The fact that Apple was working on a smartwatch may have been one of the worst-kept secrets in the world, but the company did at least manage to keep us guessing about the form it would take – right down to whether the form factor would be square or circular.
Was a square format the right choice? To help us form a view, UX/UI designer Alcion has put together a series of renders showing what the Apple Watch would look like with a round face …
Take a look at the gallery below and let us know which you prefer.
I would observe the renders appear to cheat slightly, making the round concept look slimmer than the real thing, so you’ll need to discount that and imagine it equally deep in forming your view. The main image at the top of the page perhaps also stacks the deck by using a round image.
As ever, let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Via The Verge
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I like the square one. Space on the screen is already limited. The circular one would make for even LESS screen space!
John
umFlight.com
exactly. I also think that circular watch somehow looks less grand. Finally what is rendered may not be technically feasible at this point. These are are way to slim for all the circuitry
That was also my thought at first, but then I realized the watch could also be larger if they decided to go with round. Just imagine the current Apple Watch, but sticking out a bit in all four directions to make it round. Does that make sense to you?? I mean, I don’t know. I just think round might actually work as well, if not better. Just my two cents.
No. You do not make sense.
With the same height and width, rectangular (not square) is much better than circular because of the increased surface area.
But they could do the same with a square screen and have a larger viewing space still. For the same width and height, squares always going to offer substantially more screen realestate
I finally realized what’s been bugging me about these “round” watches. They are purely circular. That’s just wrong. The typical watch with a round face has a body that is more angular, embracing the posts that hold the band, so it looks more like this: (o) This brings flow to the roundness, and balances the look. The Moto 360, nor the concept art above take this into account. I suspect that this is because the screen is already so big, that attempting to do this would make a huge, ugly beast. I think that an earlier commenter who suggested maybe bending the sides ( ) such is onto something… but like with everything else Apple, if you look at the bands, how they attach, etc. I cannot imagine that the shape of the watch was the best they could get with the available technology available today. IMO, if the watch were much thinner, the squarish shape would be a non-issue. It is really its thickness that is the achilles heel of the design, and it seems to be a non-negotiable.
I think you’re really sacrificing functionality for better style making it round. I plan on buying one but won’t wear it on formal occasions (I hear it won’t fit under a sleeve.)
It was smart to make it a square.
Exactly my reasoning!
John
umFlight.com
should have made both..but the weird thing is the have a square design with round icons.. :/
Agree. But then again, it’s not the final product, so that might be changed soon.
“should have made both”
Remember that this is also a software platform. If you think varying resolutions causes “fragmentation”, that nothing compared to the idea of having to target different screen shapes.
I think a rectangular screen is simply the pragmatic, “form follows function”, choice.
I suspect Apple is already working on a round, thinner version–and their “ultimate” watch will look a lot like what you envisioned. (In fact, I believe Apple is foreshadowing this direction in the new round icons.)
But the technology would still need to be much much smaller to work. So Apple’s decision is whether to wait another five years before the flat/round version is possible… or go to market with something that is really neat & gets them going in (& leading) a new market.
“I suspect Apple is already working on a round, thinner version …”
I’d be willing to wager money against that. It’s a software platform… changing the canvas shape would be very damaging in that context.
Nah, the round icons are just bad design. This is not the Steve Jobs Apple of perfect and cohesive design, instead we get an elegant watch with hideously clashing day-glo icons.
If you think that Steve Jobs never allowed bad design out, then I have a puck mouse to sell you.
I you just consider the UI on the screen round could be a better solution from the UI/UX point of view. But from the UX point af view with straps the square version is so much better. The click in straps als a bit of a nightmare with the rond version. Looking at te rendering this has not been looked at. And as part of ad fashion item (which this will be) the could be a deal breaker…
I was really hoping for it to be way thinner than it turned out to be :( It’s like the Apple Watch stands to the first iPhone as my imaginary Apple Watch stands to the iPhone 6, I hope this gives you the picture
wait for Watch 3 or 4 and you will get your wish. But Apple needed to make a move now to make mainstream aware that smart watch and wearables in general are not just for tech geeks
Right. They are for trendy people who think Google glasses aren’t hip enough.
