Samsung Announces Round 'Gear S2' Smart Watch

[Mac 128]

Nice display drawings, btw. I was doing something similar, because people don't realize how much bezel area goes unused on the Apple watch.

Yup. And just in case anybody has forgotten, this image demonstrates it pretty well.

Those of us with both round and rectangular and Apple watches know the shape is not important except for styling... and with apps that look good being round, like weather radar and other "what's in a circle around me" displays, compasses, analog watchfaces, circular charts, circular slide rule type tip calculators, etc.

In some cases there's actually more room to better display the things you might do with a watch, like using the camera remote to frame your picture. Using a UI laid out for a round display, there's actually a full frame, and it's bigger, with no change in the height of the watch.

 

[Keirasplace]

We don't have the same tastes then.

Yes, you like swatch like bricks. Good to know.

I don't understand why someone wouldn't want better battery life.

Because it may impact function. In engineering/products, there is always a tradoff for everything.
If you reduce function enough, you get all the battery life you want and almost no function.... You get a watch ;-).

You can always tell how nice a Sammy device is by the level of illogical hate from the blind loyalists. So yeah, these two devices are a stunner in design.

Blind loyalist like you? Guess so. Just calling it "stunner" you're trying to push buttons.
Many people were fawning over the S6 too... And it sold like absolute crap. Yeah... "stunner".

 

[ErikGrim]

Not sure how you could be more deceptive with this one, but let's start with the obvious:

You are comparing apples to oranges. You assume that a 42 mm round display watch has no bezel. These watches clearly do. The Motorola 270 clearly do. You assume a 42mm will have the same resolution? What? A round watch, being not oval, must have a square resolution. Never mind the fact that your alignment rulers don't line up with the content anyway!

The watches in question have 360x360px resolution, which is the highest resolution round smart watch to date. And the effective resolution is whatever is left when you put a circle in the middle of that, which is 78.6%. So these watches have 101736 pixels total. The Apple watch has 121680. So these watches already have 16.4% less pixels BEFORE you square that circle!

No matter how you mock up your hypothetical watch math says you are wrong.

 

[MrX8503]

Let's face it,Apple watch looks like one of those $5 generic red LED watches from China..I'm not a fan of either watches,but on design aspect alone,this Samsung definitely beats Apple's ugly bulky watch for sure.

Have you seen the Gear S2 in person? If you did, you would know that the GS2 is bigger and heavier than the Apple watch.

 

[MrX8503]

Not sure how you could be more deceptive with this one, but let's start with the obvious:

You are comparing apples to oranges. You assume that a 42 mm round display watch has no bezel. These watches clearly do. The Motorola 270 clearly do. You assume a 42mm will have the same resolution? What? A round watch, being not oval, must have a square resolution. Never mind the fact that your alignment rulers don't line up with the content anyway!

The watches in question have 360x360px resolution, which is the highest resolution round smart watch to date. And the effective resolution is whatever is left when you put a circle in the middle of that, which is 78.6%. So these watches have 101736 pixels total. The Apple watch has 121680. So these watches already have 16.4% less pixels BEFORE you square that circle!

No matter how you mock up your hypothetical watch math says you are wrong.

The Apple watch has the highest (one of the highest) density displays in a watch to date at 326ppi.

 

[kdarling]

Thanks for stalking my posts. I'm flattered.

No stalking involved. I often search older messages to see what someone has said in the past.

As I noted, at least you've consistently dissed round smartwatch displays. Which tells me you probably haven't owned one, just like all the others who claim that it's hard to read text on them, or other nonsense.

A guy I work with has a Moto360. It's huge even on a man's wrist. NO THANKS.

I think, just as with the Apple Watch, strap choice makes a big difference in looks. I have thin wrists these days, but I like the way the Moto looks on me with a link bracelet. (I wasn't so fond with the leather strap.)

I design for a living so I understand how difficult it is to efficiently use a round space for text. Most people here obviously don't understand this. Including you.

