13 ms·

UX discussion here. Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? Analog watches were round to fit the display technology

UX discussion here. Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? Analog watches were round to fit the display technology available at the time, the watch dial, which is inherently round. RGB pixel displays are naturally rectangular. My wife thinks that even the smallest latest Apple Watch is way too large for a watch. I wonder if there's some matter of comfort in a relatively flat backed round form factor for a watch? A relatively thick rectangle with a rounder back is going to have a center of mass that is further away from the wrist. It comprises a very small cantilever, which is still quite large on the scales of the traditional watch. (By something like a factor of 3 or so.) The slightly taller rectangular shape will also tend to funnel the motion such a cantilever experiences in an arc parallel to the forearm. None of this was at all an issue for most traditional watches, simply because they were much flatter. Something has always bothered me about Apple Watches when trying them out in the store, and I think it's this. They're not bulky, but there's something about them which seems to keep them from disappearing from my awareness. Even my dad's old Rolex, which isn't huge, but isn't small for a watch, seems to sit on my wrist more comfortably. Even the Tag Heuer, which I think is a bit too big, seems to sit more comfortably on my wrist. Even the big old school watches just didn't have this stick-out-y character.

kweinber 8y ago
Round watches don’t get caught on clothing, or on other people/obstacles as you brush past.
Swenrekcah 8y ago
I personally prefer round for the aesthetics. But that is probably just because I’ve been trained to think watches should be round. I’ve got a Garmin vivoactive 3 which I really like in terms of look and feel.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Same. I don't own one right now but have considered a smart watch, and only looked at the circular faces. While a smart watch is a new UI for spontaneously consuming information, it's always a fashion accessory when worn.
barbecue_sauce 8y ago
I think it's all aesthetics. While iPhones are sleek and stylish, the only thing that they are replacing are convergent previous technology devices without much stylistic precedence (unless you count the late 90s early 2000s "slightly ergonomic plastic" as a style) so nobody puts up much of a fuss. The Apple Watch is clearly an Apple designed product and it serves its function, but its replacing what has long been a style accessory with its own traditions and norms (particularly roundness), something you wear on your body and is visible to others at all times. When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape. My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though. (I got curious, this is similar to what I'm describing, but still way too large and not quite the same: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gligo-e-ink-smartwatch-hassle-free-with-style#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gligo-e-ink-smartwatch-ha...)
- nradov 8y ago
  It's just a matter of what people are used to. In a few decades a round watch with mechanical arms will seem odd and ugly to most consumers. Style is always in flux.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    I dunno, we've had digital watches with square faces and at least some additional functionality over analogue ones since the 70s and the consensus continues to be that the analogue watch faces look classier
- stcredzero 8y ago
  When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape. I think you're onto something there. My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though. One of my coworkers has a rather large, round, positively can-like Android smart watch. I look at it, and think, That's way too thick for a watch. It has a flatter back, which I think is a plus. Another thing I just realized: Traditional watches often attach to the wristband much closer to the wrist than many smart watches. This helps them "disappear" when being worn.
beefalo 8y ago
Square watches do exist e.g. Cartier Santos and they do have ergonomic advantages. Smartwatches are not alone in the trend of watches being huge. Most watch brands have started making more 43mm+ size watches which I find far too large. Smartwatches also have it a little harder as well since it is going to be really hard to get much info on a screen at 40mm or smaller, especially when you cut off the corners. Most smartwatches are around 45mm, Apple making the smallest at 40mm, but I prefer watches that are in the 36mm - 39mm range.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Nitpick: Apple still sells the Series 3 which goes down to 38mm
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    My wife still thinks those things are huge.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    The Series 3 is thicker though. I’ve heard the 40mm Series 4 feels smaller, or at the very least, similar. EDIT: apparently the 40mm size is also just a lot closer to the 38 than 42, not right in between, due to how the numbers are rounded. Side by side photo here https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/9iecba/38mm_vs_40mm_vs_42mm_comparison/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/9iecba/38mm_vs_...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Square watches do exist e.g. Cartier Santos and they do have ergonomic advantages. Lots of square watches sort of disappear into their bands. They are flatter, and far less cantilever-y than the current Apple watches.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Don’t forget the classic 80’s Casio digital watches.
  - 8y ago
reaperducer 8y ago
