and locking system. The article made the case of how it ended up being worth it given the $$$ Apple made from the interchangeable bands. Perhaps there are reasons to move on. And we know that Apple loves magnets. And I can imagine Apple finding a way to make the band attachment system even more elegant. But, to me, all that adds up to a fair amount of skepticism about a change in this. Maybe.
    I don’t like magnets because I have metal shops and do grinding. That metal powder gets everywhere. I always wear my Apple watch in the shop and no matter what, it’s been fine. But with a magnetic attachment, I shudder to think how much of that powder will get in there. I already have a problem with my iPad with the edges, in the case, getting full of metal powder. So much powder that you can see each magnet, and it won’t all come off, no matter how I clean it. It does come off the iPad, just not the case.
    designrradarthekatcg27watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 32
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,360member
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. 
    Me too. I've been requesting this via Apple Feedback since the first iteration of the Watch. If Apple hasn't done one by now, they never will. In saying never, let Apple prove me wrong. Part of the reason is Samsung already doing well with the Galaxy line. I never worry about who's on first, first, but I think Apple gives it some consideration.

    Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    Again we agree. Just because it's a "smartwatch" doesn't mean it must be of a shape to make the most possible use of any data that might possibly be stored on it. There are cars that are hard tops and cars that are convertibles. There are cars that are four-door cars that are two-door. There are two-place and four/five-place cars. There are pickup trucks. There are motorcycles that are one or two-place. Yet they all perform some common functions, one of them getting the driver from point A to B.

    A round smartwatch can have as much utility for its supporters as a rectangular/square smartwatch can have for their supporters. Use cases are not always equal. One smartwatch doesn't have to be and isn't the same thing for everybody.

    I think there are two reasons Apple hasn't/won't make a round watch. They don't think they'll sell enough to make it worthwhile, and Samsung already has the Galaxy line. It's a very decent watch and the only reason I don't own one is it doesn't run watchOS.

    Some people will have closets full of white shirts, black suits, black ties, and polished wingtips . Others may choose black T-shirts, jeans, and trainers. There are those who don't subscribe to either.

    Apples concession to style is different bands and different color cases. There's the Ultra but that's more than just a style change. So I'd buy a round Apple Watch in a tick.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 32
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    melgross said:
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. Yes, I know square is better for displaying data but I do not usually read a lot of my watch...lol. Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    There will never be a round Apple Watch.  

    I wrote this here in 2015:
    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. I’ve been saying the same thing. Yes, I know a lot of people, for some reason, think that round is the correct shape for a watch. But it’s just a historical anomaly to fit the hands that go around in a circle, and round is easier to machine than any other shape. But plenty of watches have been rectangular or square. Many extremely expensive watches aren’t even that. They have very odd shapes.

    one reason why many people don’t like the shape of the app,emwatch is that they don’t use, or like any Apple products, or Apple, as a company. So it was easy for them to laugh at the Watch when it came out. I remember when the Motorola watch came out, those posting in Arstechnica were saying that it was the most beautiful watch ever. But really, and I’ve had some very expensive, beautiful watches, it was cheap and ugly looking. It even had that cheap display with the connector at the bottom instead of the back so it was cut off.

    ive seen lots of Android watches with cheap plated zinc cases. It makes me shiver. Whether people like the shape or not, it’s far superior to round for a digital watch, and it’s beautifully designed, with attention to detail. The new Android watches do finally look as if they’ve upped their game, and look a lot better. I hope Apple doesn’t abandon the slide in bands. Not changing what was an excellent design is an advantage. If they do, I suppose we’ll get used to it, but I hate to think of all those bands out there along with the ones I have. Though, I can’t really wear any of them with my Ultra as they really don’t look right, including my beloved Apple black stainless bracelet, which is the best bracelet I’ve ever had for any watch.
    Oh my goodness, I'd forgotten all about Motorola's flat tire round watch face. But that drives the point home, doesn't it?  Such attempts quickly fade away rather than take hold.  Form following function is the surest way to create a new paradigm, or replace an old one 
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 32
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    macgui said:
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. 
    Me too. I've been requesting this via Apple Feedback since the first iteration of the Watch. If Apple hasn't done one by now, they never will. In saying never, let Apple prove me wrong. Part of the reason is Samsung already doing well with the Galaxy line. I never worry about who's on first, first, but I think Apple gives it some consideration.

    Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    Again we agree. Just because it's a "smartwatch" doesn't mean it must be of a shape to make the most possible use of any data that might possibly be stored on it. There are cars that are hard tops and cars that are convertibles. There are cars that are four-door cars that are two-door. There are two-place and four/five-place cars. There are pickup trucks. There are motorcycles that are one or two-place. Yet they all perform some common functions, one of them getting the driver from point A to B.

