The
Samsung
Galaxy
Watch
7
series
isn’t
likely
to
be
the
company’s
most
exciting
wearable
this
year.
That’ll
be
the
Galaxy
Ring.
Maybe
that’s
why
rumor
has
it
that
Samsung
is
looking
to
shake
up
its
watch
design.
According
to
SamMobile,
the
company
wants
to
go
back
to
a
squarish
design
a
la
the
original
Galaxy
Gear.
This
reminds
me
of
the
Samsung
rumor
mill
back
in
early
2022.
Then,
there
were
murmurs
that
the
company
would
be
ditching
the
much-beloved
physical
rotating
bezel.
Which
was,
in
my
opinion,
a
stupid,
stupid,
stupid
idea.
It
was
baffling.
No
other
smartwatch
maker
had
the
physical
rotating
bezel,
making
it
Samsung’s
signature
calling
card.
Brands
kill
for
iconic
designs
—
why
would
it
voluntarily
throw
that
away?
And
yet,
that
rumor
turned
out
to
be
true.
The
Galaxy
Watch
5
series
debuted
with
only
the
digital
touch
bezel.
The
