Actually, yes since the "one small area" is asymmetric. Even when the Apple Watch bezel is prominent it looks like more of a frame, while the Moto 360 "flat tire" looks like there is something "wrong" with the display. Huawei has done a better job of concealing the bezel than Motorola.
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.
Square vs Round Screen - Edited image is surprising
- Thread starter Piggie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, yes since the "one small area" is asymmetric. Even when the Apple Watch bezel is prominent it looks like more of a frame, while the Moto 360 "flat tire" looks like there is something "wrong" with the display. Huawei has done a better job of concealing the bezel than Motorola.
And yet it doesn't:
![url]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.appleinsider.com%2Fcontent%2Ftype%2F61%2Fid%2F57799%2F%5DImage%5B%2Furl%5D&hash=2e11a43d70adde7989bae8f4b884d1d2)
The 42 mm round watch hardware is 4 mm wider than the AW 42 mm.
That's not relevant to everyone. The same thing could be said of square watches versus round watches, and despite square watches being narrower, they are not as popular as the wider round watches.
I would agree. In fact that's what the New Yorker article says it is -- a conscious choice to frame the UI. The fact is, edgeless display technology is available. In fact it is available from one of Apple's display suppliers, Sharp. Who knows how expensive that implementation would have been on the Watch? But it certainly solves the bezel problem, assuming it wasn't a compromise between cost and a pure aesthetic that really didn't work as well putting rectangles inside the round rectangle design of the watch case.
Another thing, is why would the frame bezel be almost twice as thick as that used on the iPhone if the idea was to minimize the frame bezel as much as possible, if not an aesthetic choice? The Asus Zen doesn't have bezels as thick as the Watch, at least not the side bezels. So clearly Apple had a choice as they have suggested, and decide to go with a uniform frame at the expense of display real estate.
----------
Agreed. I like the idea behind this LG smart watch. I don't care for the execution, but otherwise, it solves the problem for at least the watch people and fashion conscious.
Someone suggested somewhere that they would like to see the bezel functional, whichI think would be great. It could actually rotate and become a horizontal digital crown, serving the same function, but in an iPod sort of way. Or make it virtual, and simply moving your finger around the ring would likewise scroll the display -- just like the iPod click wheel which is an incredibly intuitive interface.
Yeah same here.
LG watch does look okay when it is not on a wrist but the size seems a bit off.
However, it's an LG product so you really don't expect it to be better.
It has been leaked. Samsung has a round watch with bezel interaction that will be announced in Sept. I talked about this sort of interaction a month or two ago and feel that this is the proper execution for a watch UI, not a digital crown (which we are now seeing as to why the crown is not the best decision.)
What I see is that's your interpretation of the problem Apple was wrestling with. I on the other hand interpret this as the problem they were having:
In other words how to represent the UI inside the round-rect case they designed.
I've already demonstrated that the technology for edgeless displays already existed from one of Apple's own display suppliers. I've further demonstrated that whatever the physical restrictions of the display they ultimately decided to use, that Apple imposed a more significant frame bezel around their display than was necessary by technological limitations, as an aesthetic choice, and the quotes support that.
Indeed the Watch resembles the original iPad much more closely than any other current Apple product. But even the original iPad had thinner frame bezels than the Watch, to say nothing of the current iPad Air, mini, and iPhones 7 iPods. Since there's no technical reason why this has to be, it's clearly a stylistic choice.
Last edited:
The digital crown is fine. The bezel interaction essentially locks Samsung into the round form factor. I'm not sure I agree with you that it's better than a digital crown. I don't see myself zooming in and out on such a small screen, and it's easier to move a crown up and down.
Except when the crown gets full of sweat and grime and sticks requiring cleaning to work properly again. Or if you are wearing gloves.
Round form factor with bezel actuation is really the best solution for a UI. You have ease of use (gloves or no gloves, makes no difference), the screen isn't obstructed while being used, fine scrolling can now be achieved and it leaves room on the side of a watch for a home button (Touch ID even?)
