Square vs Round Screen - Edited image is surprising

[Rogifan]

I hope we never get skeuomorphic watch faces from Apple. These faux shadows, textures, depth, metal, etc. on some Android Wear faces look awful IMO.

I'm sorry but no Android Wear watch is going to pass itself off as a real traditional, mechanical watch. Traditional watches don't have big, bright, pixelated screens. Of course the Android Wear press shot renders never show these big bright screens which is why the renders always look better than the real thing.

 

[Mac 128]

You honestly believe that?
How cute

I provided a quote from Alan Dye proving it.

Dye and Ive intentionally chose to impose a rather large from bezel around the central display, rather than have it go all the way to the edge.

So unless the designers of the Watch are lying, yes I believe them.

 

[andyblila]

I know many here are keen on saying again and again how round is no good for text, and text gets cut off.

However, upon some quick photoshopping on my part the watch as it is now, you may be surprised.

If say the Apple watch had minimal bezel around the screen.
Let's say like a Moto360, and still kept the exact same sized text and graphics is does now.

You may be shocked to see how little physical size difference there would be, to keep all on screen text exactly the same, and when round it actually offers MORE screen real estate to display more text/graphics in, for a watch that is not really any larger at all.

And, if I am brutally honest, I would prefer, myself, the version on the right.

They are both to same scale, no cheating, just changing the screen shape and bezel size.

Image

Nice job but I'm not too keen on the wasted real estate. Plus it would cost more!

 

[Mac 128]

You are wrong on many levels. First of all: The mockup actually shows the opposite: If you want to fit a certain square surface on a round model, you NEED to make it bigger. The round watch IS biger and it has a lot of wasted space.

second: Since the Apple watch shows a lot of notifications and text a round watch will always lead to a lot of wasted space - there is just no way around that.

Nope. This example clearly shows that the exact same size rectangle from an Watch will fit inside a round watch which is the exact same size -- 38mm & 42mm respectively. This is especially true since we now know that the display can go all the way to the screen edge, rather than the huge arbitrary frame bezel the designers chose to impose on the Watch -- talk about wasted space for the sake of fashion.

As to your second point, this example clearly shows that not only is there no wasted space on a round watch by reconfiguring the square watch display, but the square watch text can be enlarged and made easier to read on a round watch by relocating data which otherwise limits the amount of text displayed as well in the rectangular watch.

 

[Mac 128]

I hope we never get skeuomorphic watch faces from Apple. These faux shadows, textures, depth, metal, etc. on some Android Wear faces look awful IMO.

I'm sorry but no Android Wear watch is going to pass itself off as a real traditional, mechanical watch.

I hope you realize that this is your personal opinion with respect to style and fashion. And that is exactly what the round vs. square watch debate is all about -- style and fashion. And last I checked Apple has been bending over backwards to pander to the fashion industry. There are demonstrated compromises Apple has already made for this watch that were done strictly for style, at the expense of function.

As long as people prefer choice, and gravitate towards round watches, and would rather not wear the same thing as everyone else, the round Watch remains a viable option, especially since there are no technical limitations to doing it.

And I'm not really sure that anybody ever said that these watch faces were being designed to pass an Android watch off as a traditional, mechanical watch. It's pretty obvious it's not. The point was that customers want more than the 10 black screened choices that Apple currently offers, and some people may get a kick out of seeing a traditional watch face on their Apple Watch. And do you remember in the September keynote they showed an prototype of a watch face with a photo as the watch face? So what happened? Had Apple delivered a watch with this functionality, then people could easily make their own watch faces as photos. Yet another style choice made to control the launch no doubt. If Apple ever allows customers to use photos as watch faces, then you will see watch faces of every type imaginable -- and none will likely be used in an effort to trick people into thinking they're wearing a traditional, mechanical watch.

 

[SHNXX]

Round watches are definitely more common in the watch world for a variety of reasons and it's entirely possible that Apple Watches in the future will feature round screens.

