mac_128

tulkas said:

Rayz2016 said:

Mmm. 

Sounds like a lot of complexity and a lot of compromises.  

Yup. There is a good reason we don't use round smart phone, TVs and monitors. Round displays are not optimal for for most/all media types, but especially for text over one or two words. 

Nope. That has nothing to do with it. Jony Ive himself is on record saying the watch was designed and intended for glances, anything more and the user should pull out their phone. Ergo, the watch is meant to convey short messages, which can easily be accomplished on round or square. It's not intended to read page after page of text, or watch movies for that matter. As for round displays, that would actually solve a lot of problems with respect to modern aspect ratios and the rise of the vertical screen. There are round mirrors, picture frames and a host of other decorator items, which translate to personal taste and fashion that have nothing to do with practicality. Moreover, a round smart phone would take up too much room in a pocket, making it a poor choice given its function. As Jony Ive said, once a customer wears something, they have the expectation of choice. So Apple knows full well the importance of making the wearable meet their customers expectations.

jonbaize said:

During the original Apple Watch announcement Apple said they had worked on a round face but ditched it because it wasn’t ideal for usability. This patent is probably just related to that work. I don’t think we will be seeing a round face, at least not on the watch.

I applaud Apple for going with a rectangular design -- they were entering an unproven field, where there were already round designs from the competition, which were not done well (i.e. the flat tire on the Motorola). The UI required more thought, and effort by all parties, and especially developers whom they needed to quickly adopt the watch.  It also simplified the ability to offer text given the size limitations of the display. Finally there's the iconic connection with the iPhone, and iPad, identifying the watch as unmistakably Apple. So Apple chose to go with the design that made the most sense to launch a new product, rather than devote valuable resources at that time to create an entirely new approach and a learning curve for all involved. They did not rule out ever bringing a round watch to market. They made the smart initial choice, and have been refining it, and making it successful prior to expanding the product offerings.

gatorguy said:

Soli said:

mike1 said:

If it were possibly destined for a Watch, there's nothing wrong with having a choice for those who prefer the round aesthetic.

There's a lot wrong with it. The cost to create an entire new UI and the cost for developers to support this entirely new UI is high. There's a reason why Apple is so selective about how it changes their display sizes and aspect ratios for iOS-based devices. This is not something you jump into willy-nilly.

Done properly I don't think that it would require all that much additional effort on the part of developers to support both rectangular and round faces. Heck, how many resolutions, screen sizes, aspect ratios and even special considerations like notches does Apple make it relatively easy for developers to adapt to? 

Agreed. Just like the offering existing iPhone apps for the iPad by putting them within a letterbox to accommodate the different aspect ratio, existing watch apps would easily fit inside a round watch without compromise. Like the iPad, while not being aesthetically pleasing, it allows a quick adoption of third party apps. Meanwhile Apple would offer native apps with the round UI. They've obviously been working on a round UI for the HomePod, and as they interface becomes more complex, allows them to work out real world issues, including perhaps third party apps for it. Regardless, Apple would bring their usual intuitiveness to a round UI. Developers could chose to support it or no, but then they wouldn't really have to, just like they didn't with the iPad, until they saw a significant sales volume to do so. 

night9hawk said:

Soli said:

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.

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.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Yes they are built into a case that minimized excess room around the round sweeping hands, but most clocks before that were in square cases. So it's just as much a design choice as a practical one. Since then there have been both round and square watches, with round seemingly the most popular choice. Again, tradition or style choice? I fail to see how its a waste. If one compares the current 42mm round watches to a current 42mm Apple watch,  the round watch has more space to display information. So in fact, not a waste. We'll see what happens after they make the display larger -- round watches will likely lose some of their advantage. But there are arguably still other advantages in choosing that shape over a square, including comfort, and style.

dasanman69 said:

But has it killed the likes of Rolex yet? 

To be fair, I'd put my money on the AirPods outselling the AW, and contributing more to the bottom line.

hobnoble said:

I think this would de-value premium Hermès and perhaps even Nike models if anyone could replicate their watch face and supplement it with a cheap look-alike brand.

Both of those brands are about the bands, not the watch face. That's a bonus that comes with the band. While I suspect there are a few people who may buy one for the watch face, that's likely the tiny exception to the rule.

That said, I doubt Apple is planning to open this up to just anyone. If a private developer wants to create his own knock-off watch face and hack it into heir own personal watch, and there were enough of them, I suppose it could be a problem. Apple will most likely still limit customer customization options, limiting watch face design to third party developers. While a few copyrighted designs, and trademarks may slip by, as they do with some apps, the major brand trademarks and copyrights will not. Particularly Apples partners, like Hermes and Nike. So no, this is not likely to be a significant problem.

macgui said:

I was all set to replace my A2 with a 10.5" iPad Pro, for the pencil. 

This new iPad may be just the ticket. I hope the next iPad upgrade means a new mini. I've got a 2, and even a four would be decent as I really miss TID on it.

I agree. I really hope they don't discontinue the mini, and add pencil support to it. That's probably my next purchase for work if they do.

rossb2 said:

lito_lupena 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.

If I had to guess, I'd say if Apple changes the design such as to become incompatible with the original watch bands, they will continue offering the original design, as a classic AW option, such that the old straps will continue to be relevant, and the new model will use new straps. Most people who wear watches have more than one they rotate into their wardrobe, and therefore, a customer's investment in the original watch bands will be valid for many years to come, since it will be a style choice and not a requirement to upgrade. But Apple has shown repeatedly that if their design dictates a substantial change requiring making existing accessories incompatible, they will not hesitate to do it.