The MacRumors Show: Can Google Finally Beat Apple With Pixel Watch?

[cocky jeremy]

I wear a 38mm Rolex Oyster Perpetual. It is not "dainty" for my wrist size, it is a classic vintage, timeless size.

What good is it without the time?

 

[vikingjunior]

They should've called it the Nexus watch and bring back Hangouts. Google makes drastic changes for the sake of just making changes.

 

[BeatsBeats]

Next clickbait title:

"How Pixel finally beat the iPhone!!"

 

[AgeOfSpiracles]

The Pixel watch is a Fitbit to all intense and purposes

Bone apple tea.

 

[radus]

I use the apple watch ultra mainly for payment and time.

So I ordered the pixel 7 pro and the google watch.
The camera of the pixel 7 pro seems far superior to the iphone 14 pro.

If the google watch can do that I will keep the google watch and the pixel 7 pro.
May be I use it side by side to the iPhone or I will sell the apple waste.

 

[dk001]

Personally I think the headline is asking a nonsense question.

This is, IMO, the new gen Fitbit under the Pixel name.
Stylish but won't replace my AW.

If it had significantly better battery life I might give it a try.

 

[chivkea]

No, it will just be a another project that gets cancelled like everything else they do.

 

[rjohnstone]

The whole premis here is just click bait.
Neither device works on the other's platform, so by that very definition, they are NOT competitors.
AW won't work with Android and Pixel Watch won't work with iOS. So the question posed is moot.

 

[Wildkraut]

Simple answer no

Meanwhile on AudiRumors
Q: Can BMW finally beat Audi with BMW X7?
A: Simple answer no

Meanwhile on BMWRumors
Q: Can Audi finally beat BMW with Audi Q8?
A: Simple answer no

 

[ackmondual]

Why does Google (or anyone else) have to beat Apple (or another company)? As long as a company offers a solid product that people want and buy, that's enough to keep other companies on their toes to try to improve and innovate.

That's how we got the Apple Watch Ultra. People (i.e. serious athletes) were buying Garmin watches like the Fenix because the regular Apple Watch didn't offer what Garmin had.

For me, I still primarily buy on price. If the Pixel Watch is $200 or less (doubt it though), or if it discounts to that point later on (probably wait a year or 2), then I'm in! It's a main reason I stuck with Android (that, and I genuinely do like to use Android). However, I will admit buying a new phone has gotten better since I upped my budget from $300 to $500. Ditto with my iPad... I was in the market for a new tablet, figured I'd get an iPad since I still have a lot of apps I purchased on my previous iPad (Air, 1st gen from 2013) and iPod Touches (3rd to 5th gens), but mainly I could get one in new condition, and latest gen (9th) for just $300 (no way I'm paying more than that for a tablet).

That said, iPhone rakes the lion's share of profits for phones, but its competitors are still doing well enough for themselves. Indeed this is a good thing for Apple fans b/c if Apple were to become a monopoly, you can bet they would stagnate (and become even more and more like the big brother they mocked in their 1984 TV commercial).

 

[ackmondual]

$80 a year for advanced fitness features? No thanks.
I know it does more than Apple offers, but at least Apple gives you all their fitness stuff for the purchase of the watch.

Fitness+ still requires a subscription doesn't it? It's $10/month, or $80 per year, or part of Apple One premier. Unless you were referring to more basics, in which case, perhaps elaboration may be in order.

I've learned in life never to buy something solely for price. In this case, the Apple Ecosystem is so refined, it is worth a little more money for the better experience.

I can get on board for "a little more money". We're talking an extra few hundred $'s for a phone. However, when it's more than double (+$500), that's when I tap out.

 

[satchmo]

I wear a 38mm Rolex Oyster Perpetual. It is not "dainty" for my wrist size, it is a classic vintage, timeless size.

It's less about size, but the overall look. I define dainty as delicate, elegant, perhaps feminine (although it's frowned upon to describe anything gender based today).

I wouldn't refer to a Rolex Oyster as dainty. And agreed, 38mm is a timeless size. My watches are mostly 38mm with the odd 39 or 40mm.

 

[tridley68]

I say it will flop they are too late in the game Apple and Samsung have already saturated the market.

 

[mike2q]

Google makes garbage hardware period. I'll never understand why people think there is anything special or pure about Google products just because they are the lead developer for the Android project. If Google had any sense they'd step back and let Samsung take the hardware reigns for good. Samsung has some of the best industrial design in the business and has done a 180 in the software department from their poor showing in years past. All Google is doing is cheapening their own brand with this discount looking toy. The design just reaks of best intentions meeting internal compromise and budget constraints.

 

[Devin Breeding]

round screens for UI is just hard, not saying impossible but you have to change up the general way people interact with information. information layout favors squares

Swipe left, right, up and down are all possible with a circle or square.

