Quick Takes: Smartwatches to Have More Than Just 15 Minutes of Fame as GymKit Rollout Continues

[Chupa Chupa]

The iPod peaked at 55 million a year. This prediction would put the AW above that. Nothing is the iPhone. I don't know why you'd expect that or even bother commenting on it. Clearly a device that requires an iPhone will only have a fraction of the iPhone sales (it's unlikely that someone would buy an Apple Watch without an iPhone...).

But I didn't comment on iPod sales, you did. One could argue iPod was a niche product too but it was magnified because Apple was a smaller company back then so fewer sales still had a bigger impact and Apple's marketing + iTunes make it high profile. To illustrate this consider iPod in 2007 was 25% of Apple revenue. Last year all of "other" which AW is in was 6% of revenue.

I commented on projected AW sales at 7 years out vs actual iPhone sales at that same point of it's history. I did to illustrate a truly social changing piece of tech vs AW's slower growth as an accessory, not a full breakout product. A lot of people -- some here -- think it is a break out product. But these numbers show it's as you say, something only a small fraction of iPhone owners will consider even 7 years after it's introduction. Again, this is NOT a knock on AW. Watches are a niche item. But Apple isn't going to manage anytime soon to convince the world to put an smartwatch on it's wrist as it has a smartphone in it's pocket.
[doublepost=1521637737][/doublepost]

But its simply insane for all sorts of reasons to use the success of the iPhone as some sort of realistic barometer for the relative success or failure of other products.

Maybe, but it's more insane to read what I wrote as saying AW was a failed product. I think you read what you wanted to, but I urge you to go back and read closer. My comment was not a knock on AW. Heck my opening sentence is "solid growth." Failed products don't have sales growth.

 

[johngordon]

Maybe, but it's more insane to read what I wrote as saying AW was a failed product. I think you read what you wanted to, but I urge you to go back and read closer. My comment was not a knock on AW. Heck my opening sentence is "solid growth." Failed products don't have sales growth.

I didn't say you did though.

 

[deanthedev]

As for the AW, perhaps it's very popular, but I can't just get myself to buy it. I prefer to wear a watch that looks like a watch. Personal taste.

Fair enough. I prefer a smartwatch that's functional, not one that has to conform to someone's view of what a watch "should" look like.

 

[justperry]

Actually there's no need to be disappointed, because you can use Apple Pay in any country where bunq is available. I set it up yesterday and used it this morning to pay for my coffee, works fine! Only thing you have to do to make it work is change your country to Spain or Italy, add the card via the bunq app and that's it!

Time to set up a bunch account then, but then again, I am divided, think Apple Pay adds little (especially in Europe), on the other hand, if I forget my *wallet I still have the option to pay withy iPhone.


*Actually, I don't have a wallet, just a card holder.

 

[Keirasplace]

Well, you know, that's your opinion, which is as valid as mine.

Rounded wristwatches are indeed what's popular and commonplace, what's "accepted" as the standard wristwatch. Apple revolutionised the phone industry with an all screen iPhone, because of its inherent advantage over physical keyboard phones with small screens.

Rounded or square wristwatches is just a matter of taste. There's no revolution nor technological breakthrough in picking one shape over the other. I'ts like getting a square pan. Sure you can find some that are square. However, what's the common pan shape like? Rounded. Same goes for watches.

I told you about history and then you tell me this kind of reply... No, it is not merely opinion. It's fact.
You're whole waffling about "standards" is basically just your words, there is nothing really standard or natural about it.

There are functionality issue to making a square (really square pan, not a rounded square). Heat distribution, especially considering the heating element underneath is round, and ease of cleaning is the reason pans are the shape they are in. It's not an accident and indeed if someone used a square pan, they'd be at a disadvantage. So, you've just made both a false equivalence and built a straw man.

The reason for a square smart phone or watches ARE NOT JUST ESTHETICS.
There is an actual practical reason for one choice or the other, so that's a false equivalence using your made up pan argument.