They're not bulky, but there's something about them which seems to keep them from disappearing from my awareness It's like a wedding ring or any other piece of jewelry — you get used to it in short order. I didn't wear an Apple Watch for a very long time because I though they were too bulky looking. But I got was as a gift, and failed to even notice it was there after just a few hours. I assume an Apple Watch gains most of its size and shape to maximize battery space. FWIW, an Apple Watch is less than half the size (and 1/10th the price!) of some of the watches worn by a certain class of "celebrities" these days.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I don’t know really what drove me to it outside of curiosity but I picked up the 4 last fall and I liked it almost immediately. I use the silicon band when working out, otherwise I purchased a leather band for it. I don’t notice the thickness or size at all, and I have the 44mm. Rather I appreciate the size on my wrist. Thinner would be an improvement, but I don’t find anything aesthetically I pleasing about how it currently sits. And regardless, the benefits that come with it are some that I use daily in tracking my excercise and performance progression, including my heart rate tracking and cool-down. And like most Apple things when you’re just so completely tied into the ecosystem— it just works with my other devices. And I relatively trust the privacy of my health data between the watch and my phone. So there’s that. I can see how they wouldn’t be for everyone. And I still appreciate finer mechanical watches but they are much further out of my price range :)
com2kid 8y ago
> UX discussion here. Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? Analog watches were round to fit the display technology available at the time, the watch dial, which is inherently round. RGB pixel displays are naturally rectangular. Ex-Lead UI developer from the ex-Microsoft Band here. UX wise, rectangular and square form factors make a lot more sense for the types of media consumption smartwatches are used for. Every time I see a text message clipped on the sides with only 3 lines showing on a huge circular display, I cry a little inside. Apple went with square-ish for a lot of good reasons. You can do some cool, innovative, and impressive looking things with circular form factors of course, especially when it comes to graphical displays of data. But humans are very bad at judging magnitudes in pie shape forms, and at the end of the day, a lot of information is textual. This limits you. > My wife thinks that even the smallest latest Apple Watch is way too large for a watch. Honestly the Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant (I may be biased). It is much easier to hold up in a comfortable reading position, and the dual body design meant the mass was split across the top and bottoms of the wrist. The problem of course was fitting all those electronics in a much narrower form factor. The entire device ended up being too wide for some people's wrists. At the end of the day, all those electronics and sensors, and of course the display, had to go somewhere. In regards to the article, I'm guessing Google is buying a team for the factory contracts, supply chains, and perhaps the ME/EE talent. Having all of that come in one big package is nice, building up those supplier relationships especially can take years of painful miscommunication.
- RPLong 8y ago
  Band 2 was a phenomenal piece of software contained in an atrocious piece of hardware, as evidenced by all the people whose Bands broke at the bracelet. I thought it was a tragedy. Band 2 was my favorite smart watch by a country mile, when mine still worked. It left all other products in the dust. It's a shame the bracelet was so poorly designed. The thing was damn near perfect.
  - com2kid 8y ago
    It was amazing that hardware even existed, it was a miracle of EE and ME work to get anything out the door in the time frames we had to work with. How the entire project fell apart is one of those "If you're in my neck of the woods buy me a beer" stories. Thanks for the complement on the software. :) Having a chance to help design and build an (RT)OS at that young age and then have Microsoft of all companies, ship it out was an incredible experience. The underlying RTOS has some really cool and innovative concepts in it, and it was the best environment I've ever programmed for. I might be biased about the programming environment, since I was designed or helped design most of the foundational APIs. :-D as a tl;dr, 256KB of RAM, complete async runtime, CPU was off most of the time as the DMA (direct memory access) engine did the majority of the work copying data around. The closest modern analog would be programming in nodeJS, which funny enough is exactly what I'm doing right now!
AceJohnny2 8y ago
> They're not bulky, but there's something about them which seems to keep them from disappearing from my awareness. I've had the same impression. Could it be because of the symmetrically rounded edges that makes it look like it stands off your wrist, instead of an asymmetrical bevel to make it seem more like it "melts" into your wrist? Plus, of course, that the screen winks on or off when it detects the "raise-to-wake" motion, so that 1) it's a much more deliberate gesture when you want to look at it and 2) it's a distraction in your peripheral vision when it's wrong.
wvenable 8y ago
> Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? The circular functional bezel on a Gear S3 is nice bit of physical interface. It's primarily how I interface with my smartwatch. Honestly, you're never going to get much utility out of a smartwatch. So aesthetics is the primary function of the device and round watches do tend to look better.
microtherion 8y ago
In my opinion, a round screen on a smart watch is the ultimate skeuomorphism: sticking with a certain shape that is utterly impractical for most applications, just because mechanical counterparts are that shape. Can't help wondering what the overlap is between round smart watch screen fanciers and people who slagged Apple for its past skeuomorphic excesses and dismiss their products as "fashion statements". [I work for Apple, but not on the Watch or as a spokesperson].
Shorel 8y ago
Digital watches were all square or rectangular. I had a calculator watch when I was a child, also rectangular.
azundo 8y ago
Pebble Time Round was exactly this and it was beautiful. My wife would constantly get compliments on her rose gold edition from people in the street. The vast majority didn't even realize it was a smartwatch.
- vvanders 8y ago
  I cry inside every time I remember that pebble is gone. I've still got a time round but I dread the day it dies on me.