Probably more like Watch 2. LG has announced production of circular OLEDs (which they are using in their own watch) a few weeks back. I actually thought that it might be evidence that Apple’s watch was going to be circular (I’m both shocked and disgusted that it is square. It is a fundamental abandonment of fashionable watch design in favor of manufacturability by the time frame they wanted. Very un-apple like.) I’m all but certain that most designs and prototypes were centered on a round design, but production of a circular display wouldn’t be ready in time (pun unintentional, but enjoyed)
Yup, I totally getcha. Don’t worry though. Your dream will come true… in a few years. Yeah…
I’m sure Apple will make it thinner on future updates. Just like all the other things they make…
Of course I haven’t used the device yet but my gut is telling me i’d prefer a rounded square. In terms of actual usage this device would likely be no more a “watch” than my iPhone is a “phone”. I wouldn’t purchase this to track time, and I don’t need it to track time. I would purchase this to use as a wearable, interactive, mobile computer and for that purpose I think a square design is a better use of a preciously limited visual and physical interface.
Tough call…aesthetically speaking, with all the apps on the watch and also your contacts being circular, it would make sense to make it a circle. Plus, the made the digital crown to mimic a feature on classic watches that would seem intuitive…well I would argue that the more popular “classic watches” have circular faces.
All that aside, I think Apple could come out with a circular face in the future because their may be a demand, but more so, the technology will be improved enough to allow it. I think they went for “square” because getting this much technology into a circular face would be far more challenging…but also, the user experience may also suffer.
As with Apple making bigger phones though, it is all too possible they will also change their mind on this later down the line.
Yes, there is no reason why they couldn’t offer multiple form options in the future.
A traditional square watch is always more expensive than a round one. There are much less square traditional watches than round ones. So the choice is right it’s more exclusive.
I think a square watch is a good starting point, but they should and will also have a circular interface as well.
I prefer the square from a functionality perspective. Having a circle in terms of an interactive display, you kinda feel like you’ve been cheated on with the corners of a square being curved off.
That being said, I would like to see a circle version alongside a square version in the 2nd generation of the (Apple Logo)Watch to better compete with Android circle shaped smart watches (including Moto 360) and give people more choice, as long as battery life is similar.
– The designer chose a few examples of apps where the round shape looks nice. But what about email, calendar, etc ?
– If a round screen makes so much sense, why not a round smartphone ? Or a round PC monitor ? Or a round e-book reader ? Obviously a rectangular screen is better for presenting lots of different type of information, especially text.
– If it would be just a watch and only a watch, round would make sense, but it is meant to use lots of different apps, most of them have not even been developed.
– As mentioned already elsewhere, there are quite a few rectangular luxury watches with a rectangular shape, Cartier, TAG Heuer,…
it makes sense they made it rectangular.
+ 1. This. This right here.
You think they never thought about a round screen? The contacts avatar is round so the watch needs to be round? What about the contacts’ name, is that round too? What about your e-mails, text messages, maps and so on?
There’s a reason why these round mockups (which are really beautiful) don’t show off text messages or e-mails. They only show the elements that are round.
With the circular face you are limited to circular UI elements. With the square face you are not.
Neither! If Steve was still alive that watch would have been rectangular, but not in the way you think. Not rectanguluar in a way that goes round the arm, but rectangular that goes down your arm. This would have made the screen at least twice as big and transformed the top of your arm into an entire display. This would have also given ample room for sensors. Also they should have just had one strap. That way they could have had the battery in the strap. If Steve was alive they would have done something like this and reinvented the watch, as this idea wouldn’t have looked much like a watch – just like the original iPhone didn’t look much like a phone those days. But no, instead this apple watch is just an accessory to the iPhone because they simply didn’t think big enough. I think Apple knows it’s not good enough too because not once did Tim use the word ‘reinvent’ or ‘revolution’. Which Steve always did, because he was right.
You’re smoking something, haha. :)
Round iMac mouse. Enough said.
i think it is extremely logical to have square face and circular icons. its all about maximizing the use of the space. first, the square maximizes screen surface area so you can fit more on it. second, circular icons occupy the smallest density of space per app on your screen. take a look at your iOS icons – most only use the centre of it anyway. rectangular app icons generally waste space. i think apple is right to use this combination.
Absolutely round. But it would need to be completely filled with Magic because components like batteries wouldn’t have fit.
To me, a round digital display just looks dumb and highly inefficient.
