New Video Shows Thinner Display and Larger Battery for Apple Watch 2

[Mac 128]

Is it purely design preference or were you conditioned to like round watchfaces because you were surrounded by them all your life? If you mostly saw rectangular watchfaces all your life, do you still think you'd prefer a round watchface? Also, if it was purely a design preference wouldn't that same preference also apply to computer monitors and smartphones? Because that's what a smartwatch is... Just shrunken down to fit your wrist.

I ask those questions because having worn the Apple Watch for over a year now, I actually find round watchfaces a bit odd now, even though I've worn them most of my life. Also, every time I see a round smartwatch display data, whether it be text or image, it reminds me of just how impractical it is... It's literally like looking at a round smartphone, just smaller.

People don't wear computer monitors and smartphones, or TVs, or laptops, or movie theater screens, or any other ridiculous comparison you can come up with. That said, it's the darnedest thing -- people do like to put rectangular photos into round picture frames! Go figure.

Now, people do wear eyeglasses. And using your logic, it doesn't really make sense to offer any other shape of eye glasses, since the rectangle offers the best field of view for the way people see. Do round frames work better? No, different shaped frames just makes it harder to come up with lenses that provide effective vision when they have to account for so many different shapes.

So why not have all eye glasses be the same shape. Just offer two sizes of the same frames, rounded rectangles to accommodate all face shapes and genders, and then standardize the lenses for every pair of glasses in existence.

Customers still have lots of style choices, they can chose different frame colors, they can even choose removable temples to allow them to dress up their frames, or tone them down to be more sporty.

And mostly because fashion doesn't matter for a product a customer wears ... right? /s

 

[Soccertess]

I bet you GPS is for the PRO model.

 

[elmaco]

I wonder what the Apple Watch 1 will cost.

I think Apple should drop the price significantly, since this a new product category and they need to get the volumes up. People wearing the phone is the best advertisement.

AW 1: $150
AW 2: $300

 

[kelvinsklam]

Wonder the new battery if it fits with my current Apple Watch 1 that would be perfect

 

[recoil80]

I wonder what the Apple Watch 1 will cost.

I think Apple should drop the price significantly, since this a new product category and they need to get the volumes up. People wearing the phone is the best advertisement.

AW 1: $150
AW 2: $300

I'm not sure, but knowing Apple they won't reduce the price significantly.
We don't yet know about Watch 2, but if the only enhancement is GPS and a faster processor many people could stick with the first version if the price is really low.
I don't think they'll drop the price below $200, at least on the AS.

 

[elmaco]

I'm not sure, but knowing Apple they won't reduce the price significantly. We don't yet know about Watch 2, but if the only enhancement is GPS and a faster processor many people could stick with the first version if the price is really low. I don't think they'll drop the price below $200, at least on the AS.

You are probably correct, but I think they will be able to charge at least $100 more for GPS. Just look how many people who are running with an iPhone armband. With GPS there is no reason to run with the phone anymore (besides streaming music)

AW = $150-200
AW + GPS = $300
AW + GPS + LTE = $400-500

 

[recoil80]

You are probably correct, but I think they will be able to charge at least $100 more for GPS. Just look how many people who are running with an iPhone armband. With GPS there is no reason to run with the phone anymore.

I wonder if they'll sell a GPS version or if all Watch2 models will have the same hardware.
I'd buy the one without GPS since I always have the iPhone with me.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

What, no Swiss Watch?

? All 3 brands I listed are old school Swiss.
[doublepost=1472806950][/doublepost]

So other than storage capacity, they weren't actually "tweaked" material-wise.

Horse is dead. Long live the horse.

 

[rom3o]

I just purchased a Garmin Chronos which I hope tracks my workouts better and I think looks much more stylish than this. I'll give it a week or so and report back.

I used the fenix 3 for around a year and liked it a lot because it offered exactly what I wanted from a 'smart watch': focus on activity/fitness tracking, stand-alone usability, battery life and outdoor usage (water resistence up to 100 meters...). Thus it isn't exactly a smart watch by definition but I found myself disabling most of the notifications anyway since I was getting annoyed by the level of distraction they caused.

