Square vs Round Screen - Edited image is surprising

[kdarling]

Nobody yet has provided a good reason why round is better other than aesthetics.

Seriously? According to Apple, aesthetics are a huge part of the attraction.

Traditionally, round watches outsell rectangular watches by a ratio of at least 9:1.

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.

Same goes for fitting a circle within a square. Watchfaces, radar weather maps, compasses, circular graphs... they all work better in a circle.

See post 209 above for images that show that, and why even text is okay.

Remember, this isn't meant to replace a phone. If it were, then you'd buy a Samsung S with its huge display instead.

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.

In real life, swiping from the bezel is not a problem. Not even a tiny bit.

In fact, the slightly raised bezel on the LGWR helps protect the display from accidental touches and damage from direct on hits.

 

[Mac 128]

Seriously? According to Apple, aesthetics are a huge part of the attraction.

Remember, this isn't meant to replace a phone. If it were, then you'd buy a Samsung S with its huge display instead.

In real life, swiping from the bezel is not a problem. Not even a tiny bit.

In fact, the slightly raised bezel on the LGWR helps protect the display from accidental touches and damage from direct on hits.

People keep forgetting that Apple is going out of its way to please the fashion world with the launch of this watch, and they wouldn't do that if they didn't care about perceived aesthetics by its customers. Jony Ive has said once people wear a product they have the expectation of choice. Watches are the epitome of this as people don't like to wear the exact same thing, and interchangeable watch bands isn't going to offer enough variety when everyone has the exact same black rectangle on their wrists.

Jony Ive is also on record as having said that the watch is intended for quick glances, anything more and you pull out your phone. This idea of accommodating all these lengthy lists and text is absolutely not what the watch was designed for. While I agree with him that for the first generation model, with all the challenges it presents for developers it didn't make sense to put text lists in a round display. Apple needs more time to develop the perfect round UI, and show developers how to do it properly, to the extent they insist on offering these features, otherwise it will end up like the other round displays with cut off text.

And finally, you're absolutely right ... I've never owned a watch where the crystal wasn't flush with the top of the case, even recessed from the bezel. Apple has published that the thickness of its watch is the height of the case only, not inclusive of its bezel or bottom ceramics. This is decidedly odd, since watches are measured inclusive of these attributes, and it makes the watch seem slimmer than the Moto and other smart watches, which it isn't. But it also helps explain the mindset for me that moving the crystal entirely outside of the watch helps create more room to fit all the electronics in the smaller profile case, with the trade off that the crystal is far more exposed to damage than almost any other watch a person could buy for the money.

As for swiping a bezel, I'm not sure how that is any more problematic than using Apple's digital crown -- your finger has to come off the display either way. Apple invented modern dial navigation in the form of the iPod click wheel, an incredibly intuitive device that worked flawlessly for scrolling through the iPod. Apple may have committed themselves to the digital crown to much to go back, but they will most certainly go round, if for no other reason than fashion choice, sooner than later.

And by the way, I've demonstrated several ways in which the round watch face is superior to the square, depending on application, allowing more text in lists without sacrificing size and unrelated information like time and date, to larger viewing area for photos and other graphics. Some people just refuse to accept this. The fact is the watch is a compromise with either shape, and it boils down to how aversion will actually use the watch. My bet is Jony Ive was right, people will find they glance at the watch for quick bits of information, not anylizing lengthty lists and texts. Apple even seems to acknowledge this by the contacts app -- you're limited to a dozen friends which are arranged in a circle. Anybody else you want to contact from your contacts and you will need to pull out your phone or use Siri -- there's no endlessly scrolling list of all the contacts in your phone. Telling.

 

[solarguy17]

I have got my AW yet but when they announced my first thought was the digital crown is not a good idea. I'm surprised they took a step backwards with that. I feel like the rotating bezel rumored for the new Gear is also a step back.
Mehta might have been a cleaner and better solution would have been a touch sensitive side so you could slide your finger up and down the side of the watch (not the face or bezel) to get the scrolling motion the crown uses. The Gear could do the same thing, slide around the face to replicate the rotating bezel.
Basically anything to get rid of the mechanical aspect of the watch to improve its durability it desirable.