crazygringo 8y ago
It's all aesthetics/fashion. There should be round watches and square/rectangular watches the same way there should be both gold and silver, both sporty and fancy, both digital and analog. People like to express themselves in what they wear. A big part of your watch isn't just when you look at it, but when others see it on your wrist. What is it saying about you? If you're a guy, one interpretation is that round means you're more of a classic dude, while square means you're more modern. The same way gold means you're more show-offy while silver says understated. Sporty says you might need to go for a run after this, while fancy means you're more likely to have expensive dinner reservations. None of these need to be true, but they're what your watch is saying for you. Obviously it's much more complex than this. And feel free to ignore it. But like it or not, your choice of accessories (for men, mainly watch, shoes and bag) wind up saying a lot about you, which is why they necessarily come in so many variations.
gregmac 8y ago
I have a Huawei Watch (1st gen) [1], and have been using it nearly daily for a couple years now. I liked the round form factor because IMHO it looks nicer, and choose this one because at the time it was one of the few that didn't have the "flat tire" on the bottom. It's thicker than my other (non-smart) watches, but not to an extent it's obtrusive in any way. I wear it most of the day and don't really notice it. As far as the software part of the UX, a lot of it depends on what you do. I basically use my watch for a couple things: * to tell the time, see my agenda and check the weather (all of which I can do from the watchface or 'home' screen) * to get notifications of meetings and messages (and sometimes reply with a quick 'yes' or 'no' type message) I can see why reading text on a circular screen is theoretically sub-optimal, but in practice it's not really noticeable as you scroll through. I don't really read long messages on it -- I'm mostly skimming it to see if I can respond quickly now, or if I need to get out my phone/laptop to read and/or respond now. The vast majority of messages I get can wait, and being able to tell that with a glance of my wrist (almost zero interruption) is quite handy. There's a bunch of other apps available of course, but I found there's just not many good use cases for why using the app on a tiny screen is worth saving the 5 seconds it takes to retrieve my phone from my pocket and unlock it. I don't think this is an issue at all of round vs square screen, at least not for what I personally thing a smart watch is useful for. Most of my interactions with my watch last for under 10 seconds. If you're doing more intensive things (using it minutes at a time) then maybe there's merit to why a larger rectangular screen is more useful -- but frankly, you probably have a much larger, better and significantly more usable rectangular display in your pocket, so it seems silly to argue about the watch display. [1] https://www.techwalls.com/huawei-watch-review-android-smartwatch/ https://www.techwalls.com/huawei-watch-review-android-smartw...
achompas 8y ago
> A relatively thick rectangle with a rounder back is going to have a center of mass that is further away from the wrist. It comprises a very small cantilever, which is still quite large on the scales of the traditional watch. Yeah, I think you've nailed it. I was going to mention the thickness of the Series 4, but it's far thinner than, say, an Omega Speedmaster. To your point, traditional watches with sapphire backs also have prominent wrist presence, since the caseback domes outward similar to (but not as much as) Apple Watches. Also consider that traditional watchbands connect to lugs that protrude from the watch body and often curve downward to follow your wrist. This also lowers the cantilever towards the wrist. Watches that do not do this (like the Nomos Club) have a much larger wrist presence, and the Apple Watch completely lacks lugs so that the band connects mid-body.
snomad 8y ago
Without jest, I want someone to go big and bulky a la the Predator. As an experiment, some company will hopefully stop trying to build a watch, and embrace a full on computer utility. Imagine a flexible ereader screen where you could comfortably read a book, document, or email.
- lozaning 8y ago
  It sounds like you want a wrist strap for your phone.
  - aedron 8y ago
    Yeah, I almost want that. The phone should be a bit flatter (and ideally a bit curved to wrap around the wrist), then I think I would actually like to have it on the upper side of my forearm at all times.
pesmhey 8y ago
The height is too large. It protrudes too far away from the wrist. Even a bigger face will feel less in-your-face if it’s more flush with your body.
godelmachine 8y ago
Isn’t Fossil making it round to match with its leading analog offering?
MarkMc 8y ago
I think Apple's decision to have a rectangular watch face was a major unforced error. Here are two smart watches from 4 years ago: https://m.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz https://m.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz The Moto 360 looks beautiful and classy while the Apple watch looks like a cheap casio from the 80s
fipple 8y ago
The design reason for a circular watch is that it visually matches the many round things on a human (pupils, appendage cross sections, breasts, etc) more than the zero rectangular things on a human (front teeth maybe?)
Wildgoose 8y ago
Yes. I have a Samsung Gear S2 Classic which I love. It has a round face with a rotating bezel which is a fabulous and intuitive user input device. (Just think of the functionality of the original classic iPod scrollwheel). That wouldn't work with a square face, smooth rotation requires a round face.
- mcintyre1994 8y ago
  I haven't used that watch so I'm by no means trying to compare, but Apple Watch does use turning the crown as an input device and that is obviously round and works well.
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
Mainly aesthetics, if you prefer the analog watch faces then circular is also functional. The corners on square watches protrude on small wrists and are more likely to be caught on or hit things.