Snort. Kids these days! You call yourself a designer, but can only deal with rectangles?

I'm over a decade older than you, and I design UIs for a living. Round displays are fun because they require a little more imagination.

And I DON'T want a watch that's any bigger than my 38mm Watch. As it is, it hits my hand when I flex my wrist. Any wider and it would be uncomfortable.

That's fully understandable.

Now you have other watches to choose from if that's your thing. Enjoy all that extra blank space with all the actual content in the middle square. A little extra scrolling won't hurt you.

You're right, a little extra scrolling doesn't hurt anyone. You have to scroll more with your 38mm Apple than people do with their 42mm Apple, or with Android Wear round watches.

 

[MrX8503]

I think the app home screen on the Apple watch is its weakest point. Not sure how Apple thought tiny icons bunched together is usable.

I thought of a great idea that would make it more usable. Have 5 icons arranged in a circle with one in the middle. Then be able to swipe left/right to see more apps in increments of 6 in the same arrangement.

 

[ErikGrim]

Snort. Kids these days! You call yourself a designer, but can only deal with rectangles?

I'm over a decade older than you, and I design UIs for a living. Round displays are fun because they require a little more imagination.

Could you be any more condescending? If we are playing the authority game, I'm a UX developer and designer (for decades) and have also dabbled in round interfaces. So has Apple (as they've mentioned in several interviews regarding the watch design). We have both come to the same conclusion based on experience, science and empirical evidence: While aesthetically pleasing, the usability and information display hit is simply not worth it. If more use cases than the couple I have mentioned benefited from a round display, the equation would be different.

But as it stands, unless you value traditional watch aesthetics above actual smart watch utility you are better served with a rectangular display.

 

[Mac 128]

Not sure how you could be more deceptive with this one, but let's start with the obvious:

You are comparing apples to oranges. You assume that a 42 mm round display watch has no bezel. These watches clearly do. The Motorola 270 clearly do. You assume a 42mm will have the same resolution? What? A round watch, being not oval, must have a square resolution. Never mind the fact that your alignment rulers don't line up with the content anyway!

The watches in question have 360x360px resolution, which is the highest resolution round smart watch to date. And the effective resolution is whatever is left when you put a circle in the middle of that, which is 78.6%. So these watches have 101736 pixels total. The Apple watch has 121680. So these watches already have 16.4% less pixels BEFORE you square that circle!

No matter how you mock up your hypothetical watch math says you are wrong.

And yet this Huwei watch has a very similar bezel to the one in my mockup. 42mm, 400x400px (286ppi).

Sorry you wasted your time disproving my mockup compared to the Moto, or Samsung. I think it's pretty clear those watches are not the only future of the round smart watch, and neither is the Huwei the last word on it.

 

[Mildredop]

I don't like the Apple Watch. I think it's very ugly and looks cheap. I know the arguments of screen size with a circular screen, but watches are traditionally round. The square shape of the Apple Watch looks too much like an LCD screen stuck to your wrist.

Samsung have done an amazing job here of managing to make a watch that is even uglier and cheaper looking.

 

[Engie]

 

[ErikGrim]

And yet this Huwei watch has a very similar bezel to the one in my mockup. 42mm, 400x400px (286ppi).

Sorry you wasted your time disproving my mockup compared to the Moto, or Samsung. I think it's pretty clear those watches are not the only future of the round smart watch, and neither is the Huwei the last word on it.

Oh that watch without a release date that was supposed to be out by june and is rumoured to cost north of $1000? Going to call vapourware on that one mate.

But here's a better image of a demo unit showing off the quite substantial bezel as well as how awesome text and icons looks on a round display when they are glued right up to the edge with no padding. How awesome are round watches?