Design wise, I prefer round but functionality wise I prefer square. Based on the UI design, it makes me wonder whether it was originally intended to be round.
round is not looking good. I have both round and square watches. And even the round ones are basicly quare when you consider the chain as well. I think they look great. Just missing the version for me. The Space Gray aluminum with DLC and Saphire. Only available as a heavy steel version. I really feel the need for Saphire on a sports case. Preferable a sports case with the Diamond-Like-Carbon.
What I really want i titanium weight, and hardness +saphire
Oh well, I will probably sit it out until version 2 arrives. That is when Apple usually do the big improvements.
The square one looks ugly, reminds me of 1st generation iPhone. I will be getting moto 360. Looks much better than apple watch and is $100 cheaper
Good luck with that.
These renderings are not practical. The whole poll is wishful thinking. Battery and wireless charging, internal encased chipset, strap connections, sensors, a circle display??…if round was possible and worthwhile(because you know Apple made every possible prototype) then that is what you would have seen on stage. Not to mention there are tons of square mechanical watches and there is no advantage to a round design other than just because some people like round watches. I’m looking forward to getting one as is, they did a great job for the first version.
There would be no good way to display messages or calendar events and other items that utilize text-based buttons on a round screen and still make it look aesthetically pleasing. They needed to make it thinner. It looked rather thick and heavy. More like it would be in the way than functional.
Rectangular (not square) is much better than circular because of the increased surface area with the same width and height.
I believe this is happening to many people (not just me): before it came out I would prefere round. At the moment it came out I felt a little bit disappointed. On the next day, reviewing the design, understanding the reasons… yeas man, Apple made the best decisions it could make at the moment. This is gorgeous!
Seeing this rendition of a round watch (and looking at the Moto 360) makes me realize that the square shape is actually better looking. On the other hand, the thickness and rounded edges don’t improve the look at all to me. I prefer my watches to have a mixture of round and smooth, and angularity. But in any case, the square case looks better to me than round.
It’s not about round or square.. it’s thickness.. technology isn’t where it can be as thin … yet..
Though, the UI becomes a pain with a round screen.. as you end up noticing with the Moto 360.. many UI elements get cut off.. Round sounds good… until you realize what you loose in practical terms…
How to measure the “right choice”? The blog and readers and all other people doesn’t know what Apple team consider when they work on the watches. Does that square choose was based on more useful user interface, of the choose was based on the internal components of the device?
Maybe it’s was the best for both: for useful interface and enough amount of CPU, battery. With circle you have to cut something (in UI and components space) or make the watches bolder in height. We don’t know the truth, so, I don’t think we can found “better” solution without it.
And don’t forget that our world became accustomed to the squares: text, pictures, video in the Books, TV, Cameras, Photos, Magazines, Recorders, computer Displays are squares too. Does it really useful to cut the corners then by choosing round form?
You can’t have corner buttons on a round watch. More surface space to make it less tight.
You’ll find that they probably chose square because of the components. And thats probably a reason why is not very thin. In a few years when technology advances even more, maybe you’ll see a slim square one and a circle one.
Do a google search for “square watch” and tell me that square watch faces are somehow unusual. There are thousands of them. It is a classic stylish shape for watches. You can argue that even Rolex is a square when you factor in the entire shape of the face not just the time keeping part.
I think the round design may look a little nicer, but functionality would be sacrificed: space is very limited and if you keep in mind that computer chips aren’t round and that battery packs always seem to come with a square form factor makes the square design a better choice for functionality.
Now you just know that if Apple had made it round, the wing nut Android fanboy retards would have been screaming that they copied LG and Motorola, even though round watches have been out for what, a hundred years?
Once again we get computer renders that don’t have to take into account engineering. It’s easy to make something look good on a computer when you don’t have to worry about actually producing a working 3d object. Jony Ive wears high end mechanical watches. Does anyone really think he chose a square face because he thought it was more aesthetically pleasing?
A rendering doesn’t necessarily translate to real life. I’m pretty sure Apple didn’t just pick the shape out of a bag. So if they went with the sqaurish shape the circular shape obviously had it’s issues.
Let’s look at the actual functionality of the device. On a traditional watch, a clock face is fundamentally round, so it makes sense that a watch is round. It’s pretty ludicrous to demand that a smartwatch be round, for no other reason than your brain is trained to think that watches are round because they’ve been that way for centuries.