If you use something round, putting the same density of information on screen will be harder (so it's an hindrance for first and third party development).
You can compensate with that only by making it a bigger watch; information presented to device size with the same functionality will be lower; so you're not getting the same product are you. So, again comparing things that can't really compare. There are reasons why there are no equivalent watches with the features of the 38mm Apple LTE watch done by other companies.

 

[MrBat]

I told you about history and then you tell me this kind of reply... No, it is not merely opinion. It's fact.
You're whole waffling about "standards" is basically just your words, there is nothing really standard or natural about it.

There are functionality issue to making a square (really square pan, not a rounded square). Heat distribution, especially considering the heating element underneath is round, and ease of cleaning is the reason pans are the shape they are in. It's not an accident and indeed if someone used a square pan, they'd be at a disadvantage. So, you've just made both a false equivalence and built a straw man.

The reason for a square smart phone or watches ARE NOT JUST ESTHETICS.
There is an actual practical reason for one choice or the other, so that's a false equivalence using your made up pan argument.

If you use something round, putting the same density of information on screen will be harder (so it's an hindrance for first and third party development).
You can compensate with that only by making it a bigger watch; information presented to device size with the same functionality will be lower; so you're not getting the same product are you. So, again comparing things that can't really compare. There are reasons why there are no equivalent watches with the features of the 38mm Apple LTE watch done by other companies.

You're kinda funny. You defend Apple decisions like only an employee would.

The fact is, there are rounded smartwatches. That is undeniable.

What excuses you're putting up to defend the square design Apple uses just don't cut it. Apple hubris at selecting a square shape is up to Ive and Co, or forced by their inhability to use a rounded shape with all the features they wanted it to have.

Now, square design makes things easier for the engineers to put things inside? Probably. More than likely the square design is more forgiving at packing things up. However, what do I care about this? It's the job of the engineers to make things work, not mine to swallow up designs I don't like just because they make it easy for Apple to work with.

I'm the one who's paying, I decide.

Jobs is there no more to distort the reality field and convince me up, so, Apple better step up their game.

 

[chucker23n1]

Now, square design makes things easier for the engineers to put things inside? Probably. More than likely the square design is more forgiving at packing things up. However, what do I care about this? It's the job of the engineers to make things work, not mine to swallow up designs I don't like just because they make it easy for Apple to work with.

I'm the one who's paying, I decide.

So decide. There’s plenty of smart watches with a round face.

Yet most people are buying one with a rectangular face. I wonder why? Maybe it being far more practice plays a role? Maybe Apple Watch is actually quite fashionable?

 

[MrBat]

So decide. There’s plenty of smart watches with a round face.

Yet most people are buying one with a rectangular face. I wonder why? Maybe it being far more practice plays a role? Maybe Apple Watch is actually quite fashionable?

You know, something I start to realise is that I'm not actually a fan of Apple per se. I was a die hard fan of Steve Jobs design philosophy and of his iron grip on Apple's product line and design lead. He would push things to the limit, break it if necessary and go beyond. No exceptions, no excuses.

Should have Steve Jobs leaded... let's say Dell, I'd more than likely be a fan of Dell. It's not the brand, but who is leading it and what decisions are taken to shape what a brand does, or does not. Apple is just a name.

Folk here are just caught on the brand's name and following just because. Sure, Apple still produces high quality products, very well made, but that's not enough, not for me at least.

I'll have to wait for the "next" Steve Jobs to appear and lead the industry, in quite a similar fashion as Elon Musk is doing with SpaceX and Tesla. Too bad he's not taking over Apple.

 

[johngordon]

You know, something I start to realise is that I'm not actually a fan of Apple per se. I was a die hard fan of Steve Jobs design philosophy and of his iron grip on Apple's product line and design lead. He would push things to the limit, break it if necessary and go beyond. No exceptions, no excuses.

