Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Tanegashima, Jan 20, 2015.
Do you have any idea how many square watches there are? Thousands. Aside from the very basic similarity of shape (this is square, Apple Watch is rectangular) I don't see anything noteworthy here.
That's not the square who's ugly, that's the rest...
And a perfect square is more beautiful.
Yes. It's a square watch. Unless I have been dreaming, I could swear I have seen other square watches.
That band looks atrocious in real life.
Are you insinuating Apple has copied Rado's watch?
They are different, for example, the Awatch shape.
But they are very similar. Which is completely normal, given that all possibilities for shape have been exhausted in this years.
I don't see what the point of the thread is then.
Looks like abut a $50 watch. Ugly and cheap trying to look the opposite.
That's your opinion...
You can't get a ceramic case watch like that for $50.
In fact, you can't get a okay looking watch for $50.
This watch is beautiful.
In fact, that watch won both the iF Product and Red Dot design awards in 2010.
It was designed by Jasper Morrison.
However, it doesn't look like the watches you see everyday at the stores, and it doesn't look like a Rolex, so probably you would find it ugly just because it doesn't fit a vulgar taste.
Here, I'll do even better - $17.50:
The cutout around the crown and slotted screws on the back say otherwise. The rest of it is a matter of opinion, I agree. It does remind me of a Pulsar from the 80's.
No. If the material can't do what you want, you are using the wrong material. I don't want ceramic for the novelty of it.
Anyway, what again did this have to do with Apple Watch?
What's the problem with it having the screws or the cutout?
Ceramic is good because it doesn't scracth and its ultra-light, ultra-moldeable and aesthetically pleasing.
The band looks atrocious.
That's just your opinion.
Familiar to what?