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.
Moto 360 vs Watch Design. (Real photos)
- Thread starter iCore24
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As far as a round watch goes, I could post plenty of pictures of Jony Ive wearing a round watch. Are we really to believe that Apple couldn't have designed a round watch if they wanted to, if they felt the UX would be just as good? Are we really supposed to believe Apple went rounded rec because they don't know what they're doing? If round is better, how come smartphones, tablets, PC's, TVs, books, etc. are rectangular and not round? Seems to me round is great if all you're doing is displaying the time. If Watch turns out to be useful, if a lot of developers get on board and come up with great apps, great ideas for usage I think people will stop caring thwt the watch doesn't have a round face. As much as people complain about Apple being form over function this is one case where I believe those creating round smartwatches are putting form over function.
Form over function is why a lot of people think that Apple did originally plan for a round watch.
Some of the core apps sure look like they were meant for a round face.
Makes me wonder if that was their original plan, but it got changed when Moto and LG announced theirs.
One thing for sure, nobody expected that Apple would fall back on using a thick rounded rectangle. I can't think of any fan art that predicted that. It was all sci-fi bracelets and round cases:
And I still say that Apple will do a round one if round ones sell well from competitors.
I don't think it even needs that much clout! I'd assume if Watch sells well enough to continue to invest large chunks of R&D into it, we'll eventually see a round face in its natural evolution.
Hmm...I have my doubts Apple would change plans because of what a competitor was doing. They've been working on this project for 3 years so one would assume by the time some of these round smart watches hit the market Apple was far along in development. Could they pivot from round to square that easily? I don't really see anything outside of the analog watch faces and portions of the the fitness app that look to be designed for a round screen. The honeycomb pattern they're using for the 'home' screen wouldn't make much sense with rounded rec icons. And contacts being circles is probably just a carry over from iOS as that's how they're displayed in the contacts app.
Square regular watches exist, too:
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/brera-s...ualcategoryid=0&fashionColor=&resultback=2244
It's entirely possible that there will be different designs in the future. However, I'm guessing that Apple experimented with round but realized it would look like the Moto 360 (i.e. good in abstract pictures, but big and bulbuous in real life, plus with the "flat tire"), at least given the current state of technology. It's already thick to accommodate everthing that is packed inside.
The images you show above just aren't possible with the current state of display technology. The Moto 360 is a lot bigger and thicker, and still needs the "flat tire." Maybe it will be different in a few years.
I think right now, square is probably the best option. Just how back in 2007, a 3.5" screen was probably the best choice. I could see Apple switching a few years down the line when tech improves, when they can achieve slimmer and more capable. As of right now though, I don't think any smartwatch will beat apple in the build quality. I will be buying one as soon as I possibly can.
I fully expect there to someday be a round-screen Apple Watch. It only makes sense, if you recognize that one of the pillars upon which this product is built is jewelry.
Ask yourselves this: how can the Apple Watch function in its partial role as jewelry if it maintains the same or similar form factor throughout its entire life? Yes, it will always be a wrist-bound computer as long as it bears its current name. That won't change. And yes, it will likely get thinner and more streamlined over time.
But think of jewelry collections. Are they static overall? Do they maintain the same form factor year after year? Or are new designs worked in to give exclusivity to older designs and create more personal choice for the wearer?
The Apple Watch will become round at some point (maybe years from now), because I think each "generation" is going to have a visibly unique body style to it that sets it apart, makes each generation exclusive, and makes the device more appealing on an individual, personal level.*
I think that's part of what has me so excited about the Apple Watch as a product category. It's going to see the most radical redesigns over the course of its life because it has to in order to fulfill one of its basic functions: a luxury wearable accessory.
And if Apple is thinking along these lines, it's not going to encourage people to trade in their old Apple Watch units for new ones. It's going to encourage people to go out of their way to collect them. People will buy the version that best fits their personal sense of style, just like they will the various bands. This is a product with limitless potential to grow, so long as Apple nails and continuously improves the software, hardware, and overall experience.