And the idea that rounded app icons would be better on a rounded face is simply not true. The rounded honeycomb layout would be efficient on any shape of screen. But even if it were more efficient on a round screen, it’s irrelevant because how much time are you really going to spend on the app home screen? A few seconds while searching for your app?
The shape of the device should match the content of the apps, not the app icons. 99.9% of the content available today is square or rectangular: Photos, album cover art, movies, games, blocks of text (and the way we read text left/right/up/down).
That said, I agree that a round faced smart watch looks better on the arm, but again it’s probably because my brain thinks that’s what watches are supposed to look like. Function-wise, rectangular is a no-brainer.
Round is more aesthetically pleasing and about 90% of the uses Apple envisions don’t actually require a square screen. The problem is that other 10% of uses that do.
Now that I’ve seen the thing, read about it and have had a lot of time to think, I actually like the new watch more than anything else Apple has made this year. My biggest issue is the size. even the “small” version would basically take up my whole wrist and then some and I am by no means some small, unusual bird-wristed person. I am of average size.
I think they should have made a 28mm version as well as the 38 and the 42.
In my opinion, round is a more elegant look, but it limits its use quite a lot. Even if the size is the same, the shape dictates how big the objects can be. It likely is already difficult to read. As a watch, I think round is ideal. Looks classy as fuck! However as a “computer strapped to your wrist” square is a better choice.
I have no idea how often Apple will update this, but as much as I would like one, I think I will wait until the 2nd or 3rd generation. It’s a bit too thick from my liking and there is a surprisingly lack of sensors compared to what was rumoured. It will get better in time. I just don’t see many people upgrading as often as iPhones, iPads or even MacBooks with the iWatch, err. Watch
Rectangular is without a question the best choice for a screen. Circles waist so much space. So while it doesn’t look like a watch, they can still put round things in the space.
Round not only looks better, but would force them to change the UI a bit, to a less cluttered, more intuitive, more engaging one. There’s just too much stuff going on with their watch. We need shorter, more to the point information and access to features.
Why is everyone making this an either/or proposition? The back panel is round. There are circles throughout the UI. The groundwork has obviously been laid for a round face in a future iteration, possibly with protruding corners for the band mounts (which the renders should have accounted for).
Square is the new round until they switch it around…
I would vote round, but the choice is somewhat misleading. The Verge didn’t take into account the difference in volume between the two ‘choices’ pictured above. The mockup of the round-type Apple Watch is significantly more shallow than it’s rectangular counterpart, which makes it look slick. It might be the depth of the second generation, but it lends a misleading edge to the round version when we’re talking about the first generation Apple Watch.
The chips and components made for the device are square, and it undoubtedly would have been more costly to engineer them to be circular. The result is that the diameter of the face of the circular watch would have been the same as the length of the rectangular diagonal. If the current area of the face is xy, then the diagonal of the rectangular watch is (x^2 + y^2)^(1/2), which is also the diameter of it’s hypothetical, circular counterpart, and the area of the circular version would be π((x^2 + y^2)^(1/2)/2)^2; that is 1/4 × (π x^2 + π y^2).
Let’s bring the aforementioned equation down to Earth, shall we? According to Paul Sprangers, the watch’s screen dimensions are 24.3 mm × 30.5 mm, therefore the area of the watch is 741 square mm. The round version would be 11.9 * 10^2 mm ≈ 1190 mm. Check my math, but that’s a substantial increase in screen size. That would have undoubtedly not only reduced the battery life of the contraption but would have also, increased the cost.
In conclusion, I like the round version, but I doubt Apple made the wrong call as to which version to produce.
Ok here’s the thing… how it looks in mockups has very little bearing on whether it would be a good device. In terms of using the device, you *could* design an interface that’s entirely based around being displayed on a round screen, but it is far more difficult.
In terms of everyday use, a round watch will be far more unpleasant to use, and therefore much, much worse.
Interesting results, I would have thought the square version would be most favorable. Round, to me, looks nice but not quite professional, I’m not sure. It’s hard to explain. The watch apple announced is what I was hoping for. To me it’s a great start and will only get better.
Square is the best way to get the most screen estate out of such a tiny device.
I think its pretty safe to say that the Apple Watch will eventually get a round face when they feel the technology is there to make it perfect.
I like how the author of this article made the round ones much thinner to influence vote :)
Round is nicer but a thick round would not be nice
I saw that too..it’s quite BS.
