If I wear a watch I've got to like how it looks. The current single design with a few size and finish options doesn't do it for me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Said to be Readying Pair of Own-Branded Smartwatches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doesn't do what? This is a serious question.
A designer takes the more difficult and challenging approach and starts with a clean sheet, allowing function to dictate form. Then some complain that the result doesn't look like some arbitrary other thing. This reminds me of the darkest days of automotive design in the '70s and '80s, when cars had Landau roofs and plastic wheel covers because timid designers felt they needed to make reference to features that cars no longer had or needed. Widely ridiculed even at the time as bad design.
Put simply, it doesn't make me think "that looks great" when I look at it. A watch is the only type of jewellery I'm ever going to wear so if I don't like the look of it I'm not going to strap it on my wrist.
Yep, I think it'll come sooner or later.
Since at least 90% of watch buyers have traditionally chosen a round shape, the fashion desire is already around to support it.
It's just a matter of when Apple wants / needs to take advantage of that.
Well it was a serious question. I don't think of it as jewelry, at all.
[doublepost=1468017678][/doublepost]
This is merely more wishful thinking from the "a watch has to be round" camp. Obviously the shape was determined by the product's functions, not by its name. This is why the "a watch has to be round" camp is highly likely to be wrong about what Apple will do with future versions of this product.
Google will make a smart watch.
Smart watch runs Android Wear
Android Wear has an app
App is on the App Store
App Store is on iOS
iOS is from Apple
Apple makes iPhone, iPads and Macs
So yeah this article is suppose to be on this site
Oddly enough every edition of GQ I've been reading lately is preaching for me to buy square watches, apparently they are back in!
As Apple have gone out of their way to promote it as a fashion item I'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree.
I'm pretty sure you are arguing a logical and semantical fallacy. Jewelry has no other function but decoration. I am sure we could both easily think of dozens of functional items that are fashionable but also functional. Apple Watch, for one.
Watches are functional items and are normally sold in jewellery stores but semantics aside, I still don't like how it looks and I still think they need to have a wider range of case designs.
If you have factual evidence of that I'd love to see it. I don't see any Fashionistas or wannabes around DC wearing Apple watches, just tech fiends like me. All the power people are still wearing the traditional "power watch" brands.
Ha. Because GQ writes about it its fact? No. Not sure if you understand how magazines like GQ work. They are fed stories by manufacturers, press agents, PR firms, ad firms. They are glorified catalogs. All that fugly, tacky stuff you see in the pages is bought and paid for one way or another just like food manufactures buy shelf space in grocery stores because that is the only way it's going to sell - if it sells. The items displayed in the pages evoke no natural desire to own other than "x said it's cool."
But regardless, the AW is not attractive no matter what shape is in style -- though no evidence square it is right now and if it is, it's a fad. Do you think AW should be a fad or timeless?
Who says a watch HAS to be round? And using your logic, if a watch is round only because of its function, then why have there been oval watches, square watches, rectangular watches, and triangular watches over the decades? Why offer watch wearers any choice at all, if it's just about being functional? It would have been a lot simpler and more profitable if watch makers simply offered one design, in a couple of different colors, and focused on the bands and straps that held it to the wrist like Apple seems to have done.
You are of course perfectly free to not like how Apple Watch or any other product looks and not buy one accordingly. Yet that judgement on your part does not make those things merely decorative. I've said it before and will say it again: Apple made a marketing mistake by calling this product a watch, because it raises these very legacy issues. So semantics do seem to matter a great deal, though if you can look beyond them for a moment, you might see their lack of genuine relevance in describing why someone would buy the product. Having worn mine since Day One, I can honestly report that I don't think of it as jewelry, or even as a watch, per se. Apple may have abetted people stuck in the legacy watch mindset, but that does not alter any key facts about the product, the most important of which is, it is not really a watch.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"
Bring it on . Competition results in better devices/experience for all
[doublepost=1468080334][/doublepost]
Same reason why modern art is crap
cause it can ..... The origin of the watch is round for obvious reasons , these days arty farty designers can make them whatever shape they like.