kweinber 8y ago

Round watches don’t get caught on clothing, or on other people/obstacles as you brush past.

Swenrekcah 8y ago

I personally prefer round for the aesthetics. But that is probably just because I’ve been trained to think watches should be round. I’ve got a Garmin vivoactive 3 which I really like in terms of look and feel.

bduerst 8y ago
Same. I don't own one right now but have considered a smart watch, and only looked at the circular faces. While a smart watch is a new UI for spontaneously consuming information, it's always a fashion accessory when worn.

barbecue_sauce 8y ago

I think it's all aesthetics. While iPhones are sleek and stylish, the only thing that they are replacing are convergent previous technology devices without much stylistic precedence (unless you count the late 90s early 2000s "slightly ergonomic plastic" as a style) so nobody puts up much of a fuss. The Apple Watch is clearly an Apple designed product and it serves its function, but its replacing what has long been a style accessory with its own traditions and norms (particularly roundness), something you wear on your body and is visible to others at all times. When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape. My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though. (I got curious, this is similar to what I'm describing, but still way too large and not quite the same: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gligo-e-ink-smartwatch-hassle-free-with-style#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gligo-e-ink-smartwatch-ha...)

nradov 8y ago
It's just a matter of what people are used to. In a few decades a round watch with mechanical arms will seem odd and ugly to most consumers. Style is always in flux.
- notahacker 8y ago
  I dunno, we've had digital watches with square faces and at least some additional functionality over analogue ones since the 70s and the consensus continues to be that the analogue watch faces look classier
stcredzero 8y ago
When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape. I think you're onto something there. My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though. One of my coworkers has a rather large, round, positively can-like Android smart watch. I look at it, and think, That's way too thick for a watch. It has a flatter back, which I think is a plus. Another thing I just realized: Traditional watches often attach to the wristband much closer to the wrist than many smart watches. This helps them "disappear" when being worn.

