Here’s an eye-catching concept of the Apple Watch, for one reason only: the body.
One of the main features of the watch market in general - analogue, digital, or smart - is that there is a huge diversity in tastes, thus differences in shapes and sizes. Apple’s recognised this by offering a huge collection of bands that range greatly in colours, hefts, and materials. But what about the watch body?
That’s a question I’ve been pondering about ever since I came across this concept. It’s not much different looking than the Apple Watch at first glance, but to me, its more subtle differences - compared to other concepts, some going as far as making the watch perfectly round - speak volumes.
There’s something really compelling about its shape, more so than the original Apple Watch body. It’s flatter, more flesh with the bands, but not flattened. As a watch enthusiast, this is the Apple Watch I want - nevermind the other features in this concept. Although I’m aware that given today’s technological limitations, it might not be as functional.
As we know with the iPhones and the new MacBook, thinness is a big priority. What we don’t know is if that translates to the Apple Watch, as it’s still a Version 1 product. Right now, the Apple Watch is miles and miles behind the iPhone in computing power, perhaps a reason, among others, why many native apps haven’t been made yet.
To create a better form than the current one - still good but bulbous in comparison to other watch bodies - thinness must be a priority , perhaps more so than with the more mature iPhone. That might create a compromise in hardware improvements, unless Apple ups the ante and manages to make a thinner profile and work faster.
It’s been about 16 months since we first seen the Apple Watch, but in terms of product strategy, we still know very little. Will we even see an annual upgrade cycle? But if we know one thing, it’ll depend on how Apple perceives this product - rather, how they think the market for smartwatches will perceive this product, in the long-term.
My guess, or at least my preference, is for the Watch to stay true to form. It is a watch, and its apps, even now, serve the purpose of complications - low powered apps that act as extensions of their iPhone counterparts that don’t have to be as powerful (I don’t mean actual complications on the watchface, I mean it as an analogue-digital metaphor). In that case, compromises in computing power can be made and the form matters more, as it intrinsically should design-wise. This is what I think those holding off on the Apple Watch really want to see - not just improved tech.
In other words, I’d prefer to see this watch body with only slightly improved processing power than the Apple Watch’s body with much greater processing power.
(Via Handy Abovergleich)