Swiss/Asian watch makers should be worried now. I’m not talking about high end Swiss watches, but those cheaper one like Tissot, Bulova, Hamilton or Swiss Army. Jony Ive was not wrong when he said Swiss watches are fcked. I would take the Apple Watch over any of these above and over Citizen Eco Drive or Seiko Kinetic. Most of these Swiss watches starts at least $400 and more even with those Asian chrono watches.
Yeah, but that James Bond GoldenEye watchface on the circular Moto 360 looks SWEET!
I circular watchface is classical, more attractive. The circular “analogue” watchfaces on the Apple Watch (like Mickey Mouse) just don’t look as good, and let’s face it, most of us a circular clock–not some digital Casio watchface,
Neither. It should look like it does, but the sides should subtly curve like so: ( )
Would have looked much better, especially when it gets thinner down the road. Could have even kept the screen rectangular inside it, just had bezel and it would have looked amazing. Also should not be a crown, that’s stupid as hell in my opinion. The sides of the device or top and bottom should have been touch sensitive to simply slide your finger right and left or up/down along to increase/decrease the zoom, or other functions on the other sides like maybe volume or scrolling. Could have given haptic feedback when doing so to give you a feel for how you were adjusting it. The crown and button on the side simply look bad to me, and the thought of rotating a crown all the time is just not near as good.
Actually I prefer these curves: ) ( over these curves: ( ) for my women :)
For … “your women”???? :roll eyes:
How many women do you OWN?
And what country do you live in that this is legal to own them?
Someones sense of humor left them long ago…
Also when quoting it’s proper to use exact words, for which you did not, but thanks for playing!
Although Jobs had nothing to do with it, after reading his biography by Issacson, could the watch really have been anything OTHER than a square with rounded corners?
I understand why Apple chose a square face but you can see from the UI the ideal was to have a round face. I think a round face is much more attractive and a classical watch shape. A square shape for a watch face doesn’t appeal to me at all and in my opinion just doesn’t look right. If this looked more like a Uniform Wares 302 series for a mens watch it would look great. For women though it’s more difficult as some prefer to wear lightweight and small timepieces instead of clunky behemoths and even the smaller Apple Watch looks a little thick. Hopefully the technology will mature and get smaller for thinner and rounder devices.
Round just looks more upscale to me, don’t ask me way I can’t really explain it but I think of round watches as sports/casual/techie (which I am but still) and round as elegant/dress wear/jewelry looking.
I’m sure future versions will offer both shapes.
Square. More surface area and better for apps.
When is this watch coming out?
Next year?
Yes. If I remember right. Early next year.
Going to report this to shamesung huh? So they can make one copy from things they could see on presentation and what is on Apple official website.
Square is the only choice between the two. The circle face watches look like a child’s toy. Apples watch looks sexy, elegant and just all around cool. What it can do blows the compitition out of the water. It’s right for everyone with all the options. So excited for the release and future of where apple is going. Apple is gaining more and more steam and others are burning out.
A round screen would have chopped usable screen real estate by a full 30-40%. Stupid idea.
I think that Apple understood perfectly why some buy exclusive watches like Patek Philippe and others cheap awful Swatch. But they also understood that, out of the problem of avaiable space needed for tech, tha a smart watch isn’t really a watch… It is a computer and a payment device and they assume it. They want people to wear an electronical device instead of watches. The view who can buy luxury watches will still do it, and also buy a gold aplpewatch and make a lots of fees when paying their goods with applepay. The Moto look more soft, more class or simply modern, but in fact it has absolutely no personnality regarding a manufacture watch, and absolutely no interest regarding the applewatch regarding the technology and the uneasy round screen. At my opinion a smartwatch is not made to be beautiful because the manufactures make that so much better and present new models each years in Basel. A smart watch is made to be smart, and so useful and technical. You can get tired easily of the moto after one year, but a LOT of people in very near future couldn’t stop using their Apple’s because it is more easy, more complete and most of that because of Apple Pay.
Huxley and Orwell would argue the device itself means a failure of mankind. Vitals stolen.
Have to save something for the 2nd gen.
looks pretty but doesn’t show the bracelet linkage solution as beautiful and functional as Apples? It does look more familiar and elegant in a round format. But this is only the first design. Remember the first iPhone? It is a brick compare to today’s sleek products. I expect the same will happen to the watch.