Nevertheless there where major downsides: though they tried to fix it software-wise the GPS accuracy was not really at par with other Garmin products, the display resolution is quite poor and while Garmin constantly added more and more features the processing power of the watch felt increasingly inferior. The UI was not particularly responsive when the watch launched and became even slower with every software release. Therefore I don't appreciate what Garmin is doing with the product line: Offering more elaborate casings and straps (not suitable for outdoor usage) whilst not upgrading the interior hardware.

I sold my fenix a couple of months ago but will definitely try out it's successor, if they offer a fluid UI and better display resolution (and maybe re-introduce the map navigation of the fenix 2).

I don't know if Garmin bumped the specs with the Chronos but if they did not, I fear you won't be enjoying the watch for long. Especially not for it's premium price tag. But I'd be interested in your opinion on the watch anyway - looking forward to your report!

 

[Freida]

No the real question is:
Will it blend?

Too old & cliche! Please be more creative

 

[drew0020]

I used the fenix 3 for around a year and liked it a lot because it offered exactly what I wanted from a 'smart watch': focus on activity/fitness tracking, stand-alone usability, battery life and outdoor usage (water resistence up to 100 meters...). Thus it isn't exactly a smart watch by definition but I found myself disabling most of the notifications anyway since I was getting annoyed by the level of distraction they caused.

Nevertheless there where major downsides: though they tried to fix it software-wise the GPS accuracy was not really at par with other Garmin products, the display resolution is quite poor and while Garmin constantly added more and more features the processing power of the watch felt increasingly inferior. The UI was not particularly responsive when the watch launched and became even slower with every software release. Therefore I don't appreciate what Garmin is doing with the product line: Offering more elaborate casings and straps (not suitable for outdoor usage) whilst not upgrading the interior hardware.

I sold my fenix a couple of months ago but will definitely try out it's successor, if they offer a fluid UI and better display resolution (and maybe re-introduce the map navigation of the fenix 2).

I don't know if Garmin bumped the specs with the Chronos but if they did not, I fear you won't be enjoying the watch for long. Especially not for it's premium price tag. But I'd be interested in your opinion on the watch anyway - looking forward to your report!

The biggest thing I am worried about is the display resolution. I have yet to see one in person, but from the videos online it looks pretty good and the reviews say its sharp (but now I am worried).

I am used to sluggish speeds with the Apple Watch, but if this is slower than that I will return it immediately and I also turn off most of the notifications on my current Apple Watch. For $900 I expect it to be top of the line in every single area.

 

[dogslobber]

Does it really? Did that watch from the 70s have an OLED screen, WiFi, Bluetooth, Heart rate monitor?

What's your point?

 

[pittaman]

Hope my wife likes my current watch.

Yep. My son says he is wanting an upgrade from his $20 Target watch. He'll have to buy his own band.

 

[Technarchy]

I really like my Apple Watch and would be fine with just an upgrade in battery life, even if nothing else changed.

 

[Karma*Police]

People don't wear computer monitors and smartphones, or TVs, or laptops, or movie theater screens, or any other ridiculous comparison you can come up with. That said, it's the darnedest thing -- people do like to put rectangular photos into round picture frames! Go figure.

Now, people do wear eyeglasses. And using your logic, it doesn't really make sense to offer any other shape of eye glasses, since the rectangle offers the best field of view for the way people see. Do round frames work better? No, different shaped frames just makes it harder to come up with lenses that provide effective vision when they have to account for so many different shapes.

So why not have all eye glasses be the same shape. Just offer two sizes of the same frames, rounded rectangles to accommodate all face shapes and genders, and then standardize the lenses for every pair of glasses in existence.

Customers still have lots of style choices, they can chose different frame colors, they can even choose removable temples to allow them to dress up their frames, or tone them down to be more sporty.

And mostly because fashion doesn't matter for a product a customer wears ... right? /s

Wearables has nothing to do with one dominant style that conditions people to prefer one style over another.

