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.
What a New Design Could Mean for Apple Watch Series 4
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m another with a 4” phone and subaru. I intend to keep them forever, with my apple watch.
Especially since watches have been rectangular-or at least not round- for a long long time before Apple even existed. And as someone pointed out earlier, a round dial means either fewer letters being displayed or much smaller text size to make them fit on a round screen.
Not that that is the most important issue, but people who chose the 38mm already lose screen real estate over those who chose the 42mm.
And these examples suggest otherwise over the current Apple and Huawei models:
Even if the new display is enlarged, it's still going to be a tossup as to which actually has more screen real estate.
in equal size device, you get more space in a round watch, it just requires additional considerations on where to put the details.
People need to stop repeating this. I believe MAC 128 has shown the actual evidence and measurements in many different threads
edit: Mac 128 ninja'd me and posted exactly what post I was looking for
Thanks!
Maybe at some point in the future there will be a choice between square or round. For me though, a digital watch looks best square(ish) and an analogue watch round.
edit: one thing about a round watch would be the position of the digital crown. If it's at the 2/3/4 o'clock (or opposite) then it will protrude even further from the centre of the watch as it does now, and that means its going to be pressed/scrolled accidentally even more often (it annoys me when my music is suddenly turned up or down because i flexed my wrist)
edit: one thing about a round watch would be the position of the digital crown. If it's at the 2/3/4 o'clock (or opposite) then it will protrude even further from the centre of the watch as it does now, and that means its going to be pressed/scrolled accidentally even more often (it annoys me when my music is suddenly turned up or down because i flexed my wrist)
I don't want to that guy who says "you're wearing it wrong"... but, you're wearing it wrong. : )
in equal size device, you get more space in a round watch, it just requires additional considerations on where to put the details.
People need to stop repeating this. I believe MAC 128 has shown the actual evidence and measurements in many different threads
edit: Mac 128 ninja'd me and posted exactly what post I was looking for
Thanks!
Because people will design a bunch of apps with roundness in mind? I guess. It's easier to design rectangular or square apps... if round was super simple we'd all have round laptops with round screens.
Not sure if you truly believe that, or if you're intentionally being disingenous.
First: Laptops themselves are square first and foremost due to the history of display technologies. The ability for display companies to make round or other shaped displays besides rectangular is extremely new, within the last 4-5 years
Secondly. usable display space isn't the only consideration regarding creating a laptop. Other things that go into it's size consideration such as keyboard, trackpad, internal components such as batteries and boards.
Could a round display be implemented in a laptop that provides more usable space than a square one? Yes. But the other factors will likely keep us in square laptops for a long time.
Regarding the watch, many of those considerations aren't there. A round watch v Square watch doesn't fundamentally alter how the watch is worn. Both round and square watches fit pretty much the same on someones wrist. This means that given the same basic footprints of 38 or 42mm in sizing, the round watch tends to have more overall usable space.
However, that's really a silly conversation to have since ultimately for a watch, both round and square watches are historically considered normal. Shape of the device itself is personal preference. Many people who have worn watches their whole lives will have picked their shape of watch that they prefer. For myself, it's round watch. for others that might be a square watch.
What My comment was in regards to, was countering the incorrect statement that a square watch shows more on the display than a round one. This is untrue. There are more available pixels in the round watch at the same size than the square one. That is all i'm saying.
And yes, there are plenty of Apps on other ecosystems that have been designed around circular watche faces. Take a look at Samsung's Gear Sx series watches that have very very well done UI's and the Apps (although there are few of them) have been designed to work very well with round UI.
It's fascinating that the most iconic of square analogue watches never put the complications in the corners to prevent the hands from blocking them.
In many cases, analogue watches overcame the hands blocking the inner complications, to the extent it was a significant problem, by minimizing hand design, either in profile or by making the hands hollow.
With digital watches this is not even a significant problem. The hands could literally disappear as they move across an inside complication, leaving the base and top of the hand radiantly and unmistakably visible, with a faint outline or contrasted image of the hand. Indeed the wearer could chose any hands, or design approach or aesthetic they chose to suit their needs. Alternatively, a simple push of a button, or force touch gesture, could temporarily eliminate the hands if they happen to be blocking the complications with some design choices. In short, the placement of the complications is entirely rendered moot by digital as a design platform.
In many cases, analogue watches overcame the hands blocking the inner complications, to the extent it was a significant problem, by minimizing hand design, either in profile or by making the hands hollow.
With digital watches this is not even a significant problem. The hands could literally disappear as they move across an inside complication, leaving the base and top of the hand radiantly and unmistakably visible, with a faint outline or contrasted image of the hand. Indeed the wearer could chose any hands, or design approach or aesthetic they chose to suit their needs. Alternatively, a simple push of a button, or force touch gesture, could temporarily eliminate the hands if they happen to be blocking the complications with some design choices. In short, the placement of the complications is entirely rendered moot by digital as a design platform.
Not that that is the most important issue, but people who chose the 38mm already lose screen real estate over those who chose the 42mm.
And these examples suggest otherwise over the current Apple and Huawei models:
Even if the new display is enlarged, it's still going to be a tossup as to which actually has more screen real estate.
Confession: I'm not a fan of enormous, round watch faces.
[doublepost=1531852546][/doublepost]
My point is that digital info is more comfortably shared on a square or rectangular display. I'm not one of those people waxing poetic for a round watch, so if Apple ever invented one, I'm not sure I'd be first in line for it.
