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 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.
Agreed, while they technically work, bands designed for the non-Ultra are too narrow for the Ultra’s body, IMO. Not seeing many bands tailored for its wider case.
Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
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.
There is 0% chance Apple isn’t making a round watch because Samsung has one. That’s ridiculous actually. Apple has never not done a thing because others were doing it first. Rather they’re famous for doing exactly that, but better. Too many examples to cite.
A round smartwatch removes function for the sake of form.
You mean like making a keyboard so thin that a tiny speck of dust causes it to become unusable? /s
It's too complicated for developers; you'd either waste real estate or have apps that need to accommodate difference screen shapes. Unless you can really take advantage of the round-ness (i.e., UX explicitly does things using that shape), there is no point in being round.
I would worry about a magnetic attachment for the band to be all that secure in many types of use cases. Plus thieves.
A new band attachment redesign to me would be about adding functionality to the bands themselves. A connection within the attachment point to say, add batteries, add sensors etc.
Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
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.
There is 0% chance Apple isn’t making a round watch because Samsung has one. That’s ridiculous actually. Apple has never not done a thing because others were doing it first. Rather they’re famous for doing exactly that, but better. Too many examples to cite.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The first part. It's definitely not ridiculous.
We can't possibly know why Apple does or doesn't go a particular way on many decisions but I often straight up don't believe a lot of what is shoveled out by marketing or even executives sometimes because all too often there are massive holes in what they say. We deliberately don't get the whole story.
With any Apple presentation or interview you will find a lot more interesting aspects in what isn't said.
They moved on from the notch (eventually!).
Where did they move to? A cut out which has been around for years. I'm sure there were plenty of people here in 2018 or 2019 that said there was zero chance of a cut out on an iPhone but here it is.
I actually do see a lot of decisions potentially being made because the competition is already doing things in a particular way.
To say there is 'zero chance' is just extreme. Of course there is a chance. We just can't know how much.
But if you ask me, the round form factor was obviously considered and I wouldn't rule Samsung out as being a factor for why they chose not to go round. Yes there will have been other reasons too.
As far as form factors go. It was the same for Samsung. They had other options open to them and chose not to use them.
Apple at an executive level has its ego and pride and sometimes we get to see signs of it.
Famously, "can't innovate! My ass!"
Perhaps infamously, that product ran into problems as a result of the 'innovation'.
It happens.
Maybe that why they put so much effort into the wheels!
Recently, Apple felt the need to throw out a reference to its non-existant GPT products and support it with absolutely nothing.
I'd wager that the Vision Pro has also run into the 'Samsung' problem too, only with Quest as the reason.
I'd say it's not unfair to say that Apple can be very stubborn in this regard. It can even knuckle down on things only to end up changing tack down the line (Force Touch, TouchBar, butterfly keyboard, ports...)
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.
When they used the X with the iPhone 10 it just meant 10. People called it X, but that wasn't the actual branding of the phone.
Just thinking, what if the locking engagement of the band was magnetic instead of the button latch mechanism? The intent is to free up internal space for battery.
Losing the latch and using a magnet to move a simple engagement lever to lock EXISTING band design solves all issues. Band compatibility and internal space availability.
I would worry about a magnetic attachment for the band to be all that secure in many types of use cases. Plus thieves.
A new band attachment redesign to me would be about adding functionality to the bands themselves. A connection within the attachment point to say, add batteries, add sensors etc.
Yeah just like the first AppleWatch (Series 0?) back in 2015 had the 7 (?) pin connection inside one of the two barrels that hold the strap. Not sure when they did away with that ‘diagnostic port’. Always thought it would be for enabling optional band functionality. Seemed expensive to have just for diagnostics.
A round smartwatch removes function for the sake of form.
You mean like making a keyboard so thin that a tiny speck of dust causes it to become unusable? /s
It's too complicated for developers; you'd either waste real estate or have apps that need to accommodate difference screen shapes. Unless you can really take advantage of the round-ness (i.e., UX explicitly does things using that shape), there is no point in being round.
Well, Apple didn’t know that keyboard design would have problems when they came out with it. I’m sure you do really believe that they came out with a keyboard that they knew would break down. They did provide a partial fix in keyed versions, but it didn’t completely fix the problem so they went with a new, more advanced version of the older keyboards, which has been received very well. No responsible company comes out with a product that they know has flaws like that.
Use it for quick bits of info which would fit perfectly fine on a round watch.
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.
There is 0% chance Apple isn’t making a round watch because Samsung has one. That’s ridiculous actually. Apple has never not done a thing because others were doing it first. Rather they’re famous for doing exactly that, but better. Too many examples to cite.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The first part. It's definitely not ridiculous.