There hasn't been one dominant form factor for eyewear so that point is moot. However, eyewear goes through the typical fashion cycles so when small lenses were in, those 70's style huge frames looked out of place. When the huge frames came back in vogue, small frames looked out of place.

With watches and computer displays, form followed function so one dominant form emerged. There are rectangular watches but they're not common. Round televisions were around as well but you don't see those anymore.

So my point still stands; it's very possible that people who prefer round watches, or are adamant that it's somehow more beautiful, are simply conditioned to think that way from constant exposure to it. Also, round smart watches are less functional. Making them wearable doesn't change that fact.

 

[cliffster82]

I could see them only putting GPS in the 42mm size, which would suck. OR, creating a new "sport" line where you have the Apple Watch Sport w/GPS for additional $79 or something.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I could see them only putting GPS in the 42mm size, which would suck.

Unlikely as Apple doesn't really see the 42mm as being superior to the 38mm, only what's correct for the wrist size. Additionally, no rumors have suggested this, and both the 42mm and 38mm will get the thinner display while retaining the same overall thickness as AW1, which will make room for GPS and other stuff added to the innards.

 

[Mac 128]

Wearables has nothing to do with one dominant style that conditions people to prefer one style over another.

There hasn't been one dominant form factor for eyewear so that point is moot. However, eyewear goes through the typical fashion cycles so when small lenses were in, those 70's style huge frames looked out of place. When the huge frames came back in vogue, small frames looked out of place.

With watches and computer displays, form followed function so one dominant form emerged. There are rectangular watches but they're not common. Round televisions were around as well but you don't see those anymore.

So my point still stands; it's very possible that people who prefer round watches, or are adamant that it's somehow more beautiful, are simply conditioned to think that way from constant exposure to it. Also, round smart watches are less functional. Making them wearable doesn't change that fact.

Wrong.

Round was the dominant form of eyeglasses for likely over a hundred years, likely due to mechanical restrictions in how glass lenses were made. And once technology allowed other shaped lenses, did round lenses go away?

Your point was that rectangles are better for reading text on screens. Human field of vision is rectangular in nature, not round. Therefore, using your logic, all eyeglasses should be rectangular, just as all watches should be rectangular. And what about round picture frames? Weren't square frames likely the dominant forms of frames for a long time?

So your point still fails in that watches are still worn on the body, just as eyeglasses, and until humans stop caring about how they look, form vs. function are mostly irrelevant factors for wearables.

I would agree with you all day that a round TV, or computer monitor would be silly for the purpose they are designed for (Round TVs were a technical limitation in the beginning). However, you're creating a false equivalency by saying the Watch is a computer display. Technically yes, but practically speaking no -- will the user be text editing? No. Will they be reading lengthy documents? No. Will they be looking at photo albums? No. Will they be watching movies? No. Will they be editing photos and video? No. Will they be creating spreadsheets? No. Just because you plan to use your watch as a computer, doesn't mean that's what it was designed for or intended for, nor what most others will use theirs for. In fact Jony Ive has been very clear about what the watch was intended for -- "glances". Anything more and he suggests the user pull out their iPhone.

So in that context, happily form does follow function whether round or rectangular. Because you don't need a rectangular display for "glances". A quick text to someone on the watch looks just as good square as it does round:

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

The time being right next to the text in your round display example is highly annoying. Even if you move it up to the top, both the time and name being center justified (rather than on a single line and nicely separately from the body of texts as seen on the AW) is also annoying. This shows Apple got it right in going with the rectangular display.

 

[cerberusss]

Why is Apple not arresting this guy for leaking Apple Watch 2?

There is no need to arrest. They have dispatched a team of ninjas "to deal with" the perp.

 

[Karma*Police]

Wrong.

Round was the dominant form of eyeglasses for likely over a hundred years, likely due to mechanical restrictions in how glass lenses were made. And once technology allowed other shaped lenses, did round lenses go away?

Your point was that rectangles are better for reading text on screens. Human field of vision is rectangular in nature, not round. Therefore, using your logic, all eyeglasses should be rectangular, just as all watches should be rectangular. And what about round picture frames? Weren't square frames likely the dominant forms of frames for a long time?