However, the current implementation of round vs. rectangular make it clear that the current generation's round smartwatches have lots of design flaws (too large, the dead black space, UI problems, etc).
Huawei looks most promising, although I don't know if it's vaporware.

 

[Mac 128]

the current implementation of round vs. rectangular make it clear that the current generation's round smartwatches have lots of design flaws (too large, the dead black space, UI problems, etc).
Huawei looks most promising, although I don't know if it's vaporware.

I find it amusing that this argument is typically made as proof that Apple will never do a round watch, as if Apple has ever implemented the same application in the same way as their competitors. And while you are absolutely correct, the current crop of round smartwatches fall short of Apple's design standards, its a given now that Apple has demonstrated how to do a smartwatch correctly, the competition will step up their game, just as they always have.

Apple didn't do a "phablet" smart phone, but Samsung made a reputation out of it -- and the Apple community generally derided the UI, and general implementation as compared to Apple. Then Apple decided to make a "phablet" iPhone, and showed how it could be done well. The same will be true for the round smartwatch.

Anybody truly interested in an Apple Watch is not going to buy one of these lesser offering just because it's round. But just wait until next year. Just like the "phablet" after the iPhones became a viable option for someone who wanted a larger screened smartphone, the round watch will become a lot more competitive with the Watch, and unless Apple steps up to the plate, the only option for a round smartwatch -- and Apple will lose those customers who prefer it for whatever reason.

 

[SHNXX]

I find it amusing that this argument is typically made as proof that Apple will never do a round watch, as if Apple has ever implemented the same application in the same way as their competitors. And while you are absolutely correct, the current crop of round smartwatches fall short of Apple's design standards, its a given now that Apple has demonstrated how to do a smartwatch correctly, the competition will step up their game, just as they always have.



Apple didn't do a "phablet" smart phone, but Samsung made a reputation out of it -- and the Apple community generally derided the UI, and general implementation as compared to Apple. Then Apple decided to make a "phablet" iPhone, and showed how it could be done well. The same will be true for the round smartwatch.



Anybody truly interested in an Apple Watch is not going to buy one of these lesser offering just because it's round. But just wait until next year. Just like the "phablet" after the iPhones became a viable option for someone who wanted a larger screened smartphone, the round watch will become a lot more competitive with the Watch, and unless Apple steps up to the plate, the only option for a round smartwatch -- and Apple will lose those customers who prefer it for whatever reason.

It's certainly possible that Apple will make a round watch, but it may not happen for a long time.

I think a good UI is probably the first step, then a better display technology (curved perhaps?).

 

[KPOM]

Nope. This example clearly shows that the exact same size rectangle from an Watch will fit inside a round watch which is the exact same size -- 38mm & 42mm respectively. This is especially true since we now know that the display can go all the way to the screen edge, rather than the huge arbitrary frame bezel the designers chose to impose on the Watch -- talk about wasted space for the sake of fashion.

Image

Not necessarily. A bezel-less design, all else equal, would be thicker. Apple Watch is already fairly thick as it is. Most of the round Android Wear watches have a bezel apart from the Moto 360, which has the "flat tire" driver. Some like the Huawei watch or LG G Watch R hide it.

And in your design, there is lots of obvious "wasted space" on each side. It might be round, but it doesn't offer any real advantage.

 

[Mac 128]

Not necessarily. A bezel-less design, all else equal, would be thicker.

And in your design, there is lots of obvious "wasted space" on each side. It might be round, but it doesn't offer any real advantage.

And yet, it does:

In my previous example I merely relocated the two bits of non-text related information. There's two more quadrants that could be used for other things, not just left "wasted". The lack of imagination should not be a criticism of a UI. Developers will either take advantage of it, or they won't. Apple of course will. And despite your contention otherwise, I believe I did prove a real advantage -- there could be more or larger text in the same space currently offered in the rectangular display by moving superfluous information elsewhere. To to mention the above example which demonstrates that the round watch provides for a larger and FULL frame in the remote photo app, where the rectangular display crops the frame and is much smaller, not to mention crowded controls.

