Lack of Always-On Screen

[papa8706]

I don't really mind have the screen off as long as the wrist-raise to turn the face on is worked out to be consistent.

I think having the watch glow in dark rooms or at night would make it look gimmicky. Kind of like the privacy on knowing no one is going to see my notification unless i raise my wrist as well. Just my 2 cents

 

[betabeta]

Even if they had an option for always on, I would probably turn it off.

What I do want is for it to come on much easier in the future.

 

[p3ntyne]

I don't really mind have the screen off as long as the wrist-raise to turn the face on is worked out to be consistent.

I think having the watch glow in dark rooms or at night would make it look gimmicky. Kind of like the privacy on knowing no one is going to see my notification unless i raise my wrist as well. Just my 2 cents

Being on OLED screen, it wouldn't really glow in dark rooms. I have used always-on with a LCD smartwatch and that can get annoying at night but when there only needs to be about 5% of pixels lit (at low brightness), it would hardly make a difference.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the always-on mode only needs to show the time. Considering the Apple Watch doesn't show the notification until you raise your wrist, it could operate the same way. I.e., show the clock and when you raise your wrist, the notification.

 

[3rdiguy]

Pebble - the 10 day always-on display makes up for less functionality. Asus - Zenwatch and their newly announced one (with 10 days again). LG and Motorola (although they're bigger.)

To be fair, none are perfect and they all seem to sacrifice at least one thing.

It's not oled. It's always on but isn't near the quality.

 

[p3ntyne]

It's not oled. It's always on but isn't near the quality.

Yes, I know. When did I say it's OLED?

 

[Armen]

I never said that. The Apple Watch's display is much better - I just said it would be nice if there was the option to have it always on.

I was under the impression that you knew of a watch that went 10 days already and the only one close would be the Pebble Time and that screen is horrid.

 

[papa8706]

Being on OLED screen, it wouldn't really glow in dark rooms. I have used always-on with a LCD smartwatch and that can get annoying at night but when there only needs to be about 5% of pixels lit (at low brightness), it would hardly make a difference.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the always-on mode only needs to show the time. Considering the Apple Watch doesn't show the notification until you raise your wrist, it could operate the same way. I.e., show the clock and when you raise your wrist, the notification.

Seeing how much they had to simplify the watch-only-power-reserve suggests it probably isn't possible from a battery standpoint. IMO, I just don't benefits outweighing the negatives. To even be useful they would have to take ambient light and brightness in consideration for it to even be visible in different conditions.

I see smartwatches as different a much different beast than traditional watches. They are more like personal computers with sensitive information to me. I wouldn't want my iPhone always on and in the open where anyone can see it so why would I want the smartwatch to be.

Not saying you're wrong, you make solid points, I just don't see it happening anytime soon

 

[p3ntyne]

Seeing how much they had to simplify the watch-only-power-reserve suggests it probably isn't possible from a battery standpoint. IMO, I just don't benefits outweighing the negatives. To even be useful they would have to take ambient light and brightness in consideration for it to even be visible in different conditions.

I see smartwatches as different a much different beast than traditional watches. They are more like personal computers with sensitive information to me. I wouldn't want my iPhone always on and in the open where anyone can see it so why would I want the smartwatch to be.

Not saying you're wrong, you make solid points, I just don't see it happening anytime soon

I generally agree too - the power reserve mode is pretty ugly and if implemented, it would likely be stripped of graphics like the earth/the butterfly image etc.

However, I don't understand your point on it being a personal computer. Of course, it would be horrible to have any device always showing your personal information but I wouldn't consider the time like that. Since that's only what it would show, why would it matter if someone else saw it?

 

[papa8706]

I generally agree too - the power reserve mode is pretty ugly and if implemented, it would likely be stripped of graphics like the earth/the butterfly image etc.

However, I don't understand your point on it being a personal computer. Of course, it would be horrible to have any device always showing your personal information but I wouldn't consider the time like that. Since that's only what it would show, why would it matter if someone else saw it?

Sorry, I meant to infer notifications like calls/text/emails. It's hard to say from a hypothetical perspective how they would handle notifications if the watch face is always on.