 

[Rogifan]

I have got my AW yet but when they announced my first thought was the digital crown is not a good idea. I'm surprised they took a step backwards with that. I feel like the rotating bezel rumored for the new Gear is also a step back.
Mehta might have been a cleaner and better solution would have been a touch sensitive side so you could slide your finger up and down the side of the watch (not the face or bezel) to get the scrolling motion the crown uses. The Gear could do the same thing, slide around the face to replicate the rotating bezel.
Basically anything to get rid of the mechanical aspect of the watch to improve its durability it desirable.

I'm not sure whether it's a step backwards or not but I'm amazed at how many many people who are wetting themselves over these Gear rumors thought the digital crown was no big deal. Last time I checked rotating bezel isn't new. How different is this to the Nest thermostat or even the iPod click wheel? Also is this rotating bezel that much different from the digital crown in terms of what it does?

 

[Rogifan]

People keep forgetting that Apple is going out of its way to please the fashion world with the launch of this watch, and they wouldn't do that if they didn't care about perceived aesthetics by its customers. Jony Ive has said once people wear a product they have the expectation of choice. Watches are the epitome of this as people don't like to wear the exact same thing, and interchangeable watch bands isn't going to offer enough variety when everyone has the exact same black rectangle on their wrists.

Jony Ive is also on record as having said that the watch is intended for quick glances, anything more and you pull out your phone. This idea of accommodating all these lengthy lists and text is absolutely not what the watch was designed for. While I agree with him that for the first generation model, with all the challenges it presents for developers it didn't make sense to put text lists in a round display. Apple needs more time to develop the perfect round UI, and show developers how to do it properly, to the extent they insist on offering these features, otherwise it will end up like the other round displays with cut off text.

And finally, you're absolutely right ... I've never owned a watch where the crystal wasn't flush with the top of the case, even recessed from the bezel. Apple has published that the thickness of its watch is the height of the case only, not inclusive of its bezel or bottom ceramics. This is decidedly odd, since watches are measured inclusive of these attributes, and it makes the watch seem slimmer than the Moto and other smart watches, which it isn't. But it also helps explain the mindset for me that moving the crystal entirely outside of the watch helps create more room to fit all the electronics in the smaller profile case, with the trade off that the crystal is far more exposed to damage than almost any other watch a person could buy for the money.

As for swiping a bezel, I'm not sure how that is any more problematic than using Apple's digital crown -- your finger has to come off the display either way. Apple invented modern dial navigation in the form of the iPod click wheel, an incredibly intuitive device that worked flawlessly for scrolling through the iPod. Apple may have committed themselves to the digital crown to much to go back, but they will most certainly go round, if for no other reason than fashion choice, sooner than later.

And by the way, I've demonstrated several ways in which the round watch face is superior to the square, depending on application, allowing more text in lists without sacrificing size and unrelated information like time and date, to larger viewing area for photos and other graphics. Some people just refuse to accept this. The fact is the watch is a compromise with either shape, and it boils down to how aversion will actually use the watch. My bet is Jony Ive was right, people will find they glance at the watch for quick bits of information, not anylizing lengthty lists and texts. Apple even seems to acknowledge this by the contacts app -- you're limited to a dozen friends which are arranged in a circle. Anybody else you want to contact from your contacts and you will need to pull out your phone or use Siri -- there's no endlessly scrolling list of all the contacts in your phone. Telling.

I have yet to see anything you posted that is superior. But again we're not really dealing in hard facts here we're dealing in opinions (mine included). Just like some people prefer a more 'flat' design while others would choose a design with more shadows and textures. One isn't objectively better than the other.

But for sake of argument if we were to say a round display is objectively better for a smartwatch why didn't Apple go that route? It's not like Apple executives are strangers to traditional watches; Jony Ive said he has a large collection of them. And I highly doubt Apple designers and engineers wouldn't know how to build a round watch; if someone like Huawei can do it certainly Apple could. In my mind then it comes down to Apple really believing square is better from a UI standpoint.