What exactly is the basis of your contention that the watch would be thicker?

 

[KPOM]

Apple didn't do a "phablet" smart phone, but Samsung made a reputation out of it -- and the Apple community generally derided the UI, and general implementation as compared to Apple. Then Apple decided to make a "phablet" iPhone, and showed how it could be done well. The same will be true for the round smartwatch.

Part of the issue, though, is that it's obvious that Apple was following when it released the iPhone 6 Plus. I.e. it didn't really want to release one, but did so because it realized it was leaving sales on the table. Apple hasn't really done much to take advantage of the extra space (Samsung has), and they kept the same basic design of the iPhone, including the large top and bottom bezels, so the iPhone 6 Plus is inordinately large. I.e. it makes a lot of compromises. I'm not confident they could pull off a round watch without making the same compromises that the Android Wear OEMs have.

----------

And yet, it does:

Image

What exactly is the basis of your contention that the watch would be thicker?

That assumes that Apple is able to use a screen that goes all the way to the edge. Plus, not every watch face can take advantage of the rounded space along the sides.

Display makers don't just "put" bezels on. They are there to hide the electronics that drive the display. You can wrap them underneath, but that adds thickness.

A circle within a square is easier to pull off than a square within a circle. I'm sure that Apple thought about a round screen at some point in the Apple Watch's development, but from a functional standpoint, a rectangular display is better. If Apple reduces the bezel on the rectangle in future designs, they'd have more usable space than in the rounded design.

----------

If round is so much better, why don't we have round phones? Older rotary phones had round dials. Plus all the arguments about use of the superfluous controls would hold.

If Apple does make a round watch, it would be obvious that they are doing it for style reasons alone, and not because there is any functional advantage to it.

 

[Docsteel]

Personally, I think the tech look of the watch being rectangular looks better and makes it more identifiable with the phones and pads particularly.

That being said, I suspect that they will stick with rectangular to establish an iconic look first, and once the Apple Watch is sufficiently accepted and made a place for itself in the industry we might start seeing a round variant, maybe 3rd or 4th generation, but not any sooner.

They made a conscious decision to not go round I think in part to not identify with the idea of a watch as much as a watch-like device that was an information tool.

One can only imagine the discussions about design if an Apple Car is ever released

 

[Mac 128]

That assumes that Apple is able to use a screen that goes all the way to the edge. Plus, not every watch face can take advantage of the rounded space along the sides. Display makers don't just "put" bezels on. They are there to hide the electronics that drive the display. You can wrap them underneath, but that adds thickness.

If round is so much better, why don't we have round phones? Older rotary phones had round dials. Plus all the arguments about use of the superfluous controls would hold.

If Apple does make a round watch, it would be obvious that they are doing it for style reasons alone, and not because there is any functional advantage to it.

It is a fact Apple artificially imposed the frame bezel from this interview with the New Yorker:

Alan Dye later described to me the “pivotal moment” when he and Ive decided “to avoid the edge of the screen as much as possible.” This was part of an overarching ambition to blur boundaries between software and hardware. (It’s no coincidence, Dye noted, that the “rounded squareness” of the watch’s custom typeface mirrors the watch’s body.) The studio stopped short of banishing screen edges altogether, Dye said, “when we discovered we loved looking at photos on the watch, and you can’t not show the edge of a photo.” He laughed. “Don’t get me wrong, we tried! I could list a number of terrible ideas.” They attempted to blur edges, and squeeze images into circles. There was “a lot of vignetting”—the darkening of a photograph’s corners. “In the end, it was maybe putting ourselves first,” he said.

There is no technical reason Apple couldn't have used most if not all of that space to take the display to the edge. This was done strictly for style and taste -- most likely Jony Ive's.

You keep saying there is no practical advantage to making a round watch, yet I've clearly demonstrated it is. Nevertheless, Apple is in the fashion business at preset and that's just as valid a reason to offer a round watch, as it is to offer a gold iPhone.

