Hacker News Reader

Comment by puranjay | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com