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.<p>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.<p>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.
I love my Fossil Q because it does one thing many other smart watches just don't: tells the time, all the time, no motion required, in a high contrast fashion.<p>All I really want out of a watch is that, plus long battery life (weeks at least, months preferably), self-charging, self-time setting, and, if I am lucky, some sort of "hey look at your phone" alert.<p>I get most of these with the Fossil Q. Others with my Citizens and Seiko non-smart watches, one of which has an e-ink display. Nothing has them all. Oh well.<p>I wonder if Google will make a Fossil Q which has it all. I do not need a display, health monitoring, etc.
Is anyone satisfied with their Fossil watch? I have a Fossil Q Explorist and it's so slow and laggy that I almost wonder if I got a lemon. It takes like 3 taps to click or swipe before anything registers. I'm pretty sure my original Moto 360 is faster. I only wear it because it looks decent and occasionally works. I really wanted to like it, but my experience has just been ... bad.
Hopefully it's to get more control over the hardware, especially the chipset. Qualcomm is dragging down WearOS with their glacial pace and underwhelming commitment to the platform.
Hopefully this means that my Fossil Q Wander is going to be on the cutting edge of Google's software updates now. Big fan of this watch by the way, only complaint is that it doesn't led itself to workouts as well as some other watches.
I feel real good about my Fossil Sport :)<p>Impressive to see Google's aggressive push into the hardware market. Here's to hoping that a Pixel watch is good enough to set a bench mark like what the Nexus/Pixel phones have done.
40MM doesn’t sound like a huge deal for Google but I still cannot fathom why they would purchase this. I’d rather have a pimple on my forehead than a fossil smartwatch on my wrist.<p>An appropriate name for Google’s smartwatch line would be “caprolite”, which means fossized excrement.