Should have Steve Jobs leaded... let's say Dell, I'd more than likely be a fan of Dell. It's not the brand, but who is leading it and what decisions are taken to shape what a brand does, or does not. Apple is just a name.

Folk here are just caught on the brand's name and following just because. Sure, Apple still produces high quality products, very well made, but that's not enough, not for me at least.

I'll have to wait for the "next" Steve Jobs to appear and lead the industry, in quite a similar fashion as Elon Musk is doing with SpaceX and Tesla. Too bad he's not taking over Apple.

So if Steve hadn't died when he did, do you think the Apple Watch would be round, and Jobs would have figured out how to make the round face just as space efficient for displaying information as a square space?

Was Jobs a pretty incredible visionary? Almost certainly. But at the end of the day, in around 15 years, Apple came out with a great mp3 player, stuck phone in it, and made a bigger version of it. Sometimes rose tinted glasses seem to make people think Jobs was pulling some revolutionary product from his back side every single time he walked on stage.

Ultimately, if you want something on your wrist with a traditional clock face, then of course round is the better shape. If however you want something on your wrist that is capable of displaying way more information than a traditional watch ever can, then clearly square is the better shape.

 

[MrBat]

[...] If however you want something on your wrist that is capable of displaying way more information than a traditional watch ever can, then clearly square is the better shape.

So far, square may be the better shape that Apple was able to work with. Now, were Apple Engineers pushed hard enough to find a proper way to do all that the current square AW does, but on a rounded shape clock? I don't think so.

And yes, Jobs was a magnificent Salesman too. Tim, not so much.

 

[chucker23n1]

You still haven’t enunciated why you think round would be the superior shape, other than it being in style with many traditional watches. There’s no apparent reason why it would lead to a better design.

 

[johngordon]

So far, square may be the better shape that Apple was able to work with. Now, were Apple Engineers pushed hard enough to find a proper way to do all that the current square AW does, but on a rounded shape clock? I don't think so.

And yes, Jobs was a magnificent Salesman too. Tim, not so much.

What do you mean "so far"? Round isn't somehow magically going to become a better shape for this, and more than people will start using round computer displays.

Great as Jobs was, he couldn't actually change reality.

 

[MrBat]

What do you mean "so far"? Round isn't somehow magically going to become a better shape for this, and more than people will start using round computer displays.

Great as Jobs was, he couldn't actually change reality.

As long as Apple Engineers can't be rallied to make a better job at it, and make fit all current AW features into a rounded shape, yes, the square AW will have to suffice for those that like it enough just the way it is atm.

Jobs could not change reality, but he was indeed able to sell his reality rather well.

May have been Jobs the one presenting the square AW, perhaps I'd tolerate its square design and even like it... Who knows.

 

[johngordon]

Well, I doubt even Jobs could get a round peg in a square hole.

This just isn't even up for debate, as clearly a circle chops off parts of a square and means less space. There is simply no getting away from that.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I didn't say you did though.

But I didn't. If you really believe I did then you don't know what the world "failed" means and you certainly don't understand the concept that failed product don't have what I said was "solid growth." Failed products have, at best, sluggish growth which invariable turns to no growth and negative growth.

 

[LordVic]

So decide. There’s plenty of smart watches with a round face.

Yet most people are buying one with a rectangular face. I wonder why? Maybe it being far more practice plays a role? Maybe Apple Watch is actually quite fashionable?

the problem is, and why you're asking this question, because there's a vacuum of anything else.

If you have an iPhone and want the most functional smart watch. It's the square apple watch.

Android Wear and many of the other bands are limited in functionality when paired with the iPhone due to limitations Apple has put in their software. This creates a vacuum of actual competition in the Apple smart watch space.

Because of that, you (Nor I) can make any claims as to why Apple's watch, as square, sells well for Apple users vs competition that has round.