We can't possibly know why Apple does or doesn't go a particular way on many decisions but I often straight up don't believe a lot of what is shoveled out by marketing or even executives sometimes because all too often there are massive holes in what they say. We deliberately don't get the whole story.
With any Apple presentation or interview you will find a lot more interesting aspects in what isn't said.
They moved on from the notch (eventually!).
Where did they move to? A cut out which has been around for years. I'm sure there were plenty of people here in 2018 or 2019 that said there was zero chance of a cut out on an iPhone but here it is.
I actually do see a lot of decisions potentially being made because the competition is already doing things in a particular way.
To say there is 'zero chance' is just extreme. Of course there is a chance. We just can't know how much.
But if you ask me, the round form factor was obviously considered and I wouldn't rule Samsung out as being a factor for why they chose not to go round. Yes there will have been other reasons too.
As far as form factors go. It was the same for Samsung. They had other options open to them and chose not to use them.
Apple at an executive level has its ego and pride and sometimes we get to see signs of it.
Famously, "can't innovate! My ass!"
Perhaps infamously, that product ran into problems as a result of the 'innovation'.
It happens.
Maybe that why they put so much effort into the wheels!
Recently, Apple felt the need to throw out a reference to its non-existant GPT products and support it with absolutely nothing.
I'd wager that the Vision Pro has also run into the 'Samsung' problem too, only with Quest as the reason.
I'd say it's not unfair to say that Apple can be very stubborn in this regard. It can even knuckle down on things only to end up changing tack down the line (Force Touch, TouchBar, butterfly keyboard, ports...)
There’s zero evidence, to put it that way, that Apple will not consider something because a competitor is doing it. Many times, what that competitor is doing simply doesn’t align with where Apple is moving to in features or design. There was nothing really wrong, as the example you brought up, with the “trashcan”. It was the way the idea was carried out that was the problem.
Apple is definitely going the right way with AI. Microsoft rushed it to market as a desperate way to try to bolster its measly 3% worldwide share of search. Google was warned by their engineer+rs not to release theirs. What do you expect? Major problems for both. Apple is simply not going to release garbage like that. They probably use AI more in their products than anyone else, but they’re not trying to flash not around to get attention.
Vision Pro? Where does this come from? If anything, Samsung is well behind there. Are you really trying to convince us that Apple is concerned about lagging Samsung here? Seriously? If anything, Samsung again has the “copy Apple” syndrome they’re so well known for.
Comments
It's too complicated for developers; you'd either waste real estate or have apps that need to accommodate difference screen shapes. Unless you can really take advantage of the round-ness (i.e., UX explicitly does things using that shape), there is no point in being round.
A new band attachment redesign to me would be about adding functionality to the bands themselves. A connection within the attachment point to say, add batteries, add sensors etc.
We can't possibly know why Apple does or doesn't go a particular way on many decisions but I often straight up don't believe a lot of what is shoveled out by marketing or even executives sometimes because all too often there are massive holes in what they say. We deliberately don't get the whole story.
With any Apple presentation or interview you will find a lot more interesting aspects in what isn't said.
They moved on from the notch (eventually!).
Where did they move to? A cut out which has been around for years. I'm sure there were plenty of people here in 2018 or 2019 that said there was zero chance of a cut out on an iPhone but here it is.
I actually do see a lot of decisions potentially being made because the competition is already doing things in a particular way.
To say there is 'zero chance' is just extreme. Of course there is a chance. We just can't know how much.
But if you ask me, the round form factor was obviously considered and I wouldn't rule Samsung out as being a factor for why they chose not to go round. Yes there will have been other reasons too.
As far as form factors go. It was the same for Samsung. They had other options open to them and chose not to use them.
Apple at an executive level has its ego and pride and sometimes we get to see signs of it.
Famously, "can't innovate! My ass!"
Perhaps infamously, that product ran into problems as a result of the 'innovation'.
It happens.
Maybe that why they put so much effort into the wheels!
Recently, Apple felt the need to throw out a reference to its non-existant GPT products and support it with absolutely nothing.
I'd wager that the Vision Pro has also run into the 'Samsung' problem too, only with Quest as the reason.
I'd say it's not unfair to say that Apple can be very stubborn in this regard. It can even knuckle down on things only to end up changing tack down the line (Force Touch, TouchBar, butterfly keyboard, ports...)
There’s zero evidence, to put it that way, that Apple will not consider something because a competitor is doing it. Many times, what that competitor is doing simply doesn’t align with where Apple is moving to in features or design. There was nothing really wrong, as the example you brought up, with the “trashcan”. It was the way the idea was carried out that was the problem.
Vision Pro? Where does this come from? If anything, Samsung is well behind there. Are you really trying to convince us that Apple is concerned about lagging Samsung here? Seriously? If anything, Samsung again has the “copy Apple” syndrome they’re so well known for.