    A round smartwatch can have as much utility for its supporters as a rectangular/square smartwatch can have for their supporters. Use cases are not always equal. One smartwatch doesn't have to be and isn't the same thing for everybody.

    I think there are two reasons Apple hasn't/won't make a round watch. They don't think they'll sell enough to make it worthwhile, and Samsung already has the Galaxy line. It's a very decent watch and the only reason I don't own one is it doesn't run watchOS.

    Some people will have closets full of white shirts, black suits, black ties, and polished wingtips . Others may choose black T-shirts, jeans, and trainers. There are those who don't subscribe to either.

    Apples concession to style is different bands and different color cases. There's the Ultra but that's more than just a style change. So I'd buy a round Apple Watch in a tick.
    A round smartwatch removes function for the sake of form.  I use a round Nike watch face on my Apple Watch.  That leaves four unused corners of the rectangular screen free to host four complications.  For me those are UV Index, Temperature, Day/Date and a countdown timer.  Inside the round watch face are my activity stats.  

    Creating a physically round watch body/face takes away those corners and the generally more useful square display when displaying scrollable text or other data/info that we are all accustomed to seeing displayed in rows and columns.  

    Some folks built three wheeled cars, which almost comically tip over.  Saves on tires, I suppose, but is just not as useful as the more stable (standing still and at speed) four wheel cars.  There's a reason cars have four corners and there's a reason smartwatches do too.  
    edited August 2023 beowulfschmidtqwerty52williamlondonStrangeDayshodarwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 32
    This is absolute nonsense. No way any magnet will be strong enough to secure a watch/strap it would fall off every 5 minutes. Magnets are ok for secondary fastenings but not for a primary requirement like the elegant functional sliding mechanism currently used.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 32
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,703member
    macgui said:
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. 
    Me too. I've been requesting this via Apple Feedback since the first iteration of the Watch. If Apple hasn't done one by now, they never will. In saying never, let Apple prove me wrong. Part of the reason is Samsung already doing well with the Galaxy line. I never worry about who's on first, first, but I think Apple gives it some consideration.

    Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    Again we agree. Just because it's a "smartwatch" doesn't mean it must be of a shape to make the most possible use of any data that might possibly be stored on it. There are cars that are hard tops and cars that are convertibles. There are cars that are four-door cars that are two-door. There are two-place and four/five-place cars. There are pickup trucks. There are motorcycles that are one or two-place. Yet they all perform some common functions, one of them getting the driver from point A to B.

    A round smartwatch can have as much utility for its supporters as a rectangular/square smartwatch can have for their supporters. Use cases are not always equal. One smartwatch doesn't have to be and isn't the same thing for everybody.

    I think there are two reasons Apple hasn't/won't make a round watch. They don't think they'll sell enough to make it worthwhile, and Samsung already has the Galaxy line. It's a very decent watch and the only reason I don't own one is it doesn't run watchOS.

    Some people will have closets full of white shirts, black suits, black ties, and polished wingtips . Others may choose black T-shirts, jeans, and trainers. There are those who don't subscribe to either.

    Apples concession to style is different bands and different color cases. There's the Ultra but that's more than just a style change. So I'd buy a round Apple Watch in a tick.
    I'm with you. One style is not 'better' than the other for miniature devices. 

    It all boils down to preference because, like it or not, watches are 'worn' and anything worn has a decorative aspect to it when in society. Decoration has nothing to do with efficency. They are just two aspects that need to be weighed up in the final decision. 

    I have both round watches and rectangular bands/watches. I much prefer the round style on the smart watch for daily use even though I can get by without any wrist mounted device at all. I've always preferred round even though I've had square analog watches in the past too. 

    I prefer a rectangular device for wearing at night. This is because my fitness bands/rectangular watches are lower profile (very flush buttons) and smaller than my watch overall. The decorative aspect is moot if you're sleeping. 

    This differenciation boils down to choosing between what I have. I have that choice. 

    I'm sure plenty of Apple Watch users would opt for a round shape if one existed. 






  • Reply 19 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    macgui said:
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. 
    Me too. I've been requesting this via Apple Feedback since the first iteration of the Watch. If Apple hasn't done one by now, they never will. In saying never, let Apple prove me wrong. Part of the reason is Samsung already doing well with the Galaxy line. I never worry about who's on first, first, but I think Apple gives it some consideration.

    Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    Again we agree. Just because it's a "smartwatch" doesn't mean it must be of a shape to make the most possible use of any data that might possibly be stored on it. There are cars that are hard tops and cars that are convertibles. There are cars that are four-door cars that are two-door. There are two-place and four/five-place cars. There are pickup trucks. There are motorcycles that are one or two-place. Yet they all perform some common functions, one of them getting the driver from point A to B.

    A round smartwatch can have as much utility for its supporters as a rectangular/square smartwatch can have for their supporters. Use cases are not always equal. One smartwatch doesn't have to be and isn't the same thing for everybody.

    I think there are two reasons Apple hasn't/won't make a round watch. They don't think they'll sell enough to make it worthwhile, and Samsung already has the Galaxy line. It's a very decent watch and the only reason I don't own one is it doesn't run watchOS.

    Some people will have closets full of white shirts, black suits, black ties, and polished wingtips . Others may choose black T-shirts, jeans, and trainers. There are those who don't subscribe to either.

    Apples concession to style is different bands and different color cases. There's the Ultra but that's more than just a style change. So I'd buy a round Apple Watch in a tick.
    The problem is whether enough people would buy a round Watch when they won’t buy a rectangular one. That’s the real question. I like the style Apple uses. But I do know a couple of people who love the watch but would prefer a round model. But they did buy the current designs. So Apple has to balance what people will buy with their idea of what they need the watch to be, with the possibility that they’re leaving some money on the table. But is that money more or less than the additional R&D and production costs? Remember that Apple apparently discontinued the iPhone Mini because, as I’ve read, they ONLY sold about 10 million of them as a part of selling well over 200 million iPhones yearly. And how many people would buy a round model because, as you say, they would use it for quick bits of information that would work well on a round watch, even though the rest of the info would not work well on a round model? I’m not saying they will never come out with a round model, but it’s been a fairly long time since the watch first appeared and nothing yet.
    designrmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    avon b7 said:
    macgui said:
    I just wish they would add a round version to their offering. 
    Me too. I've been requesting this via Apple Feedback since the first iteration of the Watch. If Apple hasn't done one by now, they never will. In saying never, let Apple prove me wrong. Part of the reason is Samsung already doing well with the Galaxy line. I never worry about who's on first, first, but I think Apple gives it some consideration.

    Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
    Again we agree. Just because it's a "smartwatch" doesn't mean it must be of a shape to make the most possible use of any data that might possibly be stored on it. There are cars that are hard tops and cars that are convertibles. There are cars that are four-door cars that are two-door. There are two-place and four/five-place cars. There are pickup trucks. There are motorcycles that are one or two-place. Yet they all perform some common functions, one of them getting the driver from point A to B.

    A round smartwatch can have as much utility for its supporters as a rectangular/square smartwatch can have for their supporters. Use cases are not always equal. One smartwatch doesn't have to be and isn't the same thing for everybody.

    I think there are two reasons Apple hasn't/won't make a round watch. They don't think they'll sell enough to make it worthwhile, and Samsung already has the Galaxy line. It's a very decent watch and the only reason I don't own one is it doesn't run watchOS.

    Some people will have closets full of white shirts, black suits, black ties, and polished wingtips . Others may choose black T-shirts, jeans, and trainers. There are those who don't subscribe to either.

    Apples concession to style is different bands and different color cases. There's the Ultra but that's more than just a style change. So I'd buy a round Apple Watch in a tick.
    I'm with you. One style is not 'better' than the other for miniature devices. 

    It all boils down to preference because, like it or not, watches are 'worn' and anything worn has a decorative aspect to it when in society. Decoration has nothing to do with efficency. They are just two aspects that need to be weighed up in the final decision. 

    I have both round watches and rectangular bands/watches. I much prefer the round style on the smart watch for daily use even though I can get by without any wrist mounted device at all. I've always preferred round even though I've had square analog watches in the past too. 

    I prefer a rectangular device for wearing at night. This is because my fitness bands/rectangular watches are lower profile (very flush buttons) and smaller than my watch overall. The decorative aspect is moot if you're sleeping. 

    This differenciation boils down to choosing between what I have. I have that choice. 

    I'm sure plenty of Apple Watch users would opt for a round shape if one existed. 






    I’m sure some would as well, but we come back to the question of how many of those bought the rectangular model? If you did and shrug your shoulders and say you would have preferred a round one, that’s still a sale either way. I like the rectangular style, even though most of my watches over the decades were round. People are still used to round in watches. It’s not exactly innovative to cater to that crowd. Most round watches look the same and that true even if they cost $50,000. My friends and I used to compare our watches to see how far away we could get before we couldn’t tell what was what. Amusing.
    muthuk_vanalingamradarthekatwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.