beefalo 8y ago

Square watches do exist e.g. Cartier Santos and they do have ergonomic advantages. Smartwatches are not alone in the trend of watches being huge. Most watch brands have started making more 43mm+ size watches which I find far too large. Smartwatches also have it a little harder as well since it is going to be really hard to get much info on a screen at 40mm or smaller, especially when you cut off the corners. Most smartwatches are around 45mm, Apple making the smallest at 40mm, but I prefer watches that are in the 36mm - 39mm range.

colejohnson66 8y ago
Nitpick: Apple still sells the Series 3 which goes down to 38mm
- stcredzero 8y ago
  My wife still thinks those things are huge.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  The Series 3 is thicker though. I’ve heard the 40mm Series 4 feels smaller, or at the very least, similar. EDIT: apparently the 40mm size is also just a lot closer to the 38 than 42, not right in between, due to how the numbers are rounded. Side by side photo here https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/9iecba/38mm_vs_40mm_vs_42mm_comparison/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/9iecba/38mm_vs_...
stcredzero 8y ago
Square watches do exist e.g. Cartier Santos and they do have ergonomic advantages. Lots of square watches sort of disappear into their bands. They are flatter, and far less cantilever-y than the current Apple watches.
52-6F-62 8y ago
Don’t forget the classic 80’s Casio digital watches.
- 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

They're not bulky, but there's something about them which seems to keep them from disappearing from my awareness It's like a wedding ring or any other piece of jewelry — you get used to it in short order. I didn't wear an Apple Watch for a very long time because I though they were too bulky looking. But I got was as a gift, and failed to even notice it was there after just a few hours. I assume an Apple Watch gains most of its size and shape to maximize battery space. FWIW, an Apple Watch is less than half the size (and 1/10th the price!) of some of the watches worn by a certain class of "celebrities" these days.

52-6F-62 8y ago
I don’t know really what drove me to it outside of curiosity but I picked up the 4 last fall and I liked it almost immediately. I use the silicon band when working out, otherwise I purchased a leather band for it. I don’t notice the thickness or size at all, and I have the 44mm. Rather I appreciate the size on my wrist. Thinner would be an improvement, but I don’t find anything aesthetically I pleasing about how it currently sits. And regardless, the benefits that come with it are some that I use daily in tracking my excercise and performance progression, including my heart rate tracking and cool-down. And like most Apple things when you’re just so completely tied into the ecosystem— it just works with my other devices. And I relatively trust the privacy of my health data between the watch and my phone. So there’s that. I can see how they wouldn’t be for everyone. And I still appreciate finer mechanical watches but they are much further out of my price range :)

com2kid 8y ago

> UX discussion here. Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? Analog watches were round to fit the display technology available at the time, the watch dial, which is inherently round. RGB pixel displays are naturally rectangular. Ex-Lead UI developer from the ex-Microsoft Band here. UX wise, rectangular and square form factors make a lot more sense for the types of media consumption smartwatches are used for. Every time I see a text message clipped on the sides with only 3 lines showing on a huge circular display, I cry a little inside. Apple went with square-ish for a lot of good reasons. You can do some cool, innovative, and impressive looking things with circular form factors of course, especially when it comes to graphical displays of data. But humans are very bad at judging magnitudes in pie shape forms, and at the end of the day, a lot of information is textual. This limits you. > My wife thinks that even the smallest latest Apple Watch is way too large for a watch. Honestly the Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant (I may be biased). It is much easier to hold up in a comfortable reading position, and the dual body design meant the mass was split across the top and bottoms of the wrist. The problem of course was fitting all those electronics in a much narrower form factor. The entire device ended up being too wide for some people's wrists. At the end of the day, all those electronics and sensors, and of course the display, had to go somewhere. In regards to the article, I'm guessing Google is buying a team for the factory contracts, supply chains, and perhaps the ME/EE talent. Having all of that come in one big package is nice, building up those supplier relationships especially can take years of painful miscommunication.

