Apple Predicted to Launch Apple Watch Sport in Yellow & Rose Gold, New iMacs & iPad Mini Later This Year

[Saucesome2000]

Personally, I think a rectangular shape is ugly. I think the Moto 360 is extremely stylish. Give me a round Apple Watch!

I've thought about this and I believe it would limit the functionality of the Watch, especially most apps. mainly because you are cutting off screen real estate. Imagine, for instance, scrolling Twitter on a round face. At the end of the day, like the iPhone and iPad, the Watch is a computer. Have you ever had the desire for a round computer screen or a round iPhone? Yes, it's a watch, but with smart watches, function should preside over form.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I've thought about this and I believe it would limit the functionality of the Watch, especially most apps. mainly because you are cutting off screen real estate. Imagine, for instance, scrolling Twitter on a round face. At the end of the day, like the iPhone and iPad, the Watch is a computer. Have you ever had the desire for a round computer screen or a round iPhone? Yes, it's a watch, but with smart watches, function should preside over form.

You give a great example of the flawed thinking that led to a rectangular watch.

You shouldn't be scrolling Twitter on your watch in the first place. That's not the use case for the Apple Watch.

Remember what Jobs said about the iPad: it does a few things very well, better than other forms. So it is with the Apple Watch: it should do some things better than other forms. Scrolling through Twitter is always going to be sub-par on a watch, rectangular or round, so it's a mistake to focus design on such a function. It's meant for quick glances, not reading several sentences.

And that is why a round face is better: for the kind of use that is best-suited to a watch, a round interface is actually more efficient and clearer than a rectangular one.

 

[Saucesome2000]

You give a great example of the flawed thinking that led to a rectangular watch.

You shouldn't be scrolling Twitter on your watch in the first place. That's not the use case for the Apple Watch.

Remember what Jobs said about the iPad: it does a few things very well, better than other forms. So it is with the Apple Watch: it should do some things better than other forms. Scrolling through Twitter is always going to be sub-par on a watch, rectangular or round, so it's a mistake to focus design on such a function. It's meant for quick glances, not reading several sentences.

And that is why a round face is better: for the kind of use that is best-suited to a watch, a round interface is actually more efficient and clearer than a rectangular one.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you based on your reply. Twitter itself is about quick glances, not reading sentences. And Twitter was just the first thing I came up with. I can't think of any app or function that would be a better experience on a round face other than telling time. What functions would you suggest might offer a better experience on a round face?

Also, you said a round face is better for a watch. As I stated in my first reply, this is a computer, not a watch in the same way the iPhone is a computer and not a phone. I mean, who the hell actually uses the iPhone primarily as a phone?

 

[McGiord]

Really? Then why are all my calendars square?

(BTW, It's a clever slogan, so kudos for that. You should write advertising copy for the old (round) Swiss watchmakers. Just make sure you're paid up-front. )

No Mayan Calendars?

 

[Arran]

No Mayan Calendars?

I find them tricky getting through airport security. Scanner's not wide enough

 

[peterdevries]

It doesn't make sense to you. <snip>How the rectangular shape is determined by all the functions that Apple Watch has?

It makes sense to have a rectangular watch in terms of the possible usecases: writing and reading emails and texts, navigating maps, selecting music etc etc etc. The single and only function that the watch has that looks better on a circular watch is a classical watch face.

I personally like round watches better too (I didn't buy an Apple watch because of that and a set of other reasons), but in terms of the overall usage rectangular makes sense. Look at the reviews of the round competition. They are close to unanimous.

Again, not disputing anyone's preferences, but from a usage point of view Apple made the right decision.

 

[Trubador]

Given that iPads have a longer use life (similar to desktops/laptops) especially since they aren't connected to 2-year contracts with service providers, it would make a lot of sense for Apple to alternate releases so that in odd years they update/release the iPad mini and iPad Pro, and in even years they update the iPad Air. Annual updates on those products are not really that necessary, and it saves on production costs.

 

[Dionte]

Double the ramz in the iPhones and iPads and they will sell.

 

[peterdevries]

Given that iPads have a longer use life (similar to desktops/laptops) especially since they aren't connected to 2-year contracts with service providers, it would make a lot of sense for Apple to alternate releases so that in odd years they update/release the iPad mini and iPad Pro, and in even years they update the iPad Air. Annual updates on those products are not really that necessary, and it saves on production costs.

Doesn't make sense for totally new consumers. Since all the competitors have at least 1 update per year, Apple needs to follow. The pace is set by the combined market, not only by Apple.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Gold it tacky in any shade, especially when it is "fake" gold color. Even the real gold Apple Edition Watch would be the last thing I would ever want to buy if money wasn't a consideration; I'd still opt for a $24,000 Rolex in stainless steel before I add a gold plated "Casio" watch to my collection.

A digital watch is a digital watch, regardless of how much fool's gold you dress it in. Digital watches are not luxury, period.

 

[12vElectronics]

So no new iPad Air?

 

[Brien]

This is different. It makes no sense for Apple's sake to sell an anodized gold / rose gold Apple Watch Sport for $350 because it would demolish the exclusivity factor of buying the gold Apple Watch Edition. Why buy a $10,000 Apple Watch Edition when you can get a gold one for $350?

Why buy a $600 Apple Watch when you can get a $350 silver Sport model? [/devilsadvocate]

 

[Brien]

For the same reason Apple put a $49 sport band on a $10,000 watch. I typed it. I know it's true. But I still can't believe they did this!

FWIW the Edition sport bands have gold pins (not 316L) and are a few hundred dollars.

I thought it was silly too until I saw the pricing for some of the IkePod bands.