 

[ErikGrim]

Even a 400x400 round watch is only a whooping 3% total more pixels total than an Apple watch. And squaring that circle again, leaves a total of 66.33% usable space for information and UI. So that leaves us with 83429 useful pixels, which is 68.6% of the usable area of an Apple Watch. Please go on how circles are the best smart watch shape. Particularly what other user interactions or information displays that lends itself to fully utilise the round shape.

 

[MrX8503]

I don't like the Apple Watch. I think it's very ugly and looks cheap. I know the arguments of screen size with a circular screen, but watches are traditionally round. The square shape of the Apple Watch looks too much like an LCD screen stuck to your wrist.

Samsung have done an amazing job here of managing to make a watch that is even uglier and cheaper looking.

The stainless steel looks much better in person.

 

[kdarling]

Could you be any more condescending?

It was a joke, and you are doing some selective reading. Laurim has constantly repeated that she's a 52 year old designer who hates round shapes. Well, I'm older and design too, and I think round is fine.

The problem is, neither of you apparently own both a round and a rectangular smartwatch, yet you pontificate about how one is better or worse.

Anyone who does that, is just like those who diss the Apple Watch's usefulness without ever having owned one. Or like someone who claims that functionality should prevail over beauty, which again is like dissing the Apple Watch.

In reality, both round and rectangular work fine, since they both have to make compromises at times for different commonly used smartwatch UI shapes. Moreover, all of the posts about scrolling are moot because millions of people already accept less text and more scrolling on the 38mm Apple Watch.

Heck, going forward, I would not be surprised to see even smaller ladies' smartwatches meant mostly for formal events, with really small screens. Those who want such a device, will not be bothered by their choice.

Embrace the wonderfulness of more personal choice. Cheers!

 

[Mac 128]

Oh that watch without a release date that was supposed to be out by june and is rumoured to cost north of $1000? Going to call vapourware on that one mate.

But here's a better image of a demo unit showing off the quite substantial bezel as well as how awesome text and icons looks on a round display when they are glued right up to the edge with no padding. How awesome are round watches?

View attachment 578593

Well, as if your agenda wasn't clear before, at least your personal bias is laid out in detail here. This is all your subjective opinion. "Better image"? Where is the math that proves the Huwei bezel is any thicker than the mockup I provided, or any wider than the width of the Watch case and bezel is now? And of course the bezel looks larger showing it from an angle, which is why you chose it. From above it looks very similar to my mockup. That's just disingenuous.

Even a 400x400 round watch is only a whooping 3% total more pixels total than an Apple watch. And squaring that circle again, leaves a total of 66.33% usable space for information and UI. So that leaves us with 83429 useful pixels, which is 68.6% of the usable area of an Apple Watch. Please go on how circles are the best smart watch shape. Particularly what other user interactions or information displays that lends itself to fully utilise the round shape.

But, nothing could be more disingenuous than you initially posting this diagram and stating it is an accurate comparison to any round smartwatch compared to the Watch:

Apple has never been in the pixel game. We're not talking about lines of data here on 1980s PC. Everything is scalable. losing pixels does not equate to losing information. This is why my iPhone 3GS displayed identical information to my 4S on any given screen, despite the substantially greater pixel density of the 4S. So confusing the issue by parsing the pixel count is further intellectual dishonesty. And you don't seem to be concerned about the inevitable march of technology -- you're arguing the round watch display in general, but then targeting specific specs of individual watches not being up to Apple's. First you say 360x360 is the biggest round display there is, yet there's the Huwei at 400x400 -- is it your contention that there's no way a round display will ever equal the same pixel count as square display? And even if that's true, what difference does it make? At a certain point the eye can't tell the difference between them anyway.

And speaking of math, your's seems a bit dodgy. When I do the math this is what I get:

390x360 = 121680

400x400 = 160000 x78.6% = 125760

Using your method, it looks like the circle is still higher pixel count than the Watch, not that it matters at all in which is superior.