RPLong 8y ago
Band 2 was a phenomenal piece of software contained in an atrocious piece of hardware, as evidenced by all the people whose Bands broke at the bracelet. I thought it was a tragedy. Band 2 was my favorite smart watch by a country mile, when mine still worked. It left all other products in the dust. It's a shame the bracelet was so poorly designed. The thing was damn near perfect.
- com2kid 8y ago
  It was amazing that hardware even existed, it was a miracle of EE and ME work to get anything out the door in the time frames we had to work with. How the entire project fell apart is one of those "If you're in my neck of the woods buy me a beer" stories. Thanks for the complement on the software. :) Having a chance to help design and build an (RT)OS at that young age and then have Microsoft of all companies, ship it out was an incredible experience. The underlying RTOS has some really cool and innovative concepts in it, and it was the best environment I've ever programmed for. I might be biased about the programming environment, since I was designed or helped design most of the foundational APIs. :-D as a tl;dr, 256KB of RAM, complete async runtime, CPU was off most of the time as the DMA (direct memory access) engine did the majority of the work copying data around. The closest modern analog would be programming in nodeJS, which funny enough is exactly what I'm doing right now!

AceJohnny2 8y ago

> They're not bulky, but there's something about them which seems to keep them from disappearing from my awareness. I've had the same impression. Could it be because of the symmetrically rounded edges that makes it look like it stands off your wrist, instead of an asymmetrical bevel to make it seem more like it "melts" into your wrist? Plus, of course, that the screen winks on or off when it detects the "raise-to-wake" motion, so that 1) it's a much more deliberate gesture when you want to look at it and 2) it's a distraction in your peripheral vision when it's wrong.

wvenable 8y ago

> Is there any UX/design/functional reason to have a round watch face on a smartwatch? The circular functional bezel on a Gear S3 is nice bit of physical interface. It's primarily how I interface with my smartwatch. Honestly, you're never going to get much utility out of a smartwatch. So aesthetics is the primary function of the device and round watches do tend to look better.

microtherion 8y ago

In my opinion, a round screen on a smart watch is the ultimate skeuomorphism: sticking with a certain shape that is utterly impractical for most applications, just because mechanical counterparts are that shape. Can't help wondering what the overlap is between round smart watch screen fanciers and people who slagged Apple for its past skeuomorphic excesses and dismiss their products as "fashion statements". [I work for Apple, but not on the Watch or as a spokesperson].

Shorel 8y ago

Digital watches were all square or rectangular. I had a calculator watch when I was a child, also rectangular.

azundo 8y ago

Pebble Time Round was exactly this and it was beautiful. My wife would constantly get compliments on her rose gold edition from people in the street. The vast majority didn't even realize it was a smartwatch.

vvanders 8y ago
I cry inside every time I remember that pebble is gone. I've still got a time round but I dread the day it dies on me.

crazygringo 8y ago

It's all aesthetics/fashion. There should be round watches and square/rectangular watches the same way there should be both gold and silver, both sporty and fancy, both digital and analog. People like to express themselves in what they wear. A big part of your watch isn't just when you look at it, but when others see it on your wrist. What is it saying about you? If you're a guy, one interpretation is that round means you're more of a classic dude, while square means you're more modern. The same way gold means you're more show-offy while silver says understated. Sporty says you might need to go for a run after this, while fancy means you're more likely to have expensive dinner reservations. None of these need to be true, but they're what your watch is saying for you. Obviously it's much more complex than this. And feel free to ignore it. But like it or not, your choice of accessories (for men, mainly watch, shoes and bag) wind up saying a lot about you, which is why they necessarily come in so many variations.

