John Gruber, commenting on the new wave of big, clunky, Galaxy watches from Samsung:
Samsung is sticking with round faces — you certainly can’t call these ripoffs of Apple Watch. But I think that’s a mistake for a digital watch. At 42 and 46mm, both sizes are much larger (and heavier) than Apple Watches. Because Apple measures its watches vertically, they sound closer in size than they actually are. A 42mm Apple Watch is 36mm wide, and a 38mm Apple Watch is just 33mm wide. Apple remains the only company making smartwatches for women and men with small wrists.
I do wish my Apple Watch was thinner. The weight is not an issue for me, but I can imagine a thinner future Apple Watch, still rectangular, but with a gently curved body that matches the curved wrist surface on which it sits.
What I can’t imagine is ever moving to a bigger, clunkier smartwatch.
I agree historically watches have had flat backs for a reason. Its the most comfortable for the majority, because everyone wears their watch differently. Some loose, some snug. A contoured body would only appeal to snug watch wearers. Not to mention, everyone’s wrist has a different radius.
Plus, with the sensor on the back I really can’t imagine it becoming curved. They would sacrifice performance of the sensor.The back crystal is shaped to act like a lense to make good contact with the skin.
I started with a Series 0, and now I have a Series 3. I’m thoroughly
enjoying the experience. Neither weight nor thickness is a problem.
I can’t imagine Apple would make the watch thicker than it needs to be. A little thinner, when possible, would be nice—but not at the expense of functionality, including sensors, durability, of battery charge life.
Don’t forget that they’re also still Samsung, so it’ll probably blow your hand off at some point.
And if it doesn’t, it’ll still be a Samsung.
So, no thanks.
the surface of my wrist is pretty flat where a watch lies, so not surprising most watches have historically had flat backs. i doubt we’ll see a curved-back AW.