I like the idea of the screen being off and tapping my wrist when I get a notification. It's more discrete and less distracting especially if I'm in a meeting or out to dinner. If I want to see it, I can raise my wrist and the screen turns on, if not, likely no one would know.

I'd just assume if the screen was always on, even just the clock, when a notification came in it would likely be visible as well

 

[mightyjabba]

Obviously they could take steps to avoid showing all of your notifications if you didn't want them to.

 

[p3ntyne]

I'd just assume if the screen was always on, even just the clock, when a notification came in it would likely be visible as well

The current behaviour for the watch is to not show anything on the screen even when a notification has come in. When you raise your wrist, the notification appears and you can address it.

Therefore, if Apple were to implement it, I'd imagine the behaviour would be the same. It would only show the clock when always-on, even if you recieve a notification. Then, if you raise the watch, you will be able to view and address it, eliminating the possibility of anyone seeing anything but the time.

 

[papa8706]

Obviously they could take steps to avoid showing all of your notifications if you didn't want them to.

Obviously... right now it's private. Raise your wrist if you want to see a notifications, don't and the screen is blank. Thats the system they went with for discrete handsfree notifications

If the screen is always on how do you suggest they handle new notifications unless they just show them? Of course they can take steps to not show you calls/texts/emails but that renders the watch rather pointless lol

 

[mightyjabba]

The watch face is always on, but when you get a notification you are tapped and can raise your wrist to see it. Doesn't seem that complex to me.

 

[papa8706]

The watch face is always on, but when you get a notification you are tapped and can raise your wrist to see it. Doesn't seem that complex to me.

Lol, I don't need your snarky replies about complexity. The OP makes valid arguments, you're just being condescending.

Looking at a lit screen and having it buzz but not showing anything seems rather odd/confusing to me. When I'm looking at the UI lit up I wanna know all my information is there, not hidden if I didn't get the gesture just right.

 

[p3ntyne]

Obviously... right now it's private. Raise your wrist if you want to see a notifications, don't and the screen is blank. Thats the system they went with for discrete handsfree notifications

If the screen is always on how do you suggest they handle new notifications unless they just show them? Of course they can take steps to not show you calls/texts/emails but that renders the watch rather pointless lol

You're making it seem too complicated.

You just described the standard behaviour and said, don't and the screen is blank. This of an always-on screen as replacing blank with clock. So, it would be, 'raise your wrist if you want to see a notification, don't and the screen shows the clock.

EDIT: exactly what mightyjabba said. I didn't see that before.

 

[papa8706]

You're making it too complicated.

You just described the standard behaviour and said, don't and the screen is blank. This of an always-on screen as replacing blank with clock. So, it would be, 'raise your wrist if you want to see a notification, don't and the screen shows the clock.

I just think it's more complicated than that. What happens in you are looking at the clock then you feel the buzz. You're now looking at a lit screen showing no notifications. People would wonder if what they were looking at was current or did they get another message before they put their wrist down and back up again to display a message. It's just not as simple as that IMO.

 

[p3ntyne]

I just think it's more complicated than that. What happens in you are looking at the clock then you feel the buzz. You're now looking at a lit screen showing no notifications. People would wonder if what they were looking at was current or did they get another message before they put their wrist down and back up again to display a message. It's just not as simple as that IMO.

If you have raised your watch, it will be on and therefore show the notification.

If not, why is it different to looking down at a blank screen then feeling a buzz and looking down at nothing? It's exactly the same, but people will think you're checking the time, rather than staring at a blank screen. (Remember, other people won't feel a vibration on your wrist.)

 

[mightyjabba]

Lol, I don't need your snarky replies about complexity. The OP makes valid arguments, you're just being condescending.

Looking at a lit screen and having it buzz but not showing anything seems rather odd/confusing to me. When I'm looking at the UI lit up I wanna know all my information is there, not hidden if I didn't get the gesture just right.

I honestly wasn't trying to be snarky. I just don't see what the problem is.

 

[papa8706]

If you have raised your watch, it will be on and therefore show the notification.