I preferred rectangular faces even before the Apple Watch existed.
[doublepost=1531852632][/doublepost]
You don't need a big smart watch. You do need more room on the display... the option for it, anyway. Depends on which apps you plan to use.
I preferred rectangular faces even before the Apple Watch existed.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say in any way that the reasons I like round should be yours at all. Other than how the watch looks, I've got no beefs with it.
Watches are like a piece of Jewelry to me. It's completely subjective what people are going to like regarding size, shape, or features of their watch. Heck, I even own a square dress watch. But for my day to day, I just prefer a nice larger round metallic watch.
However, while text does work best on a rectangular display, the things that some dev's have managed on round ones are quite good too. some of the watch face options are fantastic use of the space, and some of the apps have clever use of round interfaces.
I would love to see Apple's take on a round watch.
This is the first year I’m more interested to see what’s new and improved with the Apple Watch than the iphones.
Not that that is the most important issue, but people who chose the 38mm already lose screen real estate over those who chose the 42mm.
And these examples suggest otherwise over the current Apple and Huawei models:
Even if the new display is enlarged, it's still going to be a tossup as to which actually has more screen real estate.
The round watch has both a height and a width of 42 mm. The Apple Watch has a height of 42 but the width is less. Make both the height and width 42 mm and the square faced Apple watch would have a lot more useable area than the round faced watch, 1764 mm squared area for the rectangle vs. 1385.4 mm squared for a round watch. That’s an increase of 378.4 square mm of increased viewing area for a square watch.
There has to be a reason that Apple chose the length/width ratio that they did for the watch, but it wasn’t a mechanical design limitation. You would have more useable viewing area and a larger battery compartment if the width and height both had a 42 mm dimension. It’s probably customer preference. A large square watch may look awkward or feel uncomfortable compared to a rectangle that’s longer than it is wide. Even old non smart watches that are rectangular are narrower than they are long.
And if Apple had an edge to edge display just as the Huawei watch does, it would also have about the same area. But this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s based on actual products available in the wild. As I state in my post, should Apple increase the display area, it’s going to narrow the gap considerably, rectangle or square.
Nobody is debating the geometry lesson here. But I also don’t see anybody wanting a big thick square sitting on their wrist either to equalize the display area and battery life, something as you point out has been true for decades in analogue watches. That said, as the purpose of a wearable device changes the traditional wristwatch, you might actually see a cuff-type wrist computer that is wider than it is high. But then that’s a completely different device serving a completely different function.
And then there’s the role the watch plays in fashion. I posted an article recently about how analogue watches were a desirable fashion item to complete an outfit, with little regard to whether it can even tell time — if the user wants to tell time, they’ll pull out their phone. And that’s pretty much how I feel about it. Nobody needs an Apple Watch. As long as most people are carrying a phone, the watch is a luxurious convenience for most, and not a very attractive one, compared to traditional watches. When all the functions of the phone can fit on the watch, and people can wear contacts to replace the large screen display, that may change. And there may be giant screen watches in the interim, but I doubt you’ll see such an unattractive device ever dominate the market. Which brings me back to the practical reality of the current selection of wearables.
Based on the current dimensions available in the marketplace, most round watches of similar dimensions equal or exceed the display area of the Apple Watch, and that will likely be true even with an edge to edge display as long as Apple retains the same dimensions, which based on social and fashion conventions they likely will.
Analogue phones were banana shaped but not many people are wanting a banana shaped iPhone! (no Bendgate jokes please
This is another false equivalence, along with why there are no ‘round TVs’. A phone is not a watch. A TV is not a watch. You don’t wear either one of those items, and they perform completely different functions.
It's only a false equivalence in YOUR opinion! I never stated a phone is a watch or that a TV is a watch, but an Apple Watch isn't JUST a watch anyway either. You can use your Apple Watch as a phone, and at some point you will be able to use it for Dick Tracey style FaceTime (moving images like a TV).
Agree it might be interesting, but I do wonder if they're not making them because they have chosen their form factor and want the AW to be identifiable by shape and appearance from a distance. Product recognition is a big thing with Apple.
Yes, but there’s no reason that the screen has to be round or square, or banana-shaped for any of that. You won’t be putting the watch up to your head to take a call, and you won’t be watching movies on the watch with Face Time. Faces are round. Most social media icons these days are round. So again, there’s no equivalency between how the AW watch functions compared to some of the analogue equipment and other specialized devices they’re being compared to. Indeed, a round screen makes much more sense these days as many movies are taken in portrait mode on phones — so round allows the aspect ratio of standard video image to be presented at the maximum size possible in either landscape or portrait orientation. And I’ll go you one better — put two Apple AirPods together mic-to-mic and it looks like an old school banana-shaped analogue phone!
Of course that’s why they did it. That’s why an Apple Watch looks like a mini iPhone. That and introducing a brand new device which does present lists of items is going to be much easier to code for hesitant developers, than making them learn a whole new display orientation environment which Apple hasn’t yet fully developed themselves. If and when Apple introduces a round model, it will be easy to fit all those legacy apps into a round screen, much like native iPhone apps fit within an iPad when it launched, even if the developer never updates the design to maximize the display potential. But now that Apple has clearly achieved market dominance, they can now focus on customer expectation — which is choice for a device their going to wear. Apple won’t ever discontinue the square form factor; it will be their Classic Cartier Tank. But they will reach many more potential customers by appealing to their style and choice expectations.