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.
Kevin Lynch and Alan Dye Share Behind-the-Scenes Details on Designing Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
phones and tablets were driven by a family of core functionalities: web browse, read, watch video, txt, email, take photos, game, etc. The watch has limited family of functions:limited fitness use, maps and notifications, apple pay. Its really a category failure more than a product failure
And this new one is an "ugly" font. That bothers me more I have to say. My prediction is, we're seeing the future typeface of iOS and OS X here.
People sure throw around the word "ugly" around here. Pretty indiscriminately, IMO. The font on the watch is incredibly readable at small sizes. That's what matters.
Yeah, I was only just thinking I probably overdid it with the word 'ugly' before I saw your comment. Consider it hyperbole. Compared to brush script (or Apple's original San Francisco typeface!), this one is nice.
But comparing it to other similar sans-serifs, I find it clunky.Check out the comparisons to Helvetica Neue on this site:
http://gizmodo.com/helvetica-is-the-worst-change-your-yosemite-font-to-sa-1668350413
(I disagree with the author of that page obviously, but it's a good place to see a comparison and judge for yourself.)
The differences between sans-serif typefaces like these might be subtle, but it becomes more noticeable when looking at a block of text. San Francisco just seems to lack class to me. It has replaced the round curves of Lucida Grande and Helvetica Neue with straighter, slightly more rigid letter forms. You can see what I'm talking about here:
That doesn't make it flow horizontally (the direction you read), so I disagree with the claim that it's a marvel of readability. If anything, this kind of design makes the letters look more squashed together. What Apple has done, is compensate for this by increasing the default letter spacing. But overall it just looks inelegant and, I have to say, a little amateurish. I appreciate that this is my subjective opinion, but hey, that's what I think.
Apple's decision to switch from Lucida Grande to Helvetica Neue in OS X was heavily criticised because Helvetica was never designed for reading on screen at small point sizes. In practice, I think it reads fine on today's high-resolution devices, although sure, there might have been better choices. I just don't think this new typeface is it.
Personally- and again this is my opinion- I'm not seeing the Watch to be a "gamechanger" on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad as suggested in the article that kicks off this thread. That doesn't mean I see it as a flop or anyone- you included- would be stupid to buy one. It just means I disagree with the suggestion that the big 3 "gamechangers" will be viewed as a "big 4" in a few years where #4 will be this Watch. My opinion is that it will be a niche success, like I see other Apple products likeTV and Carplay.
Wow, I actually completely agree with everything you have written in this thread. In fact, I am so much in agreement that it is scary. I does not happen that often - especially not in here.
That being said, I was wondering what you mean by a niche success. I read somewhere that there has been around 1.5 million modern smart watches sold in the last couple of years - primarily driven by Pepple and to a lesser degree Android Wear. My opinion is that Apple will sell at least that many but no more than 5 million devices the first year. That is not a lot compared to Apple's other product launches so one could call it a niche product or a runaway success depending on what you compare it to. Most people in here will probably characterize it as the latter after the fact. Even if Apple "only" sell half a million devices it will still be a considerable chunk of the smart watch market.
So what do you think? Let's put some numbers out there so people can laugh at us later
I don't agree with the chap regarding the potential success of the
watch, but his argument is well thought out and entirely viable. He at least seems to accept the fact that he may be wrong. Your post on the other hand is dripping with arrogance, which only weakens your argument.I don't agree with the chap regarding the potential success of the
I'd go so far as to say he's heading the right way for a smacked bottom from the moderators.
I'd say not as big as the iPhone, that would be monumental, but definitely the iPad - it might take as long as the iPhone to get popular but it'll reach heights of the iPad I think.
Yeah, I was only just thinking I probably overdid it with the word 'ugly' before I saw your comment. Consider it hyperbole. Compared to brush script (or Apple's original San Francisco typeface!), this one is nice.
Check out the comparisons to Helvetica Neue on this site:
http://gizmodo.com/helvetica-is-the-worst-change-your-yosemite-font-to-sa-1668350413
(I disagree with the author of that page obviously, but it's a good place to see a comparison and judge for yourself.)