I’m sure the resulting design involved numerous engineering trade-off and is likely the best alternative at this time.
I would like the circular one. Just because I am a fan of the classic watches I guess, not for any other reason. Btw… why not Apple Watch… 4? to be in two shapes? :) Or some other future Watch? :)
AppleWatch is solving a HUGE PROBLEM nobody is talking about!!!
Here it is……pass it along-
There are three huge problem areas that the Apple watch will solve. Problem one- damage. Problem two- distraction. Problem three- security.
Regarding damage issues-
How many times a day do you take your smart phone out of your pocket or out of your phone holder/purse etc.? Every time you rummage around looking for the phone to figure out what the latest chime, ring tone, vibration, or other notification was about you expose your self to potentially dropping, losing, or seriously damaging your phone if you miss handle it. With theApple watch you simply look at your wrist and see what the notification is that you are receiving and your phone stays safely wherever you may be keeping it.
Regarding distraction-
Obviously rummaging for your phone, trying to scroll down and find the correct app that has your latest notification is extremely distracting and many times for many people a two-handed operation. As YouTube and other Internet video sites can attest there are many instances where people have been seriously injured and even killed while distracted playing around with their smart phone. With the Apple watch functionality and simplicity, many rudimentary tasks and responses can be done so very quickly utilizing the preprogrammed responses.
Regarding security-
Security issues have been rampant with all smart phones regardless of manufacturer. However, the best security now belongs to the Apple iPhone arena. Touch ID and Apple pay will raise the security level for numerous transactions coupled with awesome simplicity. Remember, right now the numerous times you take your iPhone out on a daily basis in a public setting you are subjecting yourself to victimization by the Apple thieves and other assorted dregs and skells of humanity.! The Apple watch will permit you to pay for things at a NFC enabled touchpad without having to display your phone. A simple wave of the watch touching the terminal will suffice. Looking at a watch display will be much less distracting than the status quo two-handed fumbling around with your smart phone that is going on these days.
Time will tell, and the Apple consumers will dictate whether or not the Apple watch is a success. I’m betting it will be a huge success and we just don’t know it yet!
Points 1 & 2 already existed with the smartwatches that’ve been out since Pebble.
Point 3…we need to see how practical it is.
Square is inherent to design of bands
only thing that i hate apple watches is they didn’t use helvetica font !!!
I’m certain Apple has numerous mockups and even working prototypes of varying form factors, likely including a perfectly round watch. Intensive (and secretive) usability testing combined with what is just barely achievable with today’s and tomorrow’s technology informed their decision to go with what we saw on Tuesday. I’m sure it was not an easy choice, but everything then fell into place once that choice was made. It also makes tremendous sense for Apple to introduce a wearable that is iconically Apple. It will also evolve iteratively.
I wear a Rolex Air King. I wear it daily and find it the most comfortable and elegant wristwatch I have ever owned. The venerable Air King is not the big chunky complex timepiece most people think of as Rolex. It is understated and compact. It is also not round, despite the round clock face. Taken as a whole, the exterior stainless steel case is rectilinear, tapering from 34mm at the widest part abeam the crown, to 22mm at the lugs. Length is 42mm. Thickness is 11mm. These dimensions are strikingly similar to the large Apple Watch, with the latter only being about 1mm thicker.
Square for two reasons:
1. Round is cool but not a good form factor for digital screens. Design is harder, UX is harder… just doesn’t work well.
2. It’s a jewelry item and a round digital device as jewelry just doesn’t make sense, watch or not.
Not only does the round have less screen space, it actually would take up just as much physical space on the wrist. Because, like real watch, you would have to have extensions off the circular main body to meat flush with the band.
These mock-ups didn’t only cheat heavily on the stack height; They cheated on where the band attaches to the main circular body. They didn’t even bother putting an attachment point in at all, let alone make it realistically flush and “squared off” as pretty much every circular watch must do.
i think round is the way to go, i really thought that apple would do that.. i am kinda thinking that the next one will be round… we all know that apple makes really nice hardware (at least i do) so this watch is going to look like a nice pice of quality on your wrist, just like how a nice expensive watch would be.. making it round and putting that “apple quality ” into it like this render, would make people think it was a analog watch until they really got close to it… i think that would justify the price, and maybe even see it as some kinda deal.. cooler thing would to maybe have some watch brand editions (apple watch TAG edition).. idk from what i see the way the UI is set up i think it can work with a round face, and with that I’m sure apple would make a easy way to make it work on both screens in Xcode..