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

Simple answer no

Simple answer, yes.

Long answer, Apple is so behind software wise that anything that google releases will be a breath of fresh air.

 

[Cameront9]

Fitness+ still requires a subscription doesn't it? It's $10/month, or $80 per year, or part of Apple One premier. Unless you were referring to more basics, in which case, perhaps elaboration may be in order.


I can get on board for "a little more money". We're talking an extra few hundred $'s for a phone. However, when it's more than double (+$500), that's when I tap out.

Fitness+ is literally just workout videos that have your metrics on the screen. It's not like Fitbit Premium where it literally locks functionality of the device behind a paywall.

 

[buddhistMonkey]

Not sure why round faces get such push back. A lot of people like them, WearOS was designed to accommodate both styles, and if you primarily use your watch with round face optimized apps its really not a big deal.

Take a square and inscribe a circle within it; then, inscribe a square within the circle. It will look like this. The inner square represents roughly the area on a round watch where text information can be displayed, while the outer square is the area of a square watch. It turns out that the inner square has half the area of the outer square, meaning that an Apple Watch can display twice as much information onscreen as a Pixel watch of the same dimensions. Yes, that's no big deal if your needs are simple, but Apple Watch apps will always have the advantage over Pixel apps because they have double the screen real estate to work with.

 

[fwmireault]

Google will definitely not beat Apple with this new watch, but I hope that this extra competition will push apple to give more exciting upgrades to the Apple Watch. Except the Ultra, not much happened in the past 3 years

 

[dk001]

Take a square and inscribe a circle within it; then, inscribe a square within the circle. It will look like this. The inner square represents roughly the area on a round watch where text information can be displayed, while the outer square is the area of a square watch. It turns out that the inner square has half the area of the outer square, meaning that an Apple Watch can display twice as much information onscreen as a Pixel watch of the same dimensions. Yes, that's no big deal if your needs are simple, but Apple Watch apps will always have the advantage over Pixel apps because they have double the screen real estate to work with.

When I look at me Garmin Fenix, the area for display looks more like this: and maps will fill the entire circle.
I suspect we will see something similar , excluding the bezels, on the Pixel watch - at least based on the very few examples seen.

 

[darngooddesign]

Take a square and inscribe a circle within it; then, inscribe a square within the circle. It will look like this. The inner square represents roughly the area on a round watch where text information can be displayed, while the outer square is the area of a square watch. It turns out that the inner square has half the area of the outer square, meaning that an Apple Watch can display twice as much information onscreen as a Pixel watch of the same dimensions. Yes, that's no big deal if your needs are simple, but Apple Watch apps will always have the advantage over Pixel apps because they have double the screen real estate to work with.

From my post you responded to:

"...and if you primarily use your watch with round face optimized apps, or Google Assistant which is better than Siri, it's really not a big deal."

 

[dk001]

From my post you responded to:

"...and if you primarily use your watch with round face optimized apps, or Google Assistant which is better than Siri, it's really not a big deal."

This is likely the start of Google "functionality" and a preview to what can be accomplished by future updates from OEM's. I was impressed with the interaction/functionality between the devices and the users to the point I was not really even paying attention to the technical specs (other than battery life ).

 

[buddhistMonkey]

From my post you responded to:

"...and if you primarily use your watch with round face optimized apps, or Google Assistant which is better than Siri, it's really not a big deal."

I addressed that. I wrote: "Yes, that's no big deal if your needs are simple… ."

 

[Stiksi]

Take a square and inscribe a circle within it; then, inscribe a square within the circle. It will look like this. The inner square represents roughly the area on a round watch where text information can be displayed, while the outer square is the area of a square watch. It turns out that the inner square has half the area of the outer square, meaning that an Apple Watch can display twice as much information onscreen as a Pixel watch of the same dimensions. Yes, that's no big deal if your needs are simple, but Apple Watch apps will always have the advantage over Pixel apps because they have double the screen real estate to work with.

Sure if reading blocks of text is what you mainly do on a watch, square is better. But claiming the AW can display twice as much info on the screen is just plain hyperbole. A round screen needs a different layout but most info that you use on a watch is max 3 words and mostly it’s a couple numbers. The layout for that kind of data is way more flexible and round can end up being better case by case.

Couple that with Apple’s iron grip on what you get to display as a complication and how you display it, the situation gets much more complicated… The amount of data you can fit on a screen matters very little if you aren’t allowed to do so. Personally I wouldn’t get a biometric measuring device from Google, but I’m not completely happy with how little Apple lets me do with my AW.

 

[buddhistMonkey]

When I look at me Garmin Fenix, the area for display looks more like this: and maps will fill the entire circle.

I was talking about text information, but even so, an Apple Watch can display 27% more map information than the Garmin. Care to illustrate how a Garmin looks displaying lists?