I just wish it wasn't Samsung developing this watch. It will most likely be stuck using Tizen or require you to use one of their phones. I hate both of those scenarios.
I agree. And as I pointed out earlier, using the bezel this way as a controller is no different than using a click wheel on the iPod. The only difference is, the select button is on the side, and the display is in the center. Actually, the bezel could also be a push selection button as well. So if you frame it in those terms, Apple did originate the bezel control with the iPod and therefore Samsung stole it from Apple as usual.
As far as forcing you to use one of their phones, the general tide seems to be leaning toward making the devices cross compatible. Samsung may be the last holdout here, but they do already have iPhone Apps for various products like their TVs, so there's hope, even if you have to jailbreak the watch. But you may still end up being stuck with Tizen.
I disagree. I don't like the round UI. It doesn't make sense for a display. We'll see how well the bezel actuation works, but until we see it, it just sounds like they are doing something to be "different." It actually obstructs the screen more, as I assume the touchscreen isn't going away (nor should it). Touch ID seems superfluous, since it is already always in contact with your skin.
----------
I am a bit surprised. I'd have thought they would have made a smaller version. Perhaps they are figuring that "bigger is better" because it worked for phones. They seem to be gunning more at Android Wear than Apple (since they are copying Android watches more so than Apple this time around).
I don't know why anyone would dispute the digital crown claiming that it always gets stuck because of grime. This issue is only in select users and it isn't even wide spread. I guess some people have to grab onto any bit of bad PR the AW gets despite how small it is.
Also whose to say the bezel dial isn't going to get slowed down with grime either? It is probably more susceptible due to larger surface area.
Also whose to say the bezel dial isn't going to get slowed down with grime either? It is probably more susceptible due to larger surface area.
On the contrary, some of us have wanted a round smartwatch with a bezel input for years.
It just cries out for being used with aviation and other transportation applications
Or the rumor is wrong. Or it goes edge to edge and is thus not any bigger than the Moto 360 case. Or it is big, and they're aiming for the big watch market in their own neck of the woods.
Nobody can directly compete in the Apple watch market since Apple has kept some APIs to themselves.
As for copying, I don't think Samsung non-Wear watches are anything like Android Wear. Certainly the UIs on the Gear, the Fit and the S aren't, and the latter two are unique looking as well.
Or did you simply mean being round?
1.65" is 41.91mm. In other words, the watch is actually smaller than the large Watch's height, and on the average side for the width of most men's and large women's watches.
This is what they were thinking -- from a watch aficionado blog:
Nobody yet has provided a good reason why round is better other than aesthetics. I don't want text cut off for the sake of aesthetics. Or designers having to come up with less than ideal layouts just to fit a square inside a circle. And if the screen is going to allow me to swipe then I want a smooth surface which you don't get with round watches using hardware bezels. Hardware bezels are fine on a traditional watch where you're not interacting with the display at all.
Nobody yet has provided a good reason why round is better other than aesthetics. I don't want text cut off for the sake of aesthetics. Or designers having to come up with less than ideal layouts just to fit a square inside a circle. And if the screen is going to allow me to swipe then I want a smooth surface which you don't get with round watches using hardware bezels. Hardware bezels are fine on a traditional watch where you're not interacting with the display at all.
This picture shows what's wrong with lists on round screens. However shows how they can be done right.
On a round screen the main problem with a list is that until the item gets to the middle of the screen the beginning of the text and maybe the end will be cut off. However if you fake a rectangle in there, see the bottom right picture, this problem is solved.
Even better would be then to turn the area outside of the rectangle off (or black) when not needed.
Then lists and texts can be rectangular as they should be but the full round face can be used when it works better (clock faces, etc)
Apparently that might be the outer diameter, which is pretty small at 42mm, compared to 46mm for the Moto 360 or LG Watch R cases.
According to various sites, the display itself is 1.13" or 30mm, at 305 PPI. (The LGWR's display is about 32mm and the Moto about 40mm.)
If true, then it's actually smaller than any other round watch so far, with a higher resolution screen.