As far as this comment:

Watches are the epitome of this as people don't like to wear the exact same thing, and interchangeable watch bands isn't going to offer enough variety when everyone has the exact same black rectangle on their wrists.

You're right but I don't see how Android OEM watches are any different, especially now that they're all going circular. Does LG's round watch really look that much different than Huawei's? Honestly I think Apple Watch might be the one that stands out precisely because it isn't round.

 

[kdarling]

I'm not sure whether it's a step backwards or not but I'm amazed at how many many people who are wetting themselves over these Gear rumors thought the digital crown was no big deal. Last time I checked rotating bezel isn't new. How different is this to the Nest thermostat or even the iPod click wheel? Also is this rotating bezel that much different from the digital crown in terms of what it does?

Bigger input device = possibly easier, finer control inputs. Plus usable with gloves on, which is a big deal in a lot of the country.

For myself, I have always wanted an electronic watch with a rotating bezel input, because of the possibilities of making aviation apps that mimic the traditional round E6B flight computer (slide rule), but with bigger numbers and better visualizations.

I have yet to see anything you posted that is superior. But again we're not really dealing in hard facts here we're dealing in opinions (mine included).

Sure. Everyone knows it's just opinions. If someone prefers square to round, that's fine. And vice versa.

Besides, this is nothing. Wait until Apple offers a round version in a year or two. Yikes! Just imagine the forum arguments that will occur amongst Apple Watch owners! It'll make the just-as-bogus bigger screen debates look like child's play

But for sake of argument if we were to say a round display is objectively better for a smartwatch why didn't Apple go that route?

Rounded rectangles made them rich, so that's what they stick to.

Honestly I think Apple Watch might be the one that stands out precisely because it isn't round.

Yeah, sticks out like it was designed in the 1980s. My opinion, of course. Also applies to any square Android watches.

 

[WayneHixson]

And by the way, I've demonstrated several ways in which the round watch face is superior to the square, depending on application, allowing more text in lists without sacrificing size and unrelated information like time and date, to larger viewing area for photos and other graphics. Some people just refuse to accept this. The fact is the watch is a compromise with either shape, and it boils down to how aversion will actually use the watch. My bet is Jony Ive was right, people will find they glance at the watch for quick bits of information, not anylizing lengthty lists and texts. Apple even seems to acknowledge this by the contacts app -- you're limited to a dozen friends which are arranged in a circle. Anybody else you want to contact from your contacts and you will need to pull out your phone or use Siri -- there's no endlessly scrolling list of all the contacts in your phone. Telling.

But you were comparing Apples (haha) and Oranges! You didn't just compare round with rectangular, you compared a round watch with small bezel to a rectangular watch WITH a bezel. As well you were comparing a LARGER round watch in that it is significantly wider than the rectangular (not square) AW. You should compare a hypothetical round 42mm watch with small bezel to a hypothetical SQUARE watch with small bezel and that is 42mm x 42mm. You'll find that the square watch will display MUCH more in that it's usable area is 1765 sq mm to the round watch's 1385 sq mm.

 

[KPOM]

Bigger input device = possibly easier, finer control inputs. Plus usable with gloves on, which is a big deal in a lot of the country.

Besides, this is nothing. Wait until Apple offers a round version in a year or two. Yikes! Just imagine the forum arguments that will occur amongst Apple Watch owners! It'll make the just-as-bogus bigger screen debates look like child's play


Yeah, sticks out like it was designed in the 1980s. My opinion, of course. Also applies to any square Android watches.

How do we know that the rotating bezel would work with gloves? I think it will be like the iPod click wheel in later generations, which was touch-driven and did not move.

I think Apple would only release a round watch if they think they are leaving significant sales on the table.

 

[D.T.]

Yeah, sticks out like it was designed in the 1980s. My opinion, of course.

You ordered an Apple Watch though, right?

Side note: if in the the last 30 days, you wore khakis, Teva sandals, a belt with shorts and any PEs clipped to it (not necessarily at the same time) ... your opinion doesn't count

 

[Bromeo]

Bigger input device = possibly easier, finer control inputs. Plus usable with gloves on, which is a big deal in a lot of the country.