And finally, the 'why aren't there round phones and TVs' is truly a baseless argument. The reason there are no round cell phones is the same reason there are no round iPods. Have you ever tried to stick an CD in your pants pocket? Not a very compatible fit. Further, square images are the result of mechanical limitations to the technology which gave us square frames and motion picture film. Now I'm suggesting round is a better shape with which to display images, but round and oval picture frames are fairly common as are round and oval mattes within rectangular picture frames. That said, the standard for photos and movies has evolved to rectangular images. Now, for the same reason I argue round offers greater flexibility in some instances, allowing for larger and more information over a rectangular format of the same size, I am arguing against a rectangular movie inside a round display -- for the main reason that the device will have to be significantly larger than necessary to display a movie.

Now you can turn that argument back around on me if you want, however, the watch is not designed to watch a movie. In fact given the power limitations, viewing images of any kind would be a major power drain, much less a video for any length of time. Jony Ive is clearly on record that the watch is for glances, anything more involved a person should move to the phone. In such case, round serves no difference in purpose than rectangular. Indeed perhaps better -- have you ever seen a square campaign button? Add to that people wear these things as an expression of fashion and style demands more than one format. So in this instance, yes fashion does trump function, especially since funtion is in no way compromised.

----------

Personally, I think the tech look of the watch being rectangular looks better and makes it more identifiable with the phones and pads particularly.

One can only imagine the discussions about design if an Apple Car is ever released

Then the Car will look like this then?

 

[Rogifan]

It is a fact Apple artificially imposed the frame bezel from this interview with the New Yorker:

There is no technical reason Apple couldn't have used most if not all of that space to take the display to the edge. This was done strictly for style and taste -- most likely Jony Ive's.

If the only reason bezels exist on the Watch is to satisfy Jony Ive's personal taste then explain why Apple's HIG explicitly states that developers should use black backgrounds to create the illusion of an edgeless screen? All of Apple's Watch apps use a black background.

https://developer.apple.com/watch/human-interface-guidelines/specifications/

Use black for your app’s background color. Black blends seamlessly with the Apple Watch bezel and creates the illusion of an edgeless screen.

Also, Android Wear round watches have bezels they're just covered by hardware. Moto chose not to do that and thus have the black bar at the bottom instead.

 

[KPOM]

There is no technical reason Apple couldn't have used most if not all of that space to take the display to the edge. This was done strictly for style and taste -- most likely Jony Ive's.

You keep saying there is no practical advantage to making a round watch, yet I've clearly demonstrated it is. Nevertheless, Apple is in the fashion business at preset and that's just as valid a reason to offer a round watch, as it is to offer a gold iPhone.

The way I read the article, Apple couldn't achieve the desired aesthetic effect of the rounded crystal with a bezel-less design. That would be no less true with a round watch face. So it would need to have the same size bezel, meaning that it would in fact be much larger than your render.

At the same time, because there is a bezel, the case likely is thinner than it otherwise would have been.

You really haven't shown any advantages to a round design. In some watch faces you can put controls, etc. in the "extra" space, but that's because you assume a larger display with no bezel. Well, that would be true if they used a rectangle with a flatter display and no bezel, as well. Apple was looking for a particular aesthetic effect, and achieved it with a rectangular display. You are asking for a different aesthetic effect.

A rectangle is a more logical display format for an electronic screen. There is no denying that. A round face makes sense for an analog watch with hands that move in a sweeping circular pattern. Making a round electronic watch is certainly possible, but it is done solely to more closely match the aesthetics with a traditional watch, and not because it creates a superior display.

I'm not saying Apple won't ever make a round watch. They succumbed to pressure and made a large phone. But don't pretend that it is anything more than it is.

 

[Rogifan]

That assumes that Apple is able to use a screen that goes all the way to the edge. Plus, not every watch face can take advantage of the rounded space along the sides.

Display makers don't just "put" bezels on. They are there to hide the electronics that drive the display. You can wrap them underneath, but that adds thickness.

