3 ms·

The idea he presented previously is that you'd be able to go in to Apple and upgrade the tech innards of your fancy gold iWatch when new, faster, more awesome b

by radley 12y ago

The idea he presented previously is that you'd be able to go in to Apple and upgrade the tech innards of your fancy gold iWatch when new, faster, more awesome bits are released.

puranjay 12y ago
That's a bold bet on the form factor itself. What's the guarantee that Apple won't launch a round face watch in the 3rd iteration?
- ghshephard 12y ago
  In the NewYorker Article, Jony made it clear that they considered a round face, but realized quite quickly that one of the principal functions of the watch was to deal with lists, which work much better on a rectangle.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    Yeah, and Steve Jobs dismissed tablets in 2003 ("people want keyboards") and dismissed smaller tablets in 2010 ("the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps") and dismissed putting a screen on an iPod in 2004 ("It's the music, stupid"), and dismissed larger-than 3.5" screened phones in 2010 ("Nobody's going to buy that.") Ive has to say that rectangles are clearly the superior form factor. It's his job. That doesn't mean that two years from now Apple won't have a round watch. It doesn't mean that they will, either. EDIT: Also, uh, what if someone comes up with a really good use for smart-watches that isn't lists-related? "Dealing with lists" is not selling me on the need to buy another multi-hundred dollar gadget.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      It's funny - when I read the Ive comment, that was exactly what my first response was as well. I'm on the fence - there are probably some good reasons for a rectangle, given the jobs-to-be-done, but their is something timeless about the round-face of a watch. I guess we'll see over the next few years.
- moeedm 12y ago
  Jony Ive was pretty clear about why they didn't go for a round face in his interview with The New Yorker: > Ive later tested watchbands by wearing them outside the studio with other watches. The shape of the body, meanwhile, barely changed: a rectangle with rounded corners. “When a huge part of the function is lists”—of names, or appointments—“a circle doesn’t make any sense,” Ive said.
shanusmagnus 12y ago
The way the processing module is designed as a little encapsulated nugget-thing suggests that maybe this upgrade idea is more feasible with the watch than it would be for other devices.
joshstrange 12y ago
This wouldn't even need to be a quick process, they could swap out the watch face and harvest the materials from them at a later date. Do a quick restore from your iPhone to get your apps/settings back to the watch and you're done (just like buying a new iPhone, the only difference is you keep the watchband).

by radley 12y ago

The idea he presented previously is that you'd be able to go in to Apple and upgrade the tech innards of your fancy gold iWatch when new, faster, more awesome bits are released.

puranjay 12y ago

That's a bold bet on the form factor itself. What's the guarantee that Apple won't launch a round face watch in the 3rd iteration?

ghshephard 12y ago
In the NewYorker Article, Jony made it clear that they considered a round face, but realized quite quickly that one of the principal functions of the watch was to deal with lists, which work much better on a rectangle.
- aetherson 12y ago
  Yeah, and Steve Jobs dismissed tablets in 2003 ("people want keyboards") and dismissed smaller tablets in 2010 ("the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps") and dismissed putting a screen on an iPod in 2004 ("It's the music, stupid"), and dismissed larger-than 3.5" screened phones in 2010 ("Nobody's going to buy that.") Ive has to say that rectangles are clearly the superior form factor. It's his job. That doesn't mean that two years from now Apple won't have a round watch. It doesn't mean that they will, either. EDIT: Also, uh, what if someone comes up with a really good use for smart-watches that isn't lists-related? "Dealing with lists" is not selling me on the need to buy another multi-hundred dollar gadget.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    It's funny - when I read the Ive comment, that was exactly what my first response was as well. I'm on the fence - there are probably some good reasons for a rectangle, given the jobs-to-be-done, but their is something timeless about the round-face of a watch. I guess we'll see over the next few years.
moeedm 12y ago
Jony Ive was pretty clear about why they didn't go for a round face in his interview with The New Yorker: > Ive later tested watchbands by wearing them outside the studio with other watches. The shape of the body, meanwhile, barely changed: a rectangle with rounded corners. “When a huge part of the function is lists”—of names, or appointments—“a circle doesn’t make any sense,” Ive said.

shanusmagnus 12y ago

The way the processing module is designed as a little encapsulated nugget-thing suggests that maybe this upgrade idea is more feasible with the watch than it would be for other devices.

joshstrange 12y ago

This wouldn't even need to be a quick process, they could swap out the watch face and harvest the materials from them at a later date. Do a quick restore from your iPhone to get your apps/settings back to the watch and you're done (just like buying a new iPhone, the only difference is you keep the watchband).