For myself, I have always wanted an electronic watch with a rotating bezel input, because of the possibilities of making aviation apps that mimic the traditional round E6B flight computer (slide rule), but with bigger numbers and better visualizations.

As a private pilot myself, that's an interesting idea. The digital crown on the Apple Watch could be used in a similar fashion. ForeFlight is already exploring uses for the AW. I use Sporty's E6B on my iPad Mini in flight, and entering numbers in turbulence on a touch screen can be a challenge, but it sure is a better interface that the old-school E6B slide rule, which I think only hangs around as a rite of passage, sort of like decoding METARs and TAFs.

Sure. Everyone knows it's just opinions. If someone prefers square to round, that's fine. And vice versa.

Besides, this is nothing. Wait until Apple offers a round version in a year or two. Yikes! Just imagine the forum arguments that will occur amongst Apple Watch owners! It'll make the just-as-bogus bigger screen debates look like child's play

Rounded rectangles made them rich, so that's what they stick to.

This thread is hilarious. It's like watching people debate which regional sport franchise is the best... or worse, which religion to ascribe to.

Yeah, sticks out like it was designed in the 1980s. My opinion, of course. Also applies to any square Android watches.

Not that round watches look like they were designed in the 1890's... touché, my friend.

In all seriousness, I have both the Apple Watch and a Moto 360. For me, I prefer the fit and look of the Apple Watch. I have narrow wrists, and the Moto 360 looks like a strapped a clock or Boy Scout's compass to my wrist. The Moto 360 is actually too wide in both directions and causes discomfort when I bend my wrist backwards such that the pushbutton then contacts the back of my hand and I feel pressure. Someone with larger wrists would likely not have this issue.

Beyond that, for fans of analog watch faces, it's hard to beat the round screen on the Moto 360. The flat tire needs to go away, but it was a necessary evil to accommodate the ambient light sensor, which I would not want to be without. Flying or driving at night and having a non-light-sensitive watch light up to full brightness is a major distraction (and battery hog). I've seen that problem on other Android Wear/Tizen watches.

For digital watch faces, the rectangular display is fine. Information is organized with no wasted space or cut off text as on my Moto 360.

All this bickering about Apple intentionally adding a bezel for stylistic effect or not is moot. We have what we have. These are giant corporations making tough decisions that we only can guess at. I suspect the bezel on the Apple Watch is a necessary compromise, for now. At least the ambient light sensor is underneath the display, not in the bezel, so the potential is there, someday, to have a full-bleed display, assuming the curved edges of the crystal don't distort the resulting image.

By "avoiding the edges" in the UI, which means a black background, circular and rounded-rectangle elements, the black frame/bezel is indistinguishable and provides breathing space around the UI content. Thus the developer guidelines to put your text right up to the edge - the "black space" is built into the watch. Black backgrounds also use less power on an OLED screen. Two birds with one stone.

Undoubtedly Apple had many working/non-working prototypes of the Watch. They worked on it for three years, and it was probably being brainstormed well before then. Round, square, rectangular, and who knows how many size variations. Ultimately, what we have now won out, for now. Who knows what they are working on already.

 

[kdarling]

How do we know that the rotating bezel would work with gloves? I think it will be like the iPod click wheel in later generations, which was touch-driven and did not move.

Anything is possible, but this image from the Samsung SDK seems to show grippy grooves around the outside of the ring, which a touch bezel likely would not have. Whatcha think?



Of course, perhaps that was an image of an earlier version.

Hey wait a sec. I just noticed it also has a crown in that photo. In fact, it's the same basic design as Samsung's 2006 patent for a watch with rotating bezel and digital crown:



Interesting. Wonder if they will keep both the bezel and the crown. Or did they decide to not use the crown, simply because Apple now has done the same type of input on their watch, only eight years later.

I think Apple would only release a round watch if they think they are leaving significant sales on the table.

I agree. The same as happened with ~7" tablets and ~5" phones.

A lot depends on if Apple allows Google to do a nice Android Wear app.