[doublepost=1468080334][/doublepost]
Same reason why modern art is crap
cause it can ..... The origin of the watch is round for obvious reasons , these days arty farty designers can make them whatever shape they like.
No this is precisely your argument.
And you expressly stated there is a group arguing that watches can only be round. I'm asking who this group is to which you refer. I know of no such group advocating that a watch can only be round.
And by your logic, arguing that a watch is round purely out of functional consideration, there should have never been any watches of any other shape. Since there have been, of many shapes and styles, your argument that watches don't embody something more akin to jewelry for most people is rendered toothless.
Excuse me, but several in this thread have argued just that. Every single discussion about Apple Watch has featured exactly these objections to the form factor, with many stating (just as they have here) that not only would they never buy an Apple Watch if it wasn't round, but also predicting that it would never be a successful product if it remains rectangular. Don't accept my grouping these frequently stated objections together if it makes you feel better, but these views are common nonetheless. As for the jewelry argument, I was not making that one, but reacting to the classification of watches as jewelry. So I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot there.
It's might be worth getting I already have an Apple Watch. And an iPhone. I need a watch for my android. When I don't use my iPhone and Apple Watch
One week after news emerged that Google is working on its own smartphone hardware to compete with the likes of Apple's iPhone, a separate report this week claims the company is also set to enter the wearable market with a pair of Google-branded smartwatches.
As with its Android mobile operations, the company has traditionally focused on developing its Android Wear OS while relying on third-party manufacturers to come up with the hardware.
Motorola Moto 360 watches running Android Wear
However, on Wednesday Android Police cited "reliable" sources with knowledge of Google's wearable hardware project, which is said to involve two smartwatches codenamed "Angelfish" and "Swordfish", both with circular displays.
The Angelfish model will reportedly bear similarities to the Motorola Moto 360, with a design that features visible lugs and a housing that curves at the point where the wristband meets the device's body. A 43.5mm diameter accommodates a larger battery and LTE chip that will let the watch connect to cellular networks.
A large circular button at the center of the watch's right side and a pair of smaller circular buttons above and below it will provide physical interaction. While there's no information on what functions the buttons offer, the device is said to feature GPS and a heart-rate monitor, which in addition to LTE capabilities, will make it a true standalone device.
The second, smaller Swordfish model is said to resemble a Pebble Time Round watch, sans the large screen bezel, offering a more rounded look. A single button at the center of its right side will function similarly to the Apple Watch's Digital Crown, but the device won't have GPS or heart-rate monitoring capabilities.
Both devices will have Google Assistant integration and support contextual notifications, with the potential of other unique features not found on third-party watches running Android Wear OS. No information on price points was offered for the devices, while Google declined to comment.
Unlike the company's phones which are said to be coming this year, it's not clear when Google plans to release the watches, although they could potentially appear alongside Google's next range of Nexus smartphones slated for 2016, or with the launch of Android Wear 2.0 this fall.
Apple meanwhile is said to be launching a second-generation Apple Watch later this year, possibly in the fall, putting it on the same upgrade cycle as the iPhone.
For the Apple Watch 2, Apple is said to be working on implementing cellular network connectivity and a faster processor. Built-in cellular capabilities would allow the Apple Watch to place calls, send messages, and access data without the need for an iPhone, while a faster processor would result in speed improvements when accessing apps.
watchOS 3, also debuting this fall, brings a dedicated Breathe app, instant-open apps, a new dock housing favorite apps, a new Control Center, and more.
Article Link: Google Said to be Readying Pair of Own-Branded Smartwatches
It's not round-vs-square, it's that the Apple watch took a square design and managed to make it look dorky.
I had a Moto360. Yes, it somewhat looks like a "traditional" watch. However, it sucks as a text reading device. You can only see the full message in the middle of the display. And if you have an analog display, all the widgets have to fit inside the dial, being obstructed by the hands. For an information display device like a smart watch, square makes a lot more sense.
And Apple called it a watch because that's what you traditionally call that thing on your wrist that displays some information.
And Apple called it a watch because that's what you traditionally call that thing on your wrist that displays some information.