The only way we'll be able to know how much the overall look of the device matters is if Apple either allows the same functionality with competing watches, or releases a round watch alongside the square and lets users decide which they like most.

I'm not going to speak to fashion aspect, or wheter or not the Apple watch is fashionable. I don't hate it, But at the same time, as a traditional watch wearer who wears a watch more for the "Look", I would NEVER wear a watch that looks like the Apple watch.
[doublepost=1521762627][/doublepost]

Well, I doubt even Jobs could get a round peg in a square hole.

This just isn't even up for debate, as clearly a circle chops off parts of a square and means less space. There is simply no getting away from that.

incorrect a circle provides more actual usable area in the same "Size" of display. The problem is, UI's traditionally are created for digital technology in "Square" fashion due to the fact that it was only in the last few years that display makers could make anything that wasn't just square.

Great software designers will find ways of using the bigger real estate of a round watch by being creative. Even Apple built some of their UI of the watch to be circular. Especially the faux analogue faces (or mickey's arms).

The difference between round and square for watches really comes down to subjective feelings of those who wear them. But you're sadly incorrect about "chop off". at 38mm watch, a round watch has more room for dispaly than a square. The worst part about Apple's watch, is that the display itself is actually quite small in comparison to the body of the watch anyways and has a very low screen to body ratio (but blended extremely well behind darkened glass to hide the fact)

 

[chucker23n1]

the problem is, and why you're asking this question, because there's a vacuum of anything else.

If you have an iPhone and want the most functional smart watch. It's the square apple watch.

Android Wear and many of the other bands are limited in functionality when paired with the iPhone due to limitations Apple has put in their software. This creates a vacuum of actual competition in the Apple smart watch space.

Because of that, you (Nor I) can make any claims as to why Apple's watch, as square, sells well for Apple users vs competition that has round.

If that were the problem, the roughly four times as many users of Android phones would dwarf Apple Watch sales. But they don't. So Apple must be doing something right.

Great software designers will find ways of using the bigger real estate of a round watch by being creative. Even Apple built some of their UI of the watch to be circular. Especially the faux analogue faces (or mickey's arms).

Apple did so when it made skeuomorphic sense — i.e., for nostalgia's sake.

Maybe "great software designers" will indeed come up with UI controls that work well on a circular screen, but the central question of why has yet to be answered. Why is anyone assuming that a circular screen would be better?

The difference between round and square for watches really comes down to subjective feelings of those who wear them. But you're sadly incorrect about "chop off". at 38mm watch, a round watch has more room for dispaly than a square.

You're only giving one dimension, so that's completely meaningless.

The worst part about Apple's watch, is that the display itself is actually quite small in comparison to the body of the watch anyways and has a very low screen to body ratio (but blended extremely well behind darkened glass to hide the fact)

Yes, but we all know Apple didn't do this out of boredom, but out of technical constraints that will take a few years to go away.

 

[LordVic]

Maybe "great software designers" will indeed come up with UI controls that work well on a circular screen, but the central question of why has yet to be answered. Why is anyone assuming that a circular screen would be better?

I don't think it's inherently better. Nor is it worse. When it comes to watches, MANY of us who have worn them for our lives do so more out of a sense of personal fashion / jewelry and not as a tech item. To me, a square watch just looks bad. Completely utterly subjective. I want a round watch. I do not own a single square watch.

You're only giving one dimension, so that's completely meaningless.

Will see if I can find it, but a few good posters on this forum back during the launch time of the watch did the mathematics behind actual usable area of a display and the round watch in similar size had overall more usable display area (when you didn't cut out a chunk for a flat tire lol). Will try and find the math / diagrams for ya.

Yes, but we all know Apple didn't do this out of boredom, but out of technical constraints that will take a few years to go away.

of course not. I don't fault them for the technical limitations. Unfortunately, many other manufacturers, even square watch makers in the Android wear camp still managed to have higher display to body ratio's.