The differences between sans-serif typefaces like these might be subtle, but it becomes more noticeable when looking at a block of text. San Francisco just seems to lack class to me. It has replaced the round curves of Lucida Grande and Helvetica Neue with straighter, slightly more rigid letter forms. You can see what I'm talking about here:
Image
That doesn't make it flow horizontally (the direction you read), so I disagree with the claim that it's a marvel of readability. If anything, this kind of design makes the letters look more squashed together. What Apple has done, is compensate for this by increasing the default letter spacing. But overall it just looks inelegant and, I have to say, a little amateurish. I appreciate that this is my subjective opinion, but hey, that's what I think.
I just don't think this new typeface is it.
Honestly, testing typeface legibility, and evaluating is so fraught with subjectivity (past a certain point), that every opinion on the subject on the subject of this typeface could be seen as "right".
If Apple tested legibility at high speed, you know glances, and made this the priority in this design; who am I to argue
.
The "rudeness" factor of repeatedly checking an old-fashioned (time only) watch comes from the often-absent verbal communication explaining to the ignored person that you really have to go. If you don't briefly explain to them ("must go") then your motive for the frequent time-watching is unclear and comes across as rude. Rightly or wrongly, it just does.
Many folks these days seem to be looking for an excuse to be offended. When two of them meet, it can become a competition where each claims they have more of a "right" to be offended. Best to avoid that game. It never ends well.
So the simple courtesy of explaining why you must leave an easily-offended person often helps them to cope with a world where everyone else seems to be against them. Words carry more credibility. Don't assume they'll deduce that your time-checking is benign. They're simply not wired that way
But like I said in my earlier post, this is all based on the precedent of mechanical watches. When smart watches become commonplace, people will start to tolerate frequent wrist-glancing. They, themselves, will understand how demanding and intrusive the devices can be and will adjust expectations accordingly. Probably take 5 years or so.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Wow, I actually completely agree with everything you have written in this thread. In fact, I am so much in agreement that it is scary. I does not happen that often - especially not in here.
That being said, I was wondering what you mean by a niche success. I read somewhere that there has been around 1.5 million modern smart watches sold in the last couple of years - primarily driven by Pepple and to a lesser degree Android Wear. My opinion is that Apple will sell at least that many but no more than 5 million devices the first year. That is not a lot compared to Apple's other product launches so one could call it a niche product or a runaway success depending on what you compare it to. Most people in here will probably characterize it as the latter after the fact. Even if Apple "only" sell half a million devices it will still be a considerable chunk of the smart watch market.
So what do you think? Let's put some numbers out there so people can laugh at us later
That's pretty much what I mean by niche success. Not niche relative to other smart watches but niche relative to the big 3 "gamechanger" products referenced in the original post. I mentioned that I think of
TV and carplay as niche successes too and by that I mean the same: relative to the "big 3" (iPod, iPad, iPhone). I think I saw somewhere recently that
TV had moved 18 million units and I think I saw somewhere else that it was the most successful box of it's kind. If both are true, that would make it a massive, dominant success relative to it's peers (offerings) but still a fraction of sales of the "big 3".I think Apple will sell gobs of this Watch. It's fan base has grown dramatically and a segment of that base will buy anything Apple rolls out. So just that group will be enough to blow away sales of any other "smart watches". But, as I've said before in this thread, to reach "gamechanger" status as I define it, the market beyond the fans will have to buy in great numbers. I'm confident some of them will too but I doubt enough of them will buy it to turn "big 3" into "big 4".
All the passion some can muster to find fault with my opinion doesn't change the fact that consumer dollars will prove or disprove that belief. No matter how hard we spin our own thoughts or twist the thoughts of others to counter anything negative said about Apple (real or perceived), we can't fake the revenues that will or will not come.