*When I say "generations," that may not mean year-to-year. A body style may exemplify the 2015-2017 collection, for instance.
Ask yourselves this: how can the Apple Watch function in its partial role as jewelry if it maintains the same or similar form factor throughout its entire life? Yes, it will always be a wrist-bound computer as long as it bears its current name. That won't change. And yes, it will likely get thinner and more streamlined over time.
But think of jewelry collections. Are they static overall? Do they maintain the same form factor year after year? Or are new designs worked in to give exclusivity to older designs and create more personal choice for the wearer?
The Apple Watch will become round at some point (maybe years from now), because I think each "generation" is going to have a visibly unique body style to it that sets it apart, makes each generation exclusive, and makes the device more appealing on an individual, personal level.*
I think that's part of what has me so excited about the Apple Watch as a product category. It's going to see the most radical redesigns over the course of its life because it has to in order to fulfill one of its basic functions: a luxury wearable accessory.
And if Apple is thinking along these lines, it's not going to encourage people to trade in their old Apple Watch units for new ones. It's going to encourage people to go out of their way to collect them. People will buy the version that best fits their personal sense of style, just like they will the various bands. This is a product with limitless potential to grow, so long as Apple nails and continuously improves the software, hardware, and overall experience.
*When I say "generations," that may not mean year-to-year. A body style may exemplify the 2015-2017 collection, for instance.
Used a Moto 360 in a Best Buy the other day... Most confusing POS operating system I've laid my eyes on since Windows Mobile.
Well, let's be fair, that is your failing, not the failing of the device.
That would be like me saying. "Well, I have used Windows for ever, and I tried to use OSX on the iMac in store, and was the most confusing POS operating system I've laid my eyes on"
You should not blame a product, due to your lack of knowledge about how to use the product.
Would you call a plane a POS because you are used to car controls?
But you surely must agree that consumer is more likely to buy a product that is simple to use out of the box without having to learn about it, then one that is complicated and you have to read a lot of manuals? And I am not saying Motorola watch is complicated to use, personally I did like it (apart from few things)
So when Watch comes out if reviews call the interface confusing or difficult to use you're going to blame the user for their lack of knowledge about how to use the product?
So when Watch comes out if reviews call the interface confusing or difficult to use you're going to blame the user for their lack of knowledge about how to use the product?
Well, we all understand, Apple products are generally aimed at a "certain type" of user.
To clarify, and to be polite. Not THE most technically proficient user base.
That's not to say, things should be made hard to understand, just that I think most people can understand, someone who is the target market for Apple may not feel something else is as obvious to use for them.
Well, we all understand, Apple products are generally aimed at a "certain type" of user.
To clarify, and to be polite. Not THE most technically proficient user base.
That's not to say, things should be made hard to understand, just that I think most people can understand, someone who is the target market for Apple may not feel something else is as obvious to use for them.
False. Non-intuitive is non-intiuitive to even the most advanced users. Many OSes are sorely lacking in this department especially compared to iOS (and, as we'll find out soon enough, Watch OS).
He didn't say he was used to something else (what else would he be used to?). He said the OS is confusing, also known as unintuitive. I've never used one so I can't say personally, but if it's true, it's a failing of the device.
----------
Well, we all understand, Apple products are generally aimed at a "certain type" of user.
To clarify, and to be polite. Not THE most technically proficient user base.
This is just ignorant.
A lot of things are not "intuitive" until you've been shown them.
For example, if (as I have done) you gave an iOS device to someone who had never seen or used any touch device before, then ...
Etc. These are all learned things.
Now, there are some people... especially children (*)... who will just try everything and anything and eventually figure out some of this.
Is a lot of it easy to learn and remember, once shown? Yes. "Intuitive"? No.