You ordered an Apple Watch though, right?

Yep. I've also had a fair share of rectangular smartwatches that preceded it. And I'm sure I'll have more rectangular and round watches in the future.

Probably never have triangular though, nor octagonal like something from BSG

 

[WayneHixson]

And finally, you're absolutely right ... I've never owned a watch where the crystal wasn't flush with the top of the case, even recessed from the bezel.

My Citizen EcoDrive sapphire crystal protrudes above the bezel as does the one on my Rolex DateJust. Not uncommon.

 

[D.T.]

Probably never have triangular though, nor octagonal like something from BSG

Oh geez, we need a BSG "skin" or theme ASAP Well, er, not yet, I'm in order limbo

 

[kdarling]

Oh geez, we need a BSG "skin" or theme ASAP Well, er, not yet, I'm in order limbo

Interestingly, old show Apollo (and Adama) wore then-super-cool rectangular Hughes pushbutton LED display calculator watches:



Re-imagined BSG Apollo wore this octagonal cased watch with traditional round face:



Hmm. 12 hour watch? Didn't they use centons or something?

 

[D.T.]

Hmm. 12 hour watch? Didn't they use centons or something?

Probably just some old legacy tech, like using corded phones on the bridge.

 

[Steve99]

Apple took the easy way out when they engineered a square watch. They did a great job of what they did make, not saying it isn't a fine piece of engineering but making a round smart watch is significantly more difficult.

If nobody had made a smart watch yet and there was a poll taken about what kind of watch Apple would make I think more people would pick Apple to make the round watch. They would also think the other companies would make boring square watches as it is much easier/cheaper to engineer.

For reading email a square may be better but in terms of aesthetics the round watch wins the day.

I really think Apple missed the boat on this one. I would have loved to see what they could engineer with a round watch.

 

[dannyyankou]

Mechanical watches and smartwatches serve completely different purposes. Round makes sense for a mechanical watch, if you want to read text in the most efficient way possible rectangular makes sense. Yes, you can fix this problem by doing what the OP did and make it round and bigger, but not everyone wants a big watch.

 

[chabig]

I really think Apple missed the boat on this one. I would have loved to see what they could engineer with a round watch.

Yes, they did take the easy way out. All of the design and engineering work put into the round iPhone and round iPad were completely wasted. /s

 

[Mac 128]

In my mind then it comes down to Apple really believing square is better from a UI standpoint.

In my mind, it came down to Apple believing square is 'easier' from a UI standpoint, which is better for a first gen product that intends to do far more than any other smartwatch on the market, and no one is really sure how it will be used. Let's say Jony Ive figured out it was going to take him longer than Apple's target launch date to do the round interface correctly, and based on the the competition's offerings so far, I'd agree with him. With the square watch out of the way and in the developers hands, he's free to apply everything they learned about building the easier square design, and apply them to the much harder to do round display.

 

[mightyjabba]

If nobody had made a smart watch yet and there was a poll taken about what kind of watch Apple would make I think more people would pick Apple to make the round watch.

Maybe, but if you did a similar survey before the iPhone came out, everyone would have wanted a physical keyboard on their smartphone.

 

[Mac 128]

But you were comparing Apples (haha) and Oranges! You didn't just compare round with rectangular, you compared a round watch with small bezel to a rectangular watch WITH a bezel. As well you were comparing a LARGER round watch in that it is significantly wider than the rectangular (not square) AW. You should compare a hypothetical round 42mm watch with small bezel to a hypothetical SQUARE watch with small bezel and that is 42mm x 42mm. You'll find that the square watch will display MUCH more in that it's usable area is 1765 sq mm to the round watch's 1385 sq mm.

I was comparing a standard 42mm round watch with Apple's 42mm rectangular watch. Yes Apple's watch is narrower than the round watch, but the round watch is the average size for a round watch. I don't need to compare it with a smaller watch because that's what people are already used to. Also, I demonstrated that the 38mm Watch display fits perfectly inside a 42mm round watch WITH the bezel. I demonstrated the 42mm Watch display fits within a 42mm round watch without Apple's artificially thick bezel, as I demonstrated and which technology exists, as I showed with Sharp's edgeless display. I'm talking about a future Apple design, not the current state of affairs.