When Watch outsells Pebble, that will be a lot of revenue. If it outsells
TV, that will apparently be >18 million units. But if it's going to be the next "gamechanger" (if gamechanger is based at least in part on sales volume), it has to achieve the numbers of iPod, iPad and iPhone when they were new lines being launched by Apple. In a year or two, we can look back and see if the Watch is referenced with iPod, iPhone and iPad as "gamechangers" or if it is another Apple product NOT typically mentioned with those but still something that sold pretty well (like TV and stuff like Carplay).
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't even perceive a risk of "failure" with the Watch. My points have been about relative success vs. iPod, iPhone and iPad, where success is mostly measured by sales volume. If it's "category" is "smart watches", I'm pretty confident it will jump from 0 sales to king of it's category probably in the first day or three after it's launch. But I have doubt that a few years from now, we will be referencing it in the same "gamechanger" sentences with iPod, iPhone and iPad... just as other lines like
TV or carplay are not usually referenced in the same sentence with those other 3.If so, I won't see that as failure, just not the home run successes relative to the home runs hit with those 3 products. Personally, I think
TV is one of the best products Apple makes in spite of even Apple referring to it as a "hobby". If this Watch can be another TV, that's still a lot of sales volume... just not iPod, iPhone & iPad sales volume.However, all of my opinions are just my opinions. Watch could sell better than every other product Apple makes. Perhaps it will outsell all of them combined? In a few years, perhaps it will be referenced with such astonishing success that it will push success references of iPod, iPhone and iPad down a notch? Maybe it will be tagged "world changer" or "universe changer" vs. how those other 3 are tagged "gamechanger"? The consumers will soon be voting with their dollars. They'll make it a "universe changer", "gamechanger",
TV, carplay or iPod Socks.
Last edited:
I think determining the success or failure of the Apple Watch is entirely dependent on how many units Apple really expects to sell. If they think they're going to sell 75M units a year, then they're delusional and yes the Watch will fail. But if their hopes are to convince one in ten iPhone owners to purchase an accompanying Apple Watch, then the Watch could very well be a success.I don't even perceive a risk of "failure" with the Watch. My points have been about relative success vs. iPod, iPhone and iPad, where success is mostly measured by sales volume. If it's "category" is "smart watches", I'm pretty confident it will jump from 0 sales to king of it's category probably in the first day or three after it's launch. But I have doubt that a few years from now, we will be referencing it in the same "gamechanger" sentences with iPod, iPhone and iPad... just as other lines like
If so, I won't see that as failure, just not the home run successes relative to the home runs hit with those 3 products. Personally, I think
However, all of my opinions are just my opinions. Watch could sell better than every other product Apple makes. Perhaps it will outsell all of them combined? In a few years, perhaps it will be referenced with such astonishing success that it will push success references of iPod, iPhone and iPad down a notch? Maybe it will be tagged "world changer" or "universe changer" vs. how those other 3 are tagged "gamechanger"? The consumers will soon be voting with their dollars. They'll make it a "universe changer", "gamechanger",
Considering Apple Watch requires an iPhone 5 or later, I'm sure they're keeping their sales estimates in check. Time is also a factor; keep in mind that the "home run success" iPod took 3 years to sell 3 million units.
Here's a question for u, honestly how do u know the AW will be a failure? I mean every Idevice that apple put out was a success. So to say that the AW will be a failure, with such confidence That it will. have me scratching my head. Unless GOD told u in a dream or give u vision that it will fail. Then I could see where u are coming from. I mean that's if u believe in GOD talking to people through dreams and visions etc.
Um, I don't think the Apple Watch will be a failure, nor did I say that I believed it would. What I said in the post you quoted was that only Apple can deem what is considered success or failure for the Watch at this point because only they know how many they expect to sell.
Wow. Here is an idea: actually say you have other things to do rather than playing games by looking at your watch, and worse, having a problem when someone doesn't understand the "polite indication."
Maybe I am crazy but if I am talking to someone and have something else that I need to do, I simply tell them, and yes I do so politely. No one gets offended, and I don't end up looking like a jerk.
Mike
Honestly, testing typeface legibility, and evaluating is so fraught with subjectivity (past a certain point), that every opinion on the subject on the subject of this typeface could be seen as "right".