It blows my mind that people think on a display this small Apple is purposely adding black bezels for stylistic reasons. That Alan Dye quote suggests Apple tried hard to banish screen edges. And probably why the Watch HIG urges developers to use black backgrounds to blend in with the bezel as much as possible.

 

[Rogifan]

I hope you realize that this is your personal opinion with respect to style and fashion. And that is exactly what the round vs. square watch debate is all about -- style and fashion. And last I checked Apple has been bending over backwards to pander to the fashion industry. There are demonstrated compromises Apple has already made for this watch that were done strictly for style, at the expense of function.

As long as people prefer choice, and gravitate towards round watches, and would rather not wear the same thing as everyone else, the round Watch remains a viable option, especially since there are no technical limitations to doing it.

And I'm not really sure that anybody ever said that these watch faces were being designed to pass an Android watch off as a traditional, mechanical watch. It's pretty obvious it's not. The point was that customers want more than the 10 black screened choices that Apple currently offers, and some people may get a kick out of seeing a traditional watch face on their Apple Watch. And do you remember in the September keynote they showed an prototype of a watch face with a photo as the watch face? So what happened? Had Apple delivered a watch with this functionality, then people could easily make their own watch faces as photos. Yet another style choice made to control the launch no doubt. If Apple ever allows customers to use photos as watch faces, then you will see watch faces of every type imaginable -- and none will likely be used in an effort to trick people into thinking they're wearing a traditional, mechanical watch.

What is the point of these round smartwatches with faux analog skeuomorphic watch faces other than to try and pass them off as a traditional watch? Nobody in this thread has demonstrated why round is better, just that round could work. But again, what is the point other than the thought that no one will wear a smartwatch unless it looks like a traditional watch?

 

[baller1308]

I really do like the design of the moto 360, albeit it's kinda big, but circular watches do look better. That being said, when it comes to displaying information that is not the time, a square design seems to portray data better. If Apple does decide to go circular I think it will be well designed since they design the hardware and software.

 

[Mac 128]

It blows my mind that people think on a display this small Apple is purposely adding black bezels for stylistic reasons. That Alan Dye quote suggests Apple tried hard to banish screen edges. And probably why the Watch HIG urges developers to use black backgrounds to blend in with the bezel as much as possible.

You keep making an aesthetic argument to defend the imposed limitations and compromise Dye and I've imposed on the technology. They chose form over function, and in doing so limited the size of the display unecessarily to accommodate a stylistic choice. Yet you turn around and say a stylistic argument for a round display is not acceptable. Interesting.

The article clearly states that Apple made a decision not to take the display image all the way to the edges. Because of that decision, of course Apple wants to encourage the black backgrounds to fit their design choice.

Dye and Ive decided “to avoid the edge of the screen as much as possible.” The studio stopped short of banishing screen edges altogether

How on Earth could they have even considered banishing screen edges altogether if it weren't techincally possible to take the screen all the way to edge, just as the Moto 360 does? Why would they need to conscious avoid the edge?

And here's another quote explaining why they encourage the seamless integration with frame bezels:

Under normal circumstances, the screen will then show one of nine watch faces, each customizable. One will show the time alongside a brightly lit flower, butterfly, or jellyfish; these will be in motion, against a black background. This imagery had dominated the launch, and Ive now explained his enthusiasm for it. He picked up his iPhone 6 and pressed the home button. “The whole of the display comes on,” he said. “That, to me, feels very, very old.” (The iPhone 6 reached stores two weeks later.) He went on to explain that an Apple Watch uses a new display technology whose blacks are blacker than those in an iPhone’s L.E.D. display. This makes it easier to mask the point where, beneath a glass surface, a display ends and its frame begins. An Apple Watch jellyfish swims in deep space, and becomes, Ive said, as much an attribute of the watch as an image. On a current iPhone screen, a jellyfish would be pinned against dark gray, and framed in black, and, Ive said, have “much less magic.”

----------

what is the point other than the thought that no one will wear a smartwatch unless it looks like a traditional watch?