 

[KPOM]

I was comparing a standard 42mm round watch with Apple's 42mm rectangular watch. Yes Apple's watch is narrower than the round watch, but the round watch is the average size for a round watch. I don't need to compare it with a smaller watch because that's what people are already used to. Also, I demonstrated that the 38mm Watch display fits perfectly inside a 42mm round watch WITH the bezel. I demonstrated the 42mm Watch display fits within a 42mm round watch without Apple's artificially thick bezel, as I demonstrated and which technology exists, as I showed with Sharp's edgeless display. I'm talking about a future Apple design, not the current state of affairs.

42mm is actually a large watch. Historically 38mm was a men's watch size, and even 34-36mm were common for men's watches. The 42mm "standard" is only in the last decade or so.

 

[Mac 128]

My Citizen EcoDrive sapphire crystal protrudes above the bezel as does the one on my Rolex DateJust. Not uncommon.

I don't know about your particular Rolex Datejust, but I'm sure it doesn't protrude as much as the Watch, in which the whole crystal sits atop the case with no protective edges. I also have a Citizen EcoDrive and the crystal does protrude slightly, less than a millimeter perhaps, but the bulk of it sits below the bezel. And it's survived the test of time and abuse, having dropped it on it's face more than once, flung off my wrist when a link pin broke, been run over by a car wheel, dropped from heights, etc.

While a slight protrusion may not be uncommon, certainly a sapphire crystal with fully exposed edges is not common.

----------

42mm is actually a large watch. Historically 38mm was a men's watch size, and even 34-36mm were common for men's watches. The 42mm "standard" is only in the last decade or so.

Well we're kinda talking about the current standard.

Many watch people have reviewed the Apple watch as being small, and that's because Apple's 42mm is height only, while only being 36mm wide. The 38mm is only 33mm wide -- that's small even by the historical standard.

 

[Rogifan]

In my mind, it came down to Apple believing square is 'easier' from a UI standpoint, which is better for a first gen product that intends to do far more than any other smartwatch on the market, and no one is really sure how it will be used. Let's say Jony Ive figured out it was going to take him longer than Apple's target launch date to do the round interface correctly, and based on the the competition's offerings so far, I'd agree with him. With the square watch out of the way and in the developers hands, he's free to apply everything they learned about building the easier square design, and apply them to the much harder to do round display.

If round takes off and Apple finds people are buying other watches because they prefer a round display then I think Apple will go there. We don't have evidence of that yet. As I said before I don think for one second an LG Urbane is going to be mistaken for a higher-end traditional watch no matter how much they try to mimic the real thing with round displays and heavily skeuomorphic analog watch faces. So I don't think we know that round will become the preferred choice (I still think smartwatches are going to appeal more to those who don't currently wear a watch or at least don't wear an expensive one). Also I think the taptic engine is a big part of the Apple Watch experience so any design will have to be able to accommodate it space wise.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple took the easy way out when they engineered a square watch. They did a great job of what they did make, not saying it isn't a fine piece of engineering but making a round smart watch is significantly more difficult.

If nobody had made a smart watch yet and there was a poll taken about what kind of watch Apple would make I think more people would pick Apple to make the round watch. They would also think the other companies would make boring square watches as it is much easier/cheaper to engineer.

For reading email a square may be better but in terms of aesthetics the round watch wins the day.

I really think Apple missed the boat on this one. I would have loved to see what they could engineer with a round watch.

Apple often gets criticized for placing form over function. I find it amusing that with the Watch some of the criticism is the exact opposite. The only reason you gave for going round was aesthetics. On The Verge I saw a comment that said having some text cut off isn't a reason to go square. Again seems like form over function to me. As far as Apple taking the easy way out...in that Bloomberg piece on Tim Cook/Apple last year, Jony Ive said the Watch was the most difficult project he's ever worked on at Apple. So I'm guessing Apple engineers would quibble with the notion they took the easy route.