But the curious thing is that although I like the big bang I don't buy one, simply because it's too big for me, a proportion thing as I said. When talking about my personal choices I also buy smaller watches, because I don't care if they advertise bigger watches as the trend if they look ridiculous on me. The same thing happens with the galaxy note/iphone 5,5 or whatever gigantic smartphone, it does not matter how much they advertise them and how many features they have because I will never buy that kind of size if I have a choice, it does not matter if it's worse when it comes to specs.
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.
Purported Schematics and Details on iWatch Show Rectangular Body, Round Sensor Plate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But the curious thing is that although I like the big bang I don't buy one, simply because it's too big for me, a proportion thing as I said. When talking about my personal choices I also buy smaller watches, because I don't care if they advertise bigger watches as the trend if they look ridiculous on me. The same thing happens with the galaxy note/iphone 5,5 or whatever gigantic smartphone, it does not matter how much they advertise them and how many features they have because I will never buy that kind of size if I have a choice, it does not matter if it's worse when it comes to specs.
Can't they reduce that bezel? LOL
Obviously, I'm just mocking the iPhone 6 haters.
Did the news not hit macrumors? Someone on reddit claimed the part was used for testing button presses. Something about the 207
But how many of the over-size watches actually sell in numbers? Over the long-term. Yes, they'll get a spike of popularity and interests as they are the newest thing but over time, once all the collectors and early adopters get their dibs, when does it continue. The Sea Dweller was always a more macho, tougher, beefier diver than the Submariner but the Submariner is the perennial favorite. Over the long term, it outsells the Sea-Dweller.
I would think the same for the Speedmaster Pro. When the X-33 came out, a lot of people got them. Same with the sapphire models. But the perennial, long term favorite is always the original moonwatch. Seamaster is a different story because Omega has bastardize that watch over a dozen time over 50 years so it doesn't have the lineage and pedigree so it isn't a ICON classic status.
Everybody is reacting to Panerai and IWC. That is a given. By definition, oversize is 44mm and larger.
----------
When the GMT 2 ceramic came out. It was a thicker, bigger than my normal GMT 2. They simply made the crown and lugs look beefier but the over-all shape and general dimensions stayed the same. They both wear the same on my wrist. It looks a lot bigger than it measures. Possibly Rolex made a small iteration to make it appear 2-4 mm bigger than it really is. The proportions can really make a difference in terms of being too cartoony or slightly muscular.
For some reason this is what I see in my mind when I think about the iWatch.
Not that I think it will look like this, but it reminds me of similar design dilemmas between the traditional and digital look of watches.
LED watches from the 70's mark the arrival of digital time keeping on watches.
What's interesting is how LED watches faced similar questions to what we are asking now about how should smart-watches look.
Traditional mechanical watches had round faces because of the way time was displayed mechanically using rotating hands.
With a LED screen, it didn't have to be round anymore. But it had to remain familiar, yet it had to be something different, something new and futuristic.
Apple (and other smart watch makers) are facing similar design dilemmas nowadays.
Not that I think it will look like this, but it reminds me of similar design dilemmas between the traditional and digital look of watches.
LED watches from the 70's mark the arrival of digital time keeping on watches.
What's interesting is how LED watches faced similar questions to what we are asking now about how should smart-watches look.
Traditional mechanical watches had round faces because of the way time was displayed mechanically using rotating hands.
With a LED screen, it didn't have to be round anymore. But it had to remain familiar, yet it had to be something different, something new and futuristic.
Apple (and other smart watch makers) are facing similar design dilemmas nowadays.
My first thought. All the other gadget watches so far have been essentially splash proof. Being actual waterproof is significant.
Yeah except the big ugly cutout at the bottom that means the display is not round. Oh yeah and the crappy processor it uses requiring it be charged only two to three times a day
----------
Around watch without a round display is a fail in the case of the 360
----------
None of the other smart watches claim water resistance
In my opinion, a lot of areas of industrial design are showing an increasing size trend these last years, maybe it's coincidence but for sure this is happening. For example, cars are getting bigger and bigger. Every single model has grown over the last years. Watches as we were saying are getting bigger and bigger, and also smartphones.
I think that a good design must be timeless and somehow logic. If we talk about watches, I understand a necessary size increasing trend, just because nowadays people use to be taller and some of them fitter (bigger forearms, arms, shoulders...) than 40 years ago, so I understand a 42mm speedmaster instead of the 40mm one, or a 41mm submariner instead of the 40 keep certain proportion with these body changes. BUT in my opinion the 44mm+ trend (panerai apart, because it's part of its DNA) is pure fashion, and being that it will be obsolete in a few years because it's not logic. A good timeless design is art, and art have to do with proportions. The exaggeration is maybe cyclically trendy but it's not timeless by definition. But if you consider technology is also obsolete in a few years, these big sizes are somehow a good match nowadays for smartwatches.
BTW, talking about the Speedmaster if you are a watch enthusiast you have to check out the new case (at least for the 42mm professional model)
Amazing...
This is primary. Zaxxon would be a nice bonus feature but without galaga no sale
I agree with. Besides Panerai (which 44mm is part of their DNA), the oversize is a cyclical trend. However, the trend has been going on for over 15 years now. I don't know when it will end.
If you look at the early 70s 1968-1972, there was an over-size trend at the time too. The The Heuer Monaco, ProPlof Seamaster and the Mark II Speedmaster were over-size watches. There were lots of over-size watches.