What is the point of the iPhone Plus, except that no one will carry an iPhone that isn't as big as a Galaxy Note 4?

You're stuck on function while Apple is parading around the world giving fashion luminaries custom made $30,000 solid gold watches. What's the point in that?

----------

The way I read the article, Apple couldn't achieve the desired aesthetic effect of the rounded crystal with a bezel-less design. That would be no less true with a round watch face. So it would need to have the same size bezel, meaning that it would in fact be much larger than your render.

At the same time, because there is a bezel, the case likely is thinner than it otherwise would have been.

I still don't understand why a bezel-less display would make the watch thicker. I believe it's been proven that the Watch is indeed thicker than some of the round Android wear watches in which the round display goes all the way to the edges.

Nevertheless, Apple did impose a design aesthetic on the rectangular watch with the frame bezel, which is just as much a conscious style decision as offering a choice between round and square. But as for function, there's no reason to assume Apple would design a round face with the exact same aesthetic that worked for the rectangular. All I see in these arguments are a lack of imagination, not proof it can't be done any better by Apple than Android is currently pulling it off.

 

[KPOM]

How on Earth could they have even considered banishing screen edges altogether if it weren't techincally possible to take the screen all the way to edge, just as the Moto 360 does? Why would they need to conscious avoid the edge?

The Moto 360 has the "flat tire." That's one reason they can go to the edge on the other 315 degrees of the display while remaining ever-so-slightly thinner than the Apple Watch. The Android watches may be thinner but they are also physically larger, and so they have more volume to fill with the electronics. In your on-paper example, there isn't significantly more room since you've cut off the corners to make the display round, and are proposing no bezel, which would necessitate a thicker design.

You're stuck on function while Apple is parading around the world giving fashion luminaries custom made $30,000 solid gold watches. What's the point in that?

I still don't understand why a bezel-less display would make the watch thicker. I believe it's been proven that the Watch is indeed thicker than some of the round Android wear watches in which the round display goes all the way to the edges.

All else equal, it would be thicker. All else isn't equal, since different designers make different compromises. The bezel covers up display electronics. You can put those electronics underneath the display, but then it makes it thicker.

Nevertheless, Apple did impose a design aesthetic on the rectangular watch with the frame bezel, which is just as much a conscious style decision as offering a choice between round and square. But as for function, there's no reason to assume Apple would design a round face with the exact same aesthetic that worked for the rectangular. All I see in these arguments are a lack of imagination, not proof it can't be done any better by Apple than Android is currently pulling it off.

But my point is Apple DIDN'T do anything better with the iPhone 6 Plus than Samsung or LG, or anyone else. It's just a huge iPhone with the same big bezels as the regular iPhone. So I don't believe that Apple can somehow come up with a radically better round watch face than what Google has done with Android Wear.

 

[Piggie]

I provided a quote from Alan Dye proving it.

Dye and Ive intentionally chose to impose a rather large from bezel around the central display, rather than have it go all the way to the edge.

So unless the designers of the Watch are lying, yes I believe them.

Of course they lie, that's what business people do for a living.

What do you honestly expect them, or any business person to say.

"Actually we wanted to do X, but X was too hard, or cost a little more than we wanted to agree to, so we decided we go for the inferior Y instead"

No, or course not.

You say, "Well we looked at X, and after many trials decided that X was not right for what we wanted, we found Y gave us something we really wanted, and all of our test subjects also said they felt Y was the right path to take"

Hint: They are saying ANYTHING to make their product look and sound the best.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

Nope. This example clearly shows that the exact same size rectangle from an Watch will fit inside a round watch which is the exact same size -- 38mm & 42mm respectively. This is especially true since we now know that the display can go all the way to the screen edge, rather than the huge arbitrary frame bezel the designers chose to impose on the Watch -- talk about wasted space for the sake of fashion.

Image

As to your second point, this example clearly shows that not only is there no wasted space on a round watch by reconfiguring the square watch display, but the square watch text can be enlarged and made easier to read on a round watch by relocating data which otherwise limits the amount of text displayed as well in the rectangular watch.