If Apple tested legibility at high speed, you know glances, and made this the priority in this design; who am I to argue
Considering Apple's origins as typeface aficionados and Ive's pickiness, I assume they have scrutinized this font down to the n-th degree. Kerning, leading, ligatures, all that for readability on the watch. The font HAS to be condensed to get enough useful text within the watch area but then it needs to be a little spaced to be readable. Totally a balancing act I'm sure they worked long and hard on. I'm not the kind of designer that nitpicks over fine details of fonts. I just notice crappy kerning and the overall impression the font gives off. And there's the thing where fonts are in for a while and then there's a new favorite font. One minute everyone is using Avenir and the next everyone is using Clan Narrow or Myriad Pro. I think this font is just fine and fits Apple's aesthetic. There's also the matter of copyright and licensing on fonts...
Last edited:
I have a Pebble, Moto 360, and a MS Band. I also make fun of a lot on this board but with this watch, they could have something really cool here if it "clicks" from the moment you put it on. Not only does it have to be fashionable but it has to be an extension of you that makes your life easier.
What they're trying to do in that article resonates with me, based on my past experience with wearables.
a lot on this board but with this watch, they could have something really cool here if it "clicks" from the moment you put it on. Not only does it have to be fashionable but it has to be an extension of you that makes your life easier.What they're trying to do in that article resonates with me, based on my past experience with wearables.
My bad, had to read your post again. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
I have had a Pebble and moto 360. I liked both but just couldn't get into the look of the Pebble or the battery life of the 360. But I loved having notifications without needing to look at my watch.I have a Pebble, Moto 360, and a MS Band. I also make fun of
What they're trying to do in that article resonates with me, based on my past experience with wearables.
Now I have gone minimal and have a Martian Notifier, which I got for $70 on sale at Best Buy. It really has become my favorite smart, or in this case perhaps "semi" smartwatch to date. I can't even exactly say why: probably because it just what it is advertised to do. Reminds me of getting the first Palm Pilot, after trying the Newton and many other "PDAs." The Pilot was far simpler but what it did it did well.
In a way that is how I felt about the first iPhone: sure I had more features on my prior smart phone, but the experience was nowheres near as smooth and nice as the iPhone.
I don't know where the Apple Watch will fall: it seems they want to hit most of the bases right from the start. If everything works, and works well, it could be great. But if it turns out to feel a bit confusing, cluttered, overwhelming, or worse, unfinished (a la Newton) then I won't want it.
Michael
I don't know either but I liked what I read. After you buy a smartwatch you play around with it for a couple days then the feeling of newness disappears and it sits on your wrist passively for 95% of the time. So there has to be something in it keeping you from taking it off.
Critical part is fashion - conventional watches stay on your wrist because they're jewelry that gives social value. Smartwatches OTOH are still nerd gear - they draw attention to you and some people judge so they can give you negative social value (exception being fitness bands). Apple as a marketing giant has the ability to turn nerd gear into a social norm and change fashion. I'm guessing that's why they're bombarding fashion shows and magazines with the watch right now.
The other thing is it has to add something to your life that no other device can in a way that's not a pain in the ass. All the stuff in the article about speed, intuitiveness I get what they're aiming for, which is for the watch to be fast enough you don't have to think to use it - it's just an extension of you. As opposed to something like my 360, where I had to think about scrolling, navigating a menu, how to flip my wrist, etc every time I want to check something. Stuff like Force Touch, which I originally thought was a gimmick, I can see why they did it now. It's something we're already conditioned to respond to, we don't have to think about.
I still think iOS looks like unicorn vomit but if they nail this, it's enough to make me consider switching back.
All of Apple's successful products are the result of Apple identifying a problem or market gap and then figuring out how to solve that problem or fill that gap. Kevin Lynch's comment shows that this is not at all how they approached making the Apple Watch.
One could interpret this as Apple thinking they no longer need to create products that serve a purpose, that people will just buy whatever they make. And perhaps they're completely right about that.