On reflection I think square is the right choice. For a device of the same height and width, the screen will always be substantially larger in a square than a circle which effectively crops 1/3 of the display on each corner. The devices are already so small as to require the crown control, so unless you make the whole thing larger (and it is already quite big), then I think a square display just makes sense.
Even then if you make the watch larger to compensate, you can justify the same expansion in a square model which gives you more space yet again.
Somehow, circular shape looks cheap to me. I like square shape to maximize the screen estate.
I initially thought I’d be pro-circular design until I thought about the functions that would render a round screen awkward. I wouldn’t think it would be as clean looking if the scrolling through notifications had cut-off corners and unevenly distributed buttons.
A round display on a smartwatch? The only reason watches were ever round to begin with is because the clock is round. The casing of the to device matched the shape of the tool it was holding. The very notion that a round screen is best suited to display information is ridiculous and goes against every other device we use for similar purposes. Sure, it is a watch but it is also (and likely primarily) and informational device. TVs, computer screens, phones, tablets… All square/rectangular. The idea of a square watch is not something pulled out of left field. There are thousands of them already in existence so making this device square, like so many other watches out there, so it displays the time appropriately but also all the text, information, data and graphics well is the only choice that could have been made for it.
A round clock face on a square casing looks fine. But a square photo or lines of text in an email or text would not look good on a round face.
Also everyone is so short sighted about this device. It won’t be long before it is taking photos, taking video and viewing video/movies. The idea of viewing video in a little square in the the middle of a round screen is ridiculous. The display will be small enough without a bunch of black around an image!
It is fine if you don’t like square watches. That is a personal preference but sometimes function dictates form. Nowhere better than in the design of a smart watch.
SERIOUS QUESTION.
Can we put aside our feelings and overall confidence with Apple just for a moment, and be “practically honest” rather than “emotionally honest” in your reply with the following..
…Am I the only one who is absolutely disappointed with the Apple Watch? I really was expecting something much better, more premium, better thought out. I just don’t feel this is up to Apple’s usual standards. It looks like some cheap rush-job gimmick more like what Samsung would’ve knocked out in a weekend. I won’t be buying this model as it stands.
square makes way more sense in terms of display. Round looks great but it isn’t practical. Perhaps the dead space at the bottom of the Moto360 is perfect testament…
It is neither square nor round, it is rectangular in shape. Very Zen on the outside, very tech on the inside.
– Apple wants its smart watch to have the funtionality of an iPod Touch. It will have lots of apps and have several UI options. To do that required a square screen.
– The Google watch UI can get away with a round screen. Because the design of Google watches is to do less and have simple graphics on the screen to do a few tasks.
And apps are less important for Google’s watch UI.
* The options are do much less and have a round screen.
– Do much more and have a square screen.
I think Apple made the right choice.
The renders only address the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
Of course the round clock face fits perfectly on a round display. The drawn heart too, no problem. It starts to break down with the Activity display, stacking the title and time, reducing the graph size as a result and throwing the balance off. Zero attempt is made to address challenging areas like Passbook, Calendar, Photos, or Settings.
A round display is a novelty, no question. But it’s impractical. Square was the way to go.
I think people need to undersand that, despite it being a smart watch, its a WATCH! Round would look more elegant and classy.
The argument that a square watch has more screen real estate is inane. If people begin to demand for more screen space on the Apple Watch, we may just start to see the watch become a wrist band and then an arm cuff with a 5.5″ flexible screen so you can really see what time it is! Oh and then you’ll have to use it with your 10″ iPhone and don’t forget to sync them all with your 32″ Macbook Pro.
The fad right now is bigger screens on every electronic device. I think this product would look nicer with the screen size now but a more traditional round face. Let’s not forget, it’s an ACCESSORY not a Stand-Alone Device.
— but thats my 2 bits on the subject —
I think that Apple’s choice is reasonable at all. watch is a portable device as well as a wrist-watch. Which requires the screen for the videos. What if its screen were round rather than square? We would watch a video on the smaller screen. It is because the video image needs square type screen, not round. Look at your TV. It is a square shape! Accordingly, Jonny Ives made a right decision about the watch screen.
Square for men & round for women
A watch also needs to be fully waterproof….