I am honestly wonedering if you are dumb. You just showed again - for the same UI you need a BIGGER watch, if you want to go round.

You are also cheating: The minimal distance from screen to border is way(!) smaller on the round model

 

[Rogifan]

Nevertheless, Apple did impose a design aesthetic on the rectangular watch with the frame bezel, which is just as much a conscious style decision as offering a choice between round and square. But as for function, there's no reason to assume Apple would design a round face with the exact same aesthetic that worked for the rectangular. All I see in these arguments are a lack of imagination, not proof it can't be done any better by Apple than Android is currently pulling it off.

What is your source that Apple could have gone with a bezel-less display but purposely chose not to? iPhones and iPads have bezels but somehow the Watch could not have one if Apple really didn't want it to? I'm not aware of any Android Wear watch that doesn't have a bezel. Moto's has a flat tire black bar. LG chose to hide their's behind hardware. I suppose Apple could have done the same but then they wouldn't have had a smooth screen that could be easily swiped as there would be a little lip from the hardware bezel. All the square smartwatches I've seen have bezels just as big if not bigger than Apple's.

 

[Mac 128]

The Moto 360 has the "flat tire." That's one reason they can go to the edge on the other 315 degrees of the display while remaining ever-so-slightly thinner than the Apple Watch. The Android watches may be thinner but they are also physically larger, and so they have more volume to fill with the electronics. In your on-paper example, there isn't significantly more room since you've cut off the corners to make the display round, and are proposing no bezel, which would necessitate a thicker design.

You keep saying this, but the screen technology is completely different -- how do you know the Apple watch can't go to the edge? You realize the case of the Apple watch is curved, and therefore offers some additional space outside the edge of the crystal (assuming it's even needed), that the Moto doesn't. Further, I haven't seen the inside of the Android watch, but looking at them side by side, I don't see a noticeable difference in size. Regardless, I would assume that the Android watch is not as efficiently designed with as many custom chips as the Watch meaning, that Apple could likely design a much more space efficient model not requiring the watch to be quite so big. Consider that the actual size of Apple's electronics will fit into a 38mm case, which means that must be swimming inside that 42mm case. Imagine what they could do inside the Moto.

----------

I am honestly wonedering if you are dumb. You just showed again - for the same UI you need a BIGGER watch, if you want to go round.

You are also cheating: The minimal distance from screen to border is way(!) smaller on the round model

I did this in photoshop the distances are identical, and perfectly aligned. Sorry, but the frame bezel is not needed, as I've proven with Apple's own confirmation, and I've shown that the 42mm watch screen fits perfectly into a comparable round model without the frame bezel, as well as the 38mm fitting inside it with the frame bezel.

Apple has intentionally compromised the functionality of their displays with an inordinately large frame bezel. And they have offered a 38mm version which shrinks the screen even further, all for aesthetics of design and style. Other than being able to fit the electronics inside the watch, I don't see shrinking it another 2mm making much of a difference to offer an even smaller "average women's-sized" watch option. Nor do I see them limiting themselves to making a larger watch for fashion purposes.

However you choose to see my photoshopped examples, the point remains that it's possible to create a compromise that is at least as sufficient as the options Apple has chosen to offer. But since you resorted to calling me a cheater and dumb, it's clear what your agenda is, so no need to discuss it further.

 

[Banich2]

I know many here are keen on saying again and again how round is no good for text, and text gets cut off.

However, upon some quick photoshopping on my part the watch as it is now, you may be surprised.

If say the Apple watch had minimal bezel around the screen.
Let's say like a Moto360, and still kept the exact same sized text and graphics is does now.

You may be shocked to see how little physical size difference there would be, to keep all on screen text exactly the same, and when round it actually offers MORE screen real estate to display more text/graphics in, for a watch that is not really any larger at all.

And, if I am brutally honest, I would prefer, myself, the version on the right.

They are both to same scale, no cheating, just changing the screen shape and bezel size.

Image

There is absolutely no reason to make the watch round.