Likewise, to most people, it would be intuitive to use the only visible button on the Apple Watch as the Home button. Instead, they will have to learn that you push in the Crown. Easy? Yes. Intuitive? No.
(*) Heck, my own daughter learned touch on old Windows tablets (long before the iPad existed), and surprised me at two years old by knowing a whole bunch of pulldown menu items that she had found by experimentation. Not only that, but she mastered drag-and-drop, which on an older resistive touch screen is not that easy a thing to do!
For example, if (as I have done) you gave an iOS device to someone who had never seen or used any touch device before, then ...
- They have no idea that they have to click the Home button to exit an app.
- They are confused by the wiggling that occurs if you hold an icon too long.
- They have no concept of pinch zoom until shown.
- There's no way to know that you can swipe backward, or any of the other gestures.
- There's no way to know that swiping sideways can cause a Delete button to show up.
Etc. These are all learned things.
Now, there are some people... especially children (*)... who will just try everything and anything and eventually figure out some of this.
Is a lot of it easy to learn and remember, once shown? Yes. "Intuitive"? No.
Likewise, to most people, it would be intuitive to use the only visible button on the Apple Watch as the Home button. Instead, they will have to learn that you push in the Crown. Easy? Yes. Intuitive? No.
(*) Heck, my own daughter learned touch on old Windows tablets (long before the iPad existed), and surprised me at two years old by knowing a whole bunch of pulldown menu items that she had found by experimentation. Not only that, but she mastered drag-and-drop, which on an older resistive touch screen is not that easy a thing to do!
Well come on now, let's be totally honest with ourselves here.
Apple is totally and utterly focussed on the MASS non technical consumer market.
I am not, for one seconds saying that I love things to be difficult, and I have anything against things that work in a logical and sensible manner.
I hate things that are hard to understand and just seem built to be difficult to use.
Which is one of the reasons I despise that horrid piece of Apple software called iTunes, that I refuse to install on anything other than my old backup computer.
Actually, for me Apple is the opposite of easy to use.
Easy to use, is:
Plug into USB port, drag over Photo, MP3, video file, from PC to Tablet, and it works.
No conversion into a format Apple understands, No needing to use iTunes to copy into then sync to the device.
Just plug it in, drag the file and it works.
To me that's easy, but that's not Apple.
However, going back to my statement, and perhaps it seemed unfair, but I will stand by it, as I think it's true.
Apple deliberately makes their software and hardware for the mass, non technical market.
Now, if you choose to see that in a negative way, then that's up to you, but I think that's a fair statement that even Apple would not disagree with.
If you want to fiddle, customise, modify, etc etc etc, then Apple is not normally the product for you. Apple is made for ease of use, and Apple make a lot of the choices for you, so you don't have to worry.
That's a BIG plus for most people, and not a negative.
I was. The statement was ignorant.
They have products for everyone. Making software usable for tech savvy, and non-tech savvy alike is an admirable goal. They have software and hardware for professionals, and OS X is extremely versatile as an OS. iOS is inherently more limited than OS X, but Apple has provided even it powerful and technical software tools. Your statement is flat out wrong.
iTunes understands MP3 just fine.
I stand by calling it ignorant.
Ok, no problem.
It's a free country and I'm very happy we can agree to disagree
I think it's a generational thing also.
Give todays generation a DOS prompt, and a Cassette deck to load their programs from, sit back and smile
Ok, no problem.
It's a free country and I'm very happy we can agree to disagree
I think it's a generational thing also.
Give todays generation a DOS prompt, and a Cassette deck to load their programs from, sit back and smile
This doesn't indicate a lack of technical sophistication, it indicates a familiarity with current technology rather than outdated.
My wife still doesn't remember that double tapping home brings up recents menu. We have been using iOS since it was called iPhoneOS. A few of Apples changes to how things work in iOS are not intuitive at all.
OS X has built-in support for MTP/PTP (through the application "Digital Images") but no (third-party) drivers to mount MTP devices as drives.