gregmac 8y ago

I have a Huawei Watch (1st gen) [1], and have been using it nearly daily for a couple years now. I liked the round form factor because IMHO it looks nicer, and choose this one because at the time it was one of the few that didn't have the "flat tire" on the bottom. It's thicker than my other (non-smart) watches, but not to an extent it's obtrusive in any way. I wear it most of the day and don't really notice it. As far as the software part of the UX, a lot of it depends on what you do. I basically use my watch for a couple things: * to tell the time, see my agenda and check the weather (all of which I can do from the watchface or 'home' screen) * to get notifications of meetings and messages (and sometimes reply with a quick 'yes' or 'no' type message) I can see why reading text on a circular screen is theoretically sub-optimal, but in practice it's not really noticeable as you scroll through. I don't really read long messages on it -- I'm mostly skimming it to see if I can respond quickly now, or if I need to get out my phone/laptop to read and/or respond now. The vast majority of messages I get can wait, and being able to tell that with a glance of my wrist (almost zero interruption) is quite handy. There's a bunch of other apps available of course, but I found there's just not many good use cases for why using the app on a tiny screen is worth saving the 5 seconds it takes to retrieve my phone from my pocket and unlock it. I don't think this is an issue at all of round vs square screen, at least not for what I personally thing a smart watch is useful for. Most of my interactions with my watch last for under 10 seconds. If you're doing more intensive things (using it minutes at a time) then maybe there's merit to why a larger rectangular screen is more useful -- but frankly, you probably have a much larger, better and significantly more usable rectangular display in your pocket, so it seems silly to argue about the watch display. [1] https://www.techwalls.com/huawei-watch-review-android-smartwatch/ https://www.techwalls.com/huawei-watch-review-android-smartw...

achompas 8y ago

> A relatively thick rectangle with a rounder back is going to have a center of mass that is further away from the wrist. It comprises a very small cantilever, which is still quite large on the scales of the traditional watch. Yeah, I think you've nailed it. I was going to mention the thickness of the Series 4, but it's far thinner than, say, an Omega Speedmaster. To your point, traditional watches with sapphire backs also have prominent wrist presence, since the caseback domes outward similar to (but not as much as) Apple Watches. Also consider that traditional watchbands connect to lugs that protrude from the watch body and often curve downward to follow your wrist. This also lowers the cantilever towards the wrist. Watches that do not do this (like the Nomos Club) have a much larger wrist presence, and the Apple Watch completely lacks lugs so that the band connects mid-body.

snomad 8y ago

Without jest, I want someone to go big and bulky a la the Predator. As an experiment, some company will hopefully stop trying to build a watch, and embrace a full on computer utility. Imagine a flexible ereader screen where you could comfortably read a book, document, or email.

lozaning 8y ago
It sounds like you want a wrist strap for your phone.
- aedron 8y ago
  Yeah, I almost want that. The phone should be a bit flatter (and ideally a bit curved to wrap around the wrist), then I think I would actually like to have it on the upper side of my forearm at all times.

pesmhey 8y ago

The height is too large. It protrudes too far away from the wrist. Even a bigger face will feel less in-your-face if it’s more flush with your body.

godelmachine 8y ago

Isn’t Fossil making it round to match with its leading analog offering?

MarkMc 8y ago

I think Apple's decision to have a rectangular watch face was a major unforced error. Here are two smart watches from 4 years ago: https://m.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz https://m.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz The Moto 360 looks beautiful and classy while the Apple watch looks like a cheap casio from the 80s

fipple 8y ago

The design reason for a circular watch is that it visually matches the many round things on a human (pupils, appendage cross sections, breasts, etc) more than the zero rectangular things on a human (front teeth maybe?)

Wildgoose 8y ago

Yes. I have a Samsung Gear S2 Classic which I love. It has a round face with a rotating bezel which is a fabulous and intuitive user input device. (Just think of the functionality of the original classic iPod scrollwheel). That wouldn't work with a square face, smooth rotation requires a round face.

mcintyre1994 8y ago
I haven't used that watch so I'm by no means trying to compare, but Apple Watch does use turning the crown as an input device and that is obviously round and works well.

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago

Mainly aesthetics, if you prefer the analog watch faces then circular is also functional. The corners on square watches protrude on small wrists and are more likely to be caught on or hit things.