 

[skellener]

Because the lack of more gold options is what's hurting sales of the Apple Watch. /s

 

[johnnyturbouk]

, but could be tempted to pick up a 5K version in a case redesign which minimizes the chin and bezel a bit..

I would hope apple u-turn their current priorities: being besotted with the narrative that thinner=better. I also hope they use a decent GPU in their top spec imac, that can seriously do the gorgeous 5K screen some justice.
I would gladly sacrifice thickness for functionality; i.e. a more powerful GPU, i know it would never happen, but would actually love to see a desktop GPU in the 27" imac, and apple going back to nvidia - doubtful either of these will happen with the next imac.

 

[nStyle]

Honestly though, I don't expect new desktop designs. Laptops and mobiles are the future - desktops are a dying breed and the current designs are fine. The people who still need them care more about what's on the inside than what they look like.

That's because you don't use or know anything about computers. Interest for Macbook is waning mainly due to the fact that it's so underpowered, especially on the graphic side.

I went from using macbook/air/pro for 10 years as my main machine, to going back to desktop PC because I was tired of not being able to do any serious ish, be it gaming or work wise.

The high end 15" rMBP has the power of any iMac, so there's not much point in trying to argue that. The iMac still uses mobile parts to keep its thin profile. With everything getting thinner and lighter, it isn't going to matter whether you buy an iMac or MBP. The only difference is the screen size. I do indeed see less and less reason to buy an iMac when you can get the same power in a portable form factor, unless you want a niche product like the 5K iMac. Those that need >15" simply buy external monitors.

The analogy you're trying to apply doesn't work well with a gaming PC - which is always going to be a better all-rounder than any Mac product.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

The high end 15" rMBP has the power of any iMac, so there's not much point in trying to argue that. The iMac still uses mobile parts to keep its thin profile. With everything getting thinner and lighter, it isn't going to matter whether you buy an iMac or MBP. The only difference is the screen size. I do indeed see less and less reason to buy an iMac when you can get the same power in a portable form factor, unless you want a niche product like the 5K iMac. Those that need >15" simply buy external monitors.

The analogy you're trying to apply doesn't work well with a gaming PC - which is always going to be a better all-rounder than any Mac product.

Price is a major appeal of the iMac. Getting a MacBook Pro of equal capability with an iMac will cost 1.5-2x as much, while you end up with a smaller screen. If you don't need to move it more than once or twice a week, you may as well get an iMac.

 

[RealityM]

Am I the only one that wants MacRumors to have separate threads for upcoming Macs so I don't have to scroll through hundreds of comments on round vs. square watch design?

 

[Edgar Spayce]

The high end 15" rMBP has the power of any iMac, so there's not much point in trying to argue that. The iMac still uses mobile parts to keep its thin profile. With everything getting thinner and lighter, it isn't going to matter whether you buy an iMac or MBP. The only difference is the screen size. I do indeed see less and less reason to buy an iMac when you can get the same power in a portable form factor, unless you want a niche product like the 5K iMac. Those that need >15" simply buy external monitors.

The analogy you're trying to apply doesn't work well with a gaming PC - which is always going to be a better all-rounder than any Mac product.

1. Even the high-end 15" Macbook Pro is a vast underpowered joke for a crazy expensive price...you don't know what you're talking about. Good for you if you're one of those using a PC for mail, word and internet surfing.

2. Yes the iMac too is a joke, but at least it's affordable

3. You are thinking like I was thinking...5 years ago. Today, what I stated is my conslusion

4. No, PC is not better all-rounder, it is still an horrible un-optimized, bug/crap filled, badly coded platform BUT it is the only valid platform serious-work or graphic/scientific/development-work wise, so it is not even a matter of price but of choice since no Mac has any decent specs.

 

[nStyle]

Price is a major appeal of the iMac. Getting a MacBook Pro of equal capability with an iMac will cost 1.5-2x as much, while you end up with a smaller screen. If you don't need to move it more than once or twice a week, you may as well get an iMac.

Says the guy who stated "desktops are a dying breed". I was more or less defending the stance of "yes, iMacs are a dying breed" since MBPs basically do what iMacs can do and the gap is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[nStyle]

1. Even the high-end 15" Macbook Pro is a vast underpowered joke for a crazy expensive price...you don't know what you're talking about. Good for you if you're one of those using a PC for mail, word and internet surfing.

2. Yes the iMac too is a joke, but at least it's affordable

3. You are thinking like I was thinking...5 years ago. Today, what I stated is my conslusion

4. No, PC is not better all-rounder, it is still an horrible un-optimized, bug/crap filled, badly coded platform BUT it is the only valid platform serious-work or graphic/scientific/development-work wise, so it is not even a matter of price but of choice since no Mac has any decent specs.

I was more responding to "Interest for Macbook is waning mainly due to the fact that it's so underpowered, especially on the graphic side." Which is completely false.

Mac sales have went up or at least stayed constant while PC sales as a whole have declined. So obviously there is still a demand for beautiful, well balanced, all in one machines.

If you're a gamer or demand the very best for high end animation or modeling, then sure, a MacBook or iMac is not the best bang/buck. And if price is no concern, the Mac Pro would be the way to go. But, for the vast majority of consumers, I think your comments are ludicrous. This is not a "5 years ago" argument. If anything, what I'm saying is more relevant than what you're saying. People aren't upgrading as quickly these days mainly because the improvements are minor for what you get or for what people are actually using their computers for.

Again: for gaming, anything seriously intensive, I agree with you. But you can't compare THAT with the difference between a MBP and iMac, which is basically non-existent.

 

[Dac21]

What would Apple Watch Sport colors looks like?