But let's not stop there ... using your idea of the paramount importance of pixel count above all else, here's the math on a 38mm Watch:

340x272 = 92480

According to you, that is a SHOCKINGLY low pixel count, that's over 76% fewer pixels than the 42mm Watch! Yikes, that's almost as bad as you claim the difference is for the round watch. Why would Apple even offer such inferior product? Yet, somehow Apple manages to make the display of the 38mm watch look exactly the same in most cases, despite this staggering loss of pixels.

The only graphic that matters is a direct comparison of the size of an Watch display as compared to the area it would fill in a circular display, since the actual pixels have nothing to do with what the user ultimately sees.

 

[Roessnakhan]

Oh that watch without a release date that was supposed to be out by june and is rumoured to cost north of $1000? Going to call vapourware on that one mate.
View attachment 578593

Erm... Coming out September 17. Starting at $349.

 

[McCool71]

I had a feeling someone would improve a better battery experience than the Apple watch, Thanks to Samsung
"

EVERY single smart watch Samsung has released since 2013 have had better battery capacity than the Apple watch.

 

[McCool71]

you need to have to phone numbers one for your phone one for the wrist lol, thats seems a waste of money

I know the US is far behind the curve when it comes to cell phone services and that the carriers makes you pay big time for anything extra, but you surely can have the same number on several phones at once? This has been available in Europe since the 90s and is nothing mystical, but then again our carriers are not allowed to have an unfair death grip on the market.

I have had the same cell/data plan and number for my cell phone and tablet for a couple years now and could easily add a third device for 5 bucks extra a month.

 

[pacalis]

Holy Moly!!! You're telling me Samasung designed and built the Apple Watch?...WOW had know idea.

WOW. "know idea" Really?

The heart of the Apple watch is manufactured by Samsung. The shiny parts aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_S1

Your "Porsche" is a Hyundai breh

 

[MrX8503]

EVERY single smart watch Samsung has released since 2013 have had better battery capacity than the Apple watch.

Battery capacity != battery life.

I bet a hummer has a bigger gas tank than a Prius.

 

[MrX8503]

Well, as if your agenda wasn't clear before, at least your personal bias is laid out in detail here. This is all your subjective opinion. "Better image"? Where is the math that proves the Huwei bezel is any thicker than the mockup I provided, or any wider than the width of the Watch case and bezel is now? And of course the bezel looks larger showing it from an angle, which is why you chose it. From above it looks very similar to my mockup. That's just disingenuous.



But, nothing could be more disingenuous than you initially posting this diagram and stating it is an accurate comparison to any round smartwatch compared to the Watch:

Apple has never been in the pixel game. We're not talking about lines of data here on 1980s PC. Everything is scalable. losing pixels does not equate to losing information. This is why my iPhone 3GS displayed identical information to my 4S on any given screen, despite the substantially greater pixel density of the 4S. So confusing the issue by parsing the pixel count is further intellectual dishonesty. And you don't seem to be concerned about the inevitable march of technology -- you're arguing the round watch display in general, but then targeting specific specs of individual watches not being up to Apple's. First you say 360x360 is the biggest round display there is, yet there's the Huwei at 400x400 -- is it your contention that there's no way a round display will ever equal the same pixel count as square display? And even if that's true, what difference does it make? At a certain point the eye can't tell the difference between them anyway.

And speaking of math, your's seems a bit dodgy. When I do the math this is what I get:

390x360 = 121680

400x400 = 160000 x78.6% = 125760

Using your method, it looks like the circle is still higher pixel count than the Watch, not that it matters at all in which is superior.

But let's not stop there ... using your idea of the paramount importance of pixel count above all else, here's the math on a 38mm Watch:

340x272 = 92480

According to you, that is a SHOCKINGLY low pixel count, that's over 76% fewer pixels than the 42mm Watch! Yikes, that's almost as bad as you claim the difference is for the round watch. Why would Apple even offer such inferior product? Yet, somehow Apple manages to make the display of the 38mm watch look exactly the same in most cases, despite this staggering loss of pixels.