If not, why is it different to looking down at a blank screen then feeling a buzz and looking down at nothing? It's exactly the same, but people will think you're checking the time, rather than staring at a blank screen. (Remember, other people won't feel a vibration on your wrist.)

Just my opinion but the programmer in me says it'd be a nightmare. Right now many people have posted claims that the gesture to turn your wrist is to activate the screen is buggy.

Right now, you can tell if the gesture worked or not since the screen activates. If you have the screen always on but have to do that gesture to see the notification, things get even more complicated.

So what happens when someone is staring at the clock (that's always on) THEN gets the taptic feedback. The screen is on, in position, and no message is shown. They would have to drop their wrist then do the gesture again to activate the message.

The idea of seeing your watch on with messages hidden until raised is a recipe for disaster when it comes to critical users. People would complain they missed notifications and had no way of knowing.

I'm not try to argue I just think Apple weighed their options and made the right decision in this case, but I do see the benefits you mention. Perhaps in the future they will come up with a better method and increase battery life.

 

[mightyjabba]

Why couldn't there just be a "you have messages" indicator? Or why not use the same approach that current iOS devices use when you turn off previews for email and messages in notifications? (Show that a notification has come in, but not its content.)

 

[papa8706]

Why couldn't there just be a "you have messages" indicator? Or why not use the same approach that current iOS devices use when you turn off previews for email and messages in notifications? (Show that a notification has come in, but not its content.)

Are you going to have a "you have a phone call" indicator as well without showing the contact? My opinion is it's just not so obviously simple to implement. I'm gonna check out, best of luck to you guys with your watches though

 

[mightyjabba]

What do things like the Pebble and Android Wear devices do? Presumably they have solved this problem somehow.

 

[scwinsett]

What's your opinion of the lack of an always-on display. Since the screen is so efficient, and hardly any pixels would be lit, I don't see why that couldn't be an option.

And also, since that watch is only slightly smaller yet has an OLED display, what is it that limits the watches battery life to under a day?

seems like a waste of energy to have a screen on when you aren't looking at it

 

[p3ntyne]

Just my opinion but the programmer in me says it'd be a nightmare. Right now many people have posted claims that the gesture to turn your wrist is to activate the screen is buggy.

Right now, you can tell if the gesture worked or not since the screen activates. If you have the screen always on but have to do that gesture to see the notification, things get even more complicated.

So what happens when someone is staring at the clock (that's always on) THEN gets the taptic feedback. The screen is on, in position, and no message is shown. They would have to drop their wrist then do the gesture again to activate the message.

The idea of seeing your watch on with messages hidden until raised is a recipe for disaster when it comes to critical users. People would complain they missed notifications and had no way of knowing.

I'm not try to argue I just think Apple weighed their options and made the right decision in this case, but I do see the benefits you mention. Perhaps in the future they will come up with a better method and increase battery life.

Well, that won't occur, if Apple program the software correctly. If you are already looking at the watch it's in 'not dim mode', it should appear straight away. Otherwise, it should just vibrate.

You point out that people would complain about missing notifications... How does it differ if the screen is on or not? If people feel a vibration and then glance at the watch, they'll see a clock over a blank screen. Honestly, I don't see the difference.

What do things like the Pebble and Android Wear devices do? Presumably they have solved this problem somehow.

I'm wearing an Android Wear device right now and, when I get a notification it vibrates and lights up the screen with the notification I recieved. After it has passed, a snippet of the notification (i.e., who the call/message/email was from) on the clock face, in standard and dim mode. This behavious can be altered through the settings. Personally, I have it set to only show the clock face in dim mode.

 

[KenAFSPC]

Bottom line, other OLED smartwatches provide an always-on screen, with up to two days of battery life. The OLED screens on some of these watches are comparable to the quality of the Apple Watch's screen.

Do these always-on Android smartwatches do everything the Apple Watch does? No, but some of these watches provide roughly 90% of the functionality of the Apple Watch (excluding third party apps).

Expect an always-on display to be the main selling point of the Apple Watch 2 released next year.