So your point still fails in that watches are still worn on the body, just as eyeglasses, and until humans stop caring about how they look, form vs. function are mostly irrelevant factors for wearables.

I would agree with you all day that a round TV, or computer monitor would be silly for the purpose they are designed for (Round TVs were a technical limitation in the beginning). However, you're creating a false equivalency by saying the Watch is a computer display. Technically yes, but practically speaking no -- will the user be text editing? No. Will they be reading lengthy documents? No. Will they be looking at photo albums? No. Will they be watching movies? No. Will they be editing photos and video? No. Will they be creating spreadsheets? No. Just because you plan to use your watch as a computer, doesn't mean that's what it was designed for or intended for, nor what most others will use theirs for. In fact Jony Ive has been very clear about what the watch was intended for -- "glances". Anything more and he suggests the user pull out their iPhone.

So in that context, happily form does follow function whether round or rectangular. Because you don't need a rectangular display for "glances". A quick text to someone on the watch looks just as good square as it does round:

I think you're missing the points entirely. I'll make one last attempt to clearly identify what those are and leave it at that.

1. It's clear when looking at trends and fashion that people develop preferences based on what the prevailing trend is at the time. Round watches have been the norm forever but if rectangular smart watches were to be the norm for the next 50 years, would so many people still want or care for a round watch face? Or would they look back and say, what were those people thinking??

2. The round watch became the dominant form factor because form followed function. A rectangular watch face provided no benefit other than it looking different and even from an aesthetic standpoint, lacked the symmetry of the round watch face, surrounded by a round frame, with the hands sweeping around in a perfect circle. That's not the same as manufacturing limitations of eyewear from centuries ago. And no, the original TV was not round... it had rounded corners. Round TVs were introduced later purely for aesthetic reasons and failed because form did not follow function... at all. What were those people thinking??

3. Round watch faces for digital content is less useful than a rectangular one, period. It doesn't matter if someone is viewing content for 5 seconds or 5 hours iron. 38mm screen or 38" screen. Your image is a perfect illustration of that... the form factor is highly inefficient. You need a much bigger watch to show the same amount of content and the content doesn't use the screen real estate efficiently. It's either that or use the entire display with the corners of text, maps, images and videos getting cropped. Sure, it's something you can live with... just like some people back in the day lived with round TV's... but it doesn't change the fact that it's a sub-optimal form factor for a smart watch.

 

[Keirasplace]

Not to knock theApple Watch 2 before it comes out, but the latest Samsung watch is gonna have LTE...and their phones already have OLED screens. Apple is falling behind.

Right.... And the 5 years OLED was a Piece of Crap, before the last, hey were they behind or in front then?
And 3D touch?
Their phone still slower than 1 year old Iphone.... The Iphone 7 will cream the Note 7 in actual performance.
The Iphone 7 with a dual lens.
Faster Touch ID.
Faster storage.
Less Throttling.
Better battery.
Etc.
Who cares about such things hey....


Also, the Samsung watch is at least 40-50% bigger in size,
you know BIG with actual less usable space for text, or images (because its round).
Not to mention the material looks cheap in person (not rendering) like well, all their other watches.

So, basically a non sequitur.
[doublepost=1472841321][/doublepost]

Circular display like Samsung. I like what they did.

Less usable space and a watch 50% bigger.... Well good for you... Guessing your not female or need it in a professional setting.

 

[Neirin]

I am on board with watch getting thinner and lighter. I wonder if they will ever pull off a circular display.

They have already said they won't, and they shouldn't. Analogue watches are round because that's how the analogue watch face evolved. There is no logical reason to have a round face on a smart watch, making them round for the sake of replicating the aesthetic of traditional watches is daft and conducive to a compromised product.

 

[scaramoosh]

This doesn't excite me, the size wasn't my problem with it, just how it wasn't useful....

 

[bobob]

I bet you GPS is for the PRO model.

Would that be a negative thing?

Let those who need GPS buy the Pro, and those who don't need it and would prefer better battery life can buy the standard and save a few bucks.