Then it went back to 40mm. Besides Panerai, none of the oversize watches are modern classics.No multi-generational pedigree so to speak.
I'm a guy who always goes for the classics as the they have decades worth of pedigree and provenance. Rolex has a winning formula. It has worked for them for 60s years. Why mess with it if you don't have to.
The box is definitely an improvement from their past presentation.
The 360 is just a clown watch. It serves no purpose of being big. It can't go 4000 feet underwater. It is not part of the German Tactical elite arm forces. Nothing but pure fashion.
Decent use of liquidmetal beyond a SIM card ejector tool (which replaced a paperclip). Omega's watch looked good - can see Ive getting a talkover manufacturing video spot for it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMkmTMArB70&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMkmTMArB70&app=desktop
Do some wrist curls and take steroids.
Seriously though, I don't wear watches and have never regularly worn them. (6 months is probably my record). I am a big guy but I have small wrists so the size of these devices are worrisome.
I don't wear a watch as a fashion accessory because I don't find them fashionable. I certainly would not choose to wear a smart watch based on fashion appeal. The functionality is first, second and third. None of the current offerings come close to making me even consider needing a smart watch.
Apple has a high hurdle to clear for me in terms of providing serious functional benefit. If they do that, I don't really care what it looks like. But the bar is really high for me in terms of functionality.
I have confidence that apple will come much closer in that regard than others but they still may not get it doing enough as a first gen device.
I am too old to care about others judging my sartorial choices when I might be wearing something that provides a ton of value. I don't go around public ally mocking people who wear watches now even though they are not needed for time and I don't find them that fashionable to begin with.
I would say there is a 40% chance apple is able to create enough function in the watch to make it a worthwhile device to own. Aesthetically it will look as good as it can given the limitations provided by actually making a technically advanced wearable.
People laud the looks of the 369, even though the cutout on the bottom is absolutely hideous, but it falls way short on functioning and capability. There are literally thousands of cheaper watches than the 360 that look better. The very few wearable benefits with a totally underpowered device makes it a no brainer pass. Being as I don't want to wear a watch, I would certainly not wear an average looking 360 with almost no technical capability.
Actually quite a few of them do. None of them are marketed at diving watches, but the Galaxy Gear Series is rated to IP67 (Totally protected against dust + Protected against the effect of immersion in water between 15cm and 1m).
I must have showered 100+ times and also have been swimming quite a few times this summer both in salt and fresh water with my Gear Fit - no problems at all.
A watch-like device that can not at least survive showering every day is never going to make it in todays market. Likewise devices that claim waterproofing for 5, 10 or 20 metres under water are really flagging features that will never be challenged in real life. Except for diving watches 99,99% of all watches that claim those kind of stats will never ever be remotely close to the limit.
Have you not got used toyet? They love form over function.
Actually apple consistently targets both. That is the only reason I have any hope apple might deliver the first legitimate smart watch. Still think 60% chance they don't, but so far everyone else has not just failed but failed astronomically. Even though I am not a form guy, all the companies so far to release watches can't even spell form.
The function is key to me but apple is known to keep an eye on both form and function. I don't think apple would ever release a "round" display device that was not actually round, for instance.
This is not the iWatch.
Check out this post from 9to5mac.
It seems as these are schematics for a button enclosure to test the home screen button. That would make sense given that half the photos of the device show a homescreen button within the housing.
That's why we see a home button in the second photo in the article.
Check out this post from 9to5mac.
It seems as these are schematics for a button enclosure to test the home screen button. That would make sense given that half the photos of the device show a homescreen button within the housing.
That's why we see a home button in the second photo in the article.
Attachments
I don't get how people can overlook the MASSIVE issue with the flat tire cut out on the 360 display. I am one of the least finicky people around when it comes this stuff, but the cutout is so glaring and painfully obvious I don't know how anyone can claim the watch is attractive.
Even with black backgrounds on the display you can see it but use any other color background and it looks hideous. I can't believe people want a round watch face so bad they will overlook the horribly designed display.
This is exactly how I expect all these smartwatches to look like in 30 years. Ridiculous IMO
How about wearing it in a swimming people?
Why are nome of the other smart watches waterproof? Being waterproof is one of the most basic facets of being a watch these days. That apple's watch might be waterproof to 60 feet is a harbinger they are taking seriously the desires of two separate groups. Watch owners and technology extensionists.
----------
It doesn't look awesome though. It has a big chunk of the display missing.
If the watch is off, yes it looks comparable to hundreds of $20 watches out there, but if the display is on, blech
----------
Yeah too bad it is seriously underpowered with a glaring display flaw
this is because android wear is not formatted for a round screen.
thus they need a flat bottom to ensure that you can still read the text on the screen and that it doesn't get cut off on the sides.
this is the price you pay for a round (mostly) display. without completely rewriting the OS, moto had no choice but to offer the flat tire if consumers wanted to roundest display possible.
Actually if it doesn't have a handcuff putting laser beam you won't be out.
Quite a few of them are.
I think you are quite ignorant (or even worse: knowingly spreading lies) for claiming that the iWatch might be the first one that can stand being submerged in water. Because that is simply not true.
10 feet, 20 feet, 60 feet? Doesn't matter much in reality. Much like owners of expensive 4WD cars that buy them for their 4WD capabilites but never ever drive them on anything but proper roads, people with watches that are bordering on diving watches never use them for more than casual swimming at best. If you are a real diver you need a proper diving watch, not one who just is waterproof to the depth you are going.