iWatch Design

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by cirus, Sep 12, 2014.

  1. cirus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #1
    Much is being said how the iwatch resembles or doesn't resemble other watches, how it is a brilliant piece of engineering or innovation.

    In my opinion, and you may respectfully disagree, Apple didn't copy anyone, they also didn't engineer anything brilliant or innovative either. They had the seeds of the design years before the iwatch.

    It was called the ipod nano (6th gen). And it looked like this.

    [​IMG]

    With dimensions of 37.5 x 41 x 8.78 mm, the ipod nano was almost exactly the size of the iwatch. Take a nano, rotate it 90 degrees so that the longer side is vertical, clip off the sharp corners (thoughtfully delineated by the black bezel and coloured metal border) and round the face a little. Voila, you now have an iwatch (without the buttons on the side of course) 38mm. Unfortunately you also have to really blow the thickness up. With a width exceeding the moto 360 this is one thick beast. Gadgetviper seems to have done a comparison.

    [​IMG]
    http://gadgetviper.com/apple-watch-iwatch-review/

    The moto 360 is 11.5 mm thick for comparison. Take this with a grain of salt. Using apple's images it appears that the width to length ratio is about 2/7 giving a thickness of between 10.9 (38 mm) and 12 mm (42 mm). Needless to say the iwatch is significantly thicker than the iphone 6 or the surface pro 3. I think once people really get their hands on it and see how thick this thing is, especially for women there may be an abrupt about face on the design because seriously this thing is clunky.

    The nano was 21g the iwatch (no band) is likely at least 30g, which may be fine because there are a lot of heavy watches out there.

    While the iwatch seems okay, to me there just isn't enough progress.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It looks largely identical and despite 4 years progress manages to be significantly thicker. I don't know how much of that is battery because apple didn't mention battery (so its probably bad). In my opinion the design has improved and regressed in obvious areas. The iwatch is obviously sleeker but its tremendously fat. Its difficult to compare features until we start getting reviews.

    About the marketing pictures.

    [​IMG]

    Yep, really says it all. The iwatch is nothing new, its simply the evolution and perhaps lack of, on a product that apple produced long ago.
     
  2. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #2
    That size comparison between the Moto 360 and Apple Watch is bogus. The Moto 360 is smaller across in that picture, but it should be 4mm wider. The height difference between the two is negligible, and the Apple Watch doesn't seem to sit as high, because the straps attach in the middle of the case, as opposed to the bottom of the base as on the Moto.

    The Moto 360 is simply MUCH bigger on the wrist than either Apple Watch model. The Moto needs to shrink by about 20% before it's even in the conversation.

    The only thing all that similar in design between the Nano and the Watch is that they're rectangle.
     
  3. cirus thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #3
    Thanks, I though it seemed off. Anyway, it still seems like its over 10 mm thick.

    The iWatch takes many design cues from the nano. They are notably different but then apple has moved from sharp corners to sleeker lines in its newer products (imac, recent iphones).
     
  4. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #4
    I really don't think it looks anything like the Nano at all. Just being square, metal and LCD based isn't really enough for me.
     

Share This Page