I personally find the Watches design to be extremely "phoned in". it looks like Ive took the first iPhone, and just shrank it down to watch size and called it a day. Then relied on someone else to actually work on the bands and overall "how it fits together". The technical inovation in the watches features is not anything to scoff at. But the actual devices itself and how it looks/feels is not for me and seems pretty underwhelming.


edit: Found the link from Mac 128
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-is-surprising.1856004/page-10#post-21261035


and an image of what I mean about the watch being a "phoned in" shrink of the first iPhone

 

[johngordon]

incorrect a circle provides more actual usable area in the same "Size" of display. The problem is, UI's traditionally are created for digital technology in "Square" fashion due to the fact that it was only in the last few years that display makers could make anything that wasn't just square.

I'm not convinced - for that to the case, surely the diameter of the circle would have to be greater than the width of the square.

https://imgur.com/a/HJ6TB

And even then, its still easier to place text info along straight edges than curved edges. We don't have round computer displays or phones for a reason.
[doublepost=1521769867][/doublepost]

But I didn't.

Yes, I know you didn't.

That's specifically why I said "I didn't say you did."

Shish, the internet is hard work sometimes.

 

[iTom17]

Time to set up a bunch account then, but then again, I am divided, think Apple Pay adds little (especially in Europe), on the other hand, if I forget my *wallet I still have the option to pay withy iPhone.


*Actually, I don't have a wallet, just a card holder.

Well, honestly I don't believe it does add much indeed, except it does add a coolness factor.

Seriously, you won't believe how many people have been shocked by how I'm paying for my stuff now. They're like "Oh my god, is he paying with his watch??!!" I kinda dig the attention.

 

[Abazigal]

If that were the problem, the roughly four times as many users of Android phones would dwarf Apple Watch sales. But they don't. So Apple must be doing something right.

And ⅓ of android wear watches were sold to iPhone users. There's a certainly irony in that.

 

[johngordon]

Well, honestly I don't believe it does add much indeed, except it does add a coolness factor.

Seriously, you won't believe how many people have been shocked by how I'm paying for my stuff now. They're like "Oh my god, is he paying with his watch??!!" I kinda dig the attention.

I almost thing that the AW + Apple Pay are worth it just for getting through the barriers on the subway / underground. No more fretting about where exactly my ticket / Oyster card is.

 

[justperry]

Well, honestly I don't believe it does add much indeed, except it does add a coolness factor.

Seriously, you won't believe how many people have been shocked by how I'm paying for my stuff now. They're like "Oh my god, is he paying with his watch??!!" I kinda dig the attention.

It's cool when you're a kid, not so much for grownups.

I almost thing that the AW + Apple Pay are worth it just for getting through the barriers on the subway / underground. No more fretting about where exactly my ticket / Oyster card is.

This I can understand, but for checking out a chip card as we use them here in Europe not so much, I already have the card in my hand before she/he asks for the amount, hold my card against the terminal, that's it, easier than an iPhone, but, as a backup payment it would be convenient for if I forget my cards (holder).

 

[johngordon]

This I can understand, but for checking out a chip card as we use them here in Europe not so much, I already have the card in my hand before she/he asks for the amount, hold my card against the terminal, that's it, easier than an iPhone, but, as a backup payment it would be convenient for if I forget my cards (holder).

Its horses for courses really. I use my phone a lot now, as I find it easier to get to than a card out of my wallet. I'm usually listening to music, and tend to hit pause on the phone when I'm at a checkout, so tend to have it in my already anyway. The watch is maybe a little more awkward at most terminals though as you have to kind of turn your wrist the wrong way.

 

[iTom17]

It's cool when you're a kid, not so much for grownups.

Wow, that hurts.

For what it's worth, I'm actually 21. I wouldn't consider myself 'a kid' anymore.

Is it so weird for grownups to find this stuff cool and all? Unless you're the kind of grownup who's all cranky and stuff of course.