The only graphic that matters is a direct comparison of the size of an Watch display as compared to the area it would fill in a circular display, since the actual pixels have nothing to do with what the user ultimately sees.

That's because rendered pixels is different from physical pixels. To determine the "usable" space, you have to look at rendered pixels. I don't know the PPI of the Huawei, but the Apple Watch at 326ppi is beautiful.

I reckon to get a high ppi and more usable space on a round display, it would have to be quite a bit bigger than a square display.

 

[Mactendo]

LOL!!!

Your defense is a company whose founder dresses like Steve Jobs and steals his "One more thing" quote in presentations? That's seriously messed up. Take a look at their OS: http://www.cultofmac.com/291859/xiaomi-ios-7-ripoff/. Oh, but you say they're only "inspired" by other designs. Hilarious!

Yeah, those Chinese sure come up with good design ideas!

One guy asked for an example of a Chinese product and I gave an example of such product, compared it to a current product from Apple and asked why Apple device looks worse especially considering that Chinese device copied its design from Apple. Do you have to say anything meaningful in this regard? I guess no.
There are as well other Chinese products and companies. And I don't defend anything.

The founder dress is irrelevant here, although yes, what he does here is a tasteless thing, I agree.

"Inspired" was a quote from other guy, read better what you're replying to.

Right now Chinese are heavily copying but one day they will start designing its very own nice things. That's not a question, just a matter of time.

So yes, sooner or later they will come up with good design ideas.

 

[Mac 128]

That's because rendered pixels is different from physical pixels. To determine the "usable" space, you have to look at rendered pixels. I don't know the PPI of the Huawei, but the Apple Watch at 326ppi is beautiful.

I reckon to get a high ppi and more usable space on a round display, it would have to be quite a bit bigger than a square display.

Oh you mean like the iPhone 4S has to be quite a bit bigger to get the same usable space and higher pixel count than the iPhone 3GS? It doesn't work that way. Apple continuously squeezes more and more pixels into the same size display as technology permits. A watch display is no different. At some point it doesn't matter once the pixels reach a certain density.

No one is saying the Apple display isn't beautiful. But the published specs of the Huwei is 286ppi. That's only a difference of 40ppi. Do you really think your eye can see the difference at an average of 10" away from a 1" watch display? The pixel density of the Retina display iPad is 264ppi and that's an absolutely beautiful display that rivals any in the industry. And that's 62ppi difference.

 

[LordVic]

doesn't the iPod nano 6th or 7th gen. have had round icons? (maybe Tizen was earlier before that? or not?) anyhow

its one of those things, where somewhere, somepoint in time, on some device someone has used an icon set of some shape.

so, just posting a screenshot to try and imply copying cause of the use of round icons is being purely disingenous or pure fan

That's because rendered pixels is different from physical pixels. To determine the "usable" space, you have to look at rendered pixels. I don't know the PPI of the Huawei, but the Apple Watch at 326ppi is beautiful.

I reckon to get a high ppi and more usable space on a round display, it would have to be quite a bit bigger than a square display.

Thats not how UI design works.

UI Design doesn't work around PPI, but the opposite. when you design a UI and how things are displayed on the screen you take into account their physical dimensions and plan accordingly.

the PPI and display resolution only impact the quality of that display and how sharp they look.

you don't take a UI from display A and pixel map it 1:1 to a completely different size and resolution display. well you can, but thats when you run into issues like Apple has with changing resolutions on their phones in the iOS6 and earlier days.

so yeah, in the above circle v square discussions, sure, in the Apple square display you get more usable pixels. But, you get less usable space. Since in UI design there is a minimum size / shape that is usable by us due to human limitations.

So back to the image you were trying to knock down, in that particular case, a circular UI would / could offer more display than a square one.

this is whats key. its called "thinking otuside the box". just because we've been limited to square displays historically due to technical limitations, doesn't mean going forwards, all displays MUST be square.