7 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 technolo

> 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!
  - bane 8y ago
    > 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 honestly? That's pretty badass. I really liked the band concept and how it tried to actually advance wearables instead of smush watch and phone together.
    - com2kid 8y ago
      There was also some super slow external RAM off to the side that was used as a cache for static assets. Other things Band did: 1. Real true type fonts. 2. East Asia Language support 3. Real Unicode (see 1 & 2) 4. Antialiased fonts 5. Real transparency/alpha blending 6. Particle effects engine 30 FPS on a 96Mhz CPU and a dumb framebuffer. Writing a custom OS lets you do amazing things with minimal resources!
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I wanted a Band so badly, but it was clear Microsoft had abandoned it by the time I got around to it, so I passed. :( I ended up picking up a Fitbit Ionic (though the newer Versa is now a clear improvement in almost every way) in part because it was one of the few truly cross-platform smartwatches that wouldn't tie me to a phone ecosystem. Windows Mobile support on it is still great, since they use a UWP app on desktop as well. I actually flip my Ionic around my wrist when in the movie theater in particular (I see a lot of movies), so that it won't blind everyone if I move and my watch decides to light up.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  They killed it just before it had a chance to start becoming a hit. I only found out that it was actually awesome and very extensible just as they were killing it. And I'm both switched on and core market for the development side. Shame.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    This is Microsoft's problem with just about everything they've done consumer-side. Windows 10 Mobile is still a fantastic platform that was well ahead of it's time (Android Q is rumored to add both dark mode and a desktop UI, which W10M has had for years), and was killed just big selling points like Continuum were ramping up. And Universal Windows Platform has been harshly deprioritized in favor of Electron despite the fact that we're still a year from Windows 7 (the primary compelling reason to use Electron over UWP for a PC app) going away. Edge's rendering engine performs better than Chrome, but just as it's starting to reach basic feature parity and stability, Microsoft is axing it in favor of switching to Chromium. Microsoft also seemed to be leading the foldable device trend both with the Courier several years ago, and more recently, the Surface Andromeda, but then inexplicably decided to kill them both and wait for their competitors to beat them to it. I have a Windows phone that runs Android apps as well as Android does but Microsoft decided to scrap the feature. Watching Microsoft both come up with the best solution to a problem and then brutally murder it before anyone can use it is probably the most painful thing to watch in tech.
mav3rick 8y ago
Hi I was on the platform side. Some of the best times in my career :)
dan678 8y ago
Yes! The rectangular display on the underside of the wrist was brilliant! Having gone from MS Band 2 to Apple Watch to Samsung G3 to Fitbit Charge, MS Band has been my favorite. My single complaint was the how invariably the band would begin to break away from the display over normal use. Also, battery life could have been better... I'd still buy one if MS decided to produce a 3rd iteration. A Fitbit Charge with the under wrist style display would be great as well...
- com2kid 8y ago
  > Also, battery life could have been better... Battery life was provably as good as it could be! There was one sensor that wasn't fully optimized, working on it could've added maybe 4 or so hours to the battery life (up to 8 if all the best case most optimistic estimates came through), but other than that OS architecture of the Band ensured optimal battery life. Having that many sensors, and a screen that bright, on a device that small, just sucks up battery. For what it is worth (nothing!), if the majority of health sensors were turned off, and the Band was only used as for productivity, the battery could easily last over 3 days. That is if memory serves me correct. :) (I'm wearing one right now, but I'm too lazy to turn everything off and come back in a few days to comment!)
  - dan678 8y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant it more as a personal preference. Considering the sensors and screen, a 2 day battery life was pretty great and certainly one of the reasons it was (and still is) better than the Apple Watch and G3, IMO. I just meant I value a longer battery life pretty highly. So, something like a MS Band "lite" with a less feature rich sensor package, a 2 tone oled display, and 6 to 7 day battery life would have hit that sweet spot for me, personally. I really like being able to wear the Charge 3 around the clock for a full week (I typically charge it during my lazy Sunday morning routine) without really worrying about it.
    - plasticchris 8y ago
      Have you looked at the Garmin fitness bands? The first gen was something like you describe but could go for a year on a couple of coin cells. They probably have more/better ones now, that was several years ago.
devereaux 8y ago
Thanks a lot for everything you did with the Band! Even if a S sized Band 2 was a bit too big (I wear size 6 gloves) I absolutely loved the Band, and yes I wore it on the underside of the wrist. I only let it go when it got the tearing disease.
m0zg 8y ago
>> media consumption smartwatches are used for Huh? Smartwatches aren't used for "media consumption". I primarily use my Series 4 Apple watch as a watch and heart/activity monitoring device. I do think the rectangular form factor is better in a watch, but this comment may reveal why Apple is crushing everybody else: they understood the user and sold that user a _watch_ rather than a "media consumption" device. >> Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant Another misunderstanding of what watches are about. They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory. That's how you get to charge $450 per unit sold.
- usaphp 8y ago
  > They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory. Apple watch is the ugliest possible watch to wear if you want to wear it as a fashion accessory, non-smart watches are fashion accessories. Apple Watch is just less ugly than most of the other smartwatches, but it's still ugly as a fashion accessory
  - m0zg 8y ago
    I disagree (and so does Hodinkee). I think it's understated and beautiful, and half a dozen of my other watches (some pretty expensive) have been collecting dust. But even if I were to agree, it also happens to be the best looking "smart" watch on the market by quite a wide margin, by far not the ugliest looking watch overall, and the only one that doesn't scream "I'm a computer" at you. You don't have to run faster than the bear, you only have to run faster than the next slowest guy.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      That fails when the quantities fall below a certain threshold. If the two people are slow enough, both of them may get eaten by the bear.
    - the_duke 8y ago
      To me the it just looks like a screen hooked to a acceptable wristband. Because that's what it is. A completely different world from a beautiful watch. The "fashion accessory" factor is related to the iPhone popularity: it's a relatively expensive status symbol with the Apple boost.
wycy 8y ago
I just want to reply to say I had a Band and a Band 2 and absolutely loved them both. Durability issues aside with the strap of the Band 2, it was such a fantastic wearable. I found it superior to the Apple Watch. I have an Apple Watch now but how I feel about it doesn't compare to the affinity I used to feel for my Bands. That the Band seemed geared towards wear on the inside of the wrist helped make it feel both more futuristic and more comfortable. And the tile UI was so well suited to the screen size. I was so disappointed when MS gave up on the Band. You guys did a great job on it.
- xKingfisher 8y ago
  Seconded. I really miss my Band 2. The whole UI was incredibly well designed for the form factor. The app design guide was a very good read. I also liked how it wasn't trying to pretend to be a normal watch but with a screen. I dabbled with Android smartwatches for a bit after, but they never were able to scratch the same itch.
- megaremote 8y ago
  Wow, really? For me it was awful, the buckle was huge, uncomfortable, frustrating.
jansan 8y ago
Thanks for all the insight. You probably know the "drivers watches" from the seventies, which had the display at the side of the watch that faces towards you when holding a steering wheel (search for "Bulova driver's watch"). I think it would be great to get something similar again for smartwatches. A small display at the side of the watch, showing the time or some indicators. This display would be visible without rotating the wrist and make it much easier to get status information. In addition there would still be the large display on top. Combined screen size would be even bigger without increasing the size of the watch.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Those Drivers' Watches were clever but were an invented need much like Pilots' Watches; the actual pros mostly use a plurality of clocks on the console of their vehicle, not an expensive little fragile mechanism on their wrist. Somehow though Pilots' Watches have survived as a lucrative luxury item. An actual navigator's watch is primarily a stopwatch. The pilot doesn't need much more than a Casio.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    See also dive watches.
    - dawidw 8y ago
      Why? They look normal.
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        They're luxury items almost entirely divorced from what divers actually use.
- aedron 8y ago
  If ever there was a place for a curved OLED, a smartwatch is it. Along with a slight rotation off the center of the wrist, as you mentioned, this would be the great next thing in wrist-strapped devices, IMHO. If it had a SIM I might ditch my smart phone altogether.
ct520 8y ago
As a fellow band 1/2 upside down wearer I absolutely concur
MarsAscendant 8y ago
> 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 I used to wear a watch every day to uni. It rested on the underside of my wrist, 'cause it made more sense to me. I also used to type a lot on my laptop, which rested on a flat table surface, when I was at the uni. Every time I needed to type more than a few symbols, I had to take the watch off. Otherwise: KGHRRR GHRR GHRRR GHR-HR-HR, across the table surface, for everyone to hear. Let alone the pressing of damn-near-solid metal onto the backside of the wrist, where all of them good veins are. Microsoft band looks about as thick as the watch I wore. Looks like it's lighter, its exterior being made of plastic. Must have had some weight and volume, still. Was that ever in the process of discussion when making a smart watch?
michaelbrooks 8y ago
I just want to say, the band 2 was incredible in terms of design, usability and tech. I absolutely loved showing it off to everyone and having reminders about sunscreen and checking UV rays. Texting was actually pretty decent on a small form factor too. The biggest downfall for me was the durability. I had my band 2 replaced so many times because the rubber kept coming away. If they could have fixed that, then it would hands down be the best smartwatch on the market.
wink 8y ago
> Honestly the Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant (I may be biased). I think a lot of personal preference comes into this. I know some women who wear their (lighter) watches on the inside, I've never seen anyone with a bigger watch to this. I just remember having a metal wristband that was just a little too loose and the watch body slipped to the inside of my wrist from time to time, and I hated that so much that I stopped wearing it until I got it shortened. It's not much but the weight distribution makes this horribly uncomfortable for me. Also it clanks against the desk while typing :P

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!
- bane 8y ago
  > 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 honestly? That's pretty badass. I really liked the band concept and how it tried to actually advance wearables instead of smush watch and phone together.
  - com2kid 8y ago
    There was also some super slow external RAM off to the side that was used as a cache for static assets. Other things Band did: 1. Real true type fonts. 2. East Asia Language support 3. Real Unicode (see 1 & 2) 4. Antialiased fonts 5. Real transparency/alpha blending 6. Particle effects engine 30 FPS on a 96Mhz CPU and a dumb framebuffer. Writing a custom OS lets you do amazing things with minimal resources!

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I wanted a Band so badly, but it was clear Microsoft had abandoned it by the time I got around to it, so I passed. :( I ended up picking up a Fitbit Ionic (though the newer Versa is now a clear improvement in almost every way) in part because it was one of the few truly cross-platform smartwatches that wouldn't tie me to a phone ecosystem. Windows Mobile support on it is still great, since they use a UWP app on desktop as well. I actually flip my Ionic around my wrist when in the movie theater in particular (I see a lot of movies), so that it won't blind everyone if I move and my watch decides to light up.

radicalbyte 8y ago
They killed it just before it had a chance to start becoming a hit. I only found out that it was actually awesome and very extensible just as they were killing it. And I'm both switched on and core market for the development side. Shame.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  This is Microsoft's problem with just about everything they've done consumer-side. Windows 10 Mobile is still a fantastic platform that was well ahead of it's time (Android Q is rumored to add both dark mode and a desktop UI, which W10M has had for years), and was killed just big selling points like Continuum were ramping up. And Universal Windows Platform has been harshly deprioritized in favor of Electron despite the fact that we're still a year from Windows 7 (the primary compelling reason to use Electron over UWP for a PC app) going away. Edge's rendering engine performs better than Chrome, but just as it's starting to reach basic feature parity and stability, Microsoft is axing it in favor of switching to Chromium. Microsoft also seemed to be leading the foldable device trend both with the Courier several years ago, and more recently, the Surface Andromeda, but then inexplicably decided to kill them both and wait for their competitors to beat them to it. I have a Windows phone that runs Android apps as well as Android does but Microsoft decided to scrap the feature. Watching Microsoft both come up with the best solution to a problem and then brutally murder it before anyone can use it is probably the most painful thing to watch in tech.

mav3rick 8y ago

Hi I was on the platform side. Some of the best times in my career :)

dan678 8y ago

Yes! The rectangular display on the underside of the wrist was brilliant! Having gone from MS Band 2 to Apple Watch to Samsung G3 to Fitbit Charge, MS Band has been my favorite. My single complaint was the how invariably the band would begin to break away from the display over normal use. Also, battery life could have been better... I'd still buy one if MS decided to produce a 3rd iteration. A Fitbit Charge with the under wrist style display would be great as well...

com2kid 8y ago
> Also, battery life could have been better... Battery life was provably as good as it could be! There was one sensor that wasn't fully optimized, working on it could've added maybe 4 or so hours to the battery life (up to 8 if all the best case most optimistic estimates came through), but other than that OS architecture of the Band ensured optimal battery life. Having that many sensors, and a screen that bright, on a device that small, just sucks up battery. For what it is worth (nothing!), if the majority of health sensors were turned off, and the Band was only used as for productivity, the battery could easily last over 3 days. That is if memory serves me correct. :) (I'm wearing one right now, but I'm too lazy to turn everything off and come back in a few days to comment!)
- dan678 8y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant it more as a personal preference. Considering the sensors and screen, a 2 day battery life was pretty great and certainly one of the reasons it was (and still is) better than the Apple Watch and G3, IMO. I just meant I value a longer battery life pretty highly. So, something like a MS Band "lite" with a less feature rich sensor package, a 2 tone oled display, and 6 to 7 day battery life would have hit that sweet spot for me, personally. I really like being able to wear the Charge 3 around the clock for a full week (I typically charge it during my lazy Sunday morning routine) without really worrying about it.
  - plasticchris 8y ago
    Have you looked at the Garmin fitness bands? The first gen was something like you describe but could go for a year on a couple of coin cells. They probably have more/better ones now, that was several years ago.

devereaux 8y ago

Thanks a lot for everything you did with the Band! Even if a S sized Band 2 was a bit too big (I wear size 6 gloves) I absolutely loved the Band, and yes I wore it on the underside of the wrist. I only let it go when it got the tearing disease.

m0zg 8y ago

>> media consumption smartwatches are used for Huh? Smartwatches aren't used for "media consumption". I primarily use my Series 4 Apple watch as a watch and heart/activity monitoring device. I do think the rectangular form factor is better in a watch, but this comment may reveal why Apple is crushing everybody else: they understood the user and sold that user a _watch_ rather than a "media consumption" device. >> Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant Another misunderstanding of what watches are about. They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory. That's how you get to charge $450 per unit sold.

usaphp 8y ago
> They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory. Apple watch is the ugliest possible watch to wear if you want to wear it as a fashion accessory, non-smart watches are fashion accessories. Apple Watch is just less ugly than most of the other smartwatches, but it's still ugly as a fashion accessory
- m0zg 8y ago
  I disagree (and so does Hodinkee). I think it's understated and beautiful, and half a dozen of my other watches (some pretty expensive) have been collecting dust. But even if I were to agree, it also happens to be the best looking "smart" watch on the market by quite a wide margin, by far not the ugliest looking watch overall, and the only one that doesn't scream "I'm a computer" at you. You don't have to run faster than the bear, you only have to run faster than the next slowest guy.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    That fails when the quantities fall below a certain threshold. If the two people are slow enough, both of them may get eaten by the bear.
  - the_duke 8y ago
    To me the it just looks like a screen hooked to a acceptable wristband. Because that's what it is. A completely different world from a beautiful watch. The "fashion accessory" factor is related to the iPhone popularity: it's a relatively expensive status symbol with the Apple boost.

wycy 8y ago

I just want to reply to say I had a Band and a Band 2 and absolutely loved them both. Durability issues aside with the strap of the Band 2, it was such a fantastic wearable. I found it superior to the Apple Watch. I have an Apple Watch now but how I feel about it doesn't compare to the affinity I used to feel for my Bands. That the Band seemed geared towards wear on the inside of the wrist helped make it feel both more futuristic and more comfortable. And the tile UI was so well suited to the screen size. I was so disappointed when MS gave up on the Band. You guys did a great job on it.

xKingfisher 8y ago
Seconded. I really miss my Band 2. The whole UI was incredibly well designed for the form factor. The app design guide was a very good read. I also liked how it wasn't trying to pretend to be a normal watch but with a screen. I dabbled with Android smartwatches for a bit after, but they never were able to scratch the same itch.
megaremote 8y ago
Wow, really? For me it was awful, the buckle was huge, uncomfortable, frustrating.

jansan 8y ago

Thanks for all the insight. You probably know the "drivers watches" from the seventies, which had the display at the side of the watch that faces towards you when holding a steering wheel (search for "Bulova driver's watch"). I think it would be great to get something similar again for smartwatches. A small display at the side of the watch, showing the time or some indicators. This display would be visible without rotating the wrist and make it much easier to get status information. In addition there would still be the large display on top. Combined screen size would be even bigger without increasing the size of the watch.

dingaling 8y ago
Those Drivers' Watches were clever but were an invented need much like Pilots' Watches; the actual pros mostly use a plurality of clocks on the console of their vehicle, not an expensive little fragile mechanism on their wrist. Somehow though Pilots' Watches have survived as a lucrative luxury item. An actual navigator's watch is primarily a stopwatch. The pilot doesn't need much more than a Casio.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  See also dive watches.
  - dawidw 8y ago
    Why? They look normal.
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      They're luxury items almost entirely divorced from what divers actually use.
aedron 8y ago
If ever there was a place for a curved OLED, a smartwatch is it. Along with a slight rotation off the center of the wrist, as you mentioned, this would be the great next thing in wrist-strapped devices, IMHO. If it had a SIM I might ditch my smart phone altogether.

ct520 8y ago

As a fellow band 1/2 upside down wearer I absolutely concur

MarsAscendant 8y ago

> 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 I used to wear a watch every day to uni. It rested on the underside of my wrist, 'cause it made more sense to me. I also used to type a lot on my laptop, which rested on a flat table surface, when I was at the uni. Every time I needed to type more than a few symbols, I had to take the watch off. Otherwise: KGHRRR GHRR GHRRR GHR-HR-HR, across the table surface, for everyone to hear. Let alone the pressing of damn-near-solid metal onto the backside of the wrist, where all of them good veins are. Microsoft band looks about as thick as the watch I wore. Looks like it's lighter, its exterior being made of plastic. Must have had some weight and volume, still. Was that ever in the process of discussion when making a smart watch?

michaelbrooks 8y ago

I just want to say, the band 2 was incredible in terms of design, usability and tech. I absolutely loved showing it off to everyone and having reminders about sunscreen and checking UV rays. Texting was actually pretty decent on a small form factor too. The biggest downfall for me was the durability. I had my band 2 replaced so many times because the rubber kept coming away. If they could have fixed that, then it would hands down be the best smartwatch on the market.

wink 8y ago

> Honestly the Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant (I may be biased). I think a lot of personal preference comes into this. I know some women who wear their (lighter) watches on the inside, I've never seen anyone with a bigger watch to this. I just remember having a metal wristband that was just a little too loose and the watch body slipped to the inside of my wrist from time to time, and I hated that so much that I stopped wearing it until I got it shortened. It's not much but the weight distribution makes this horribly uncomfortable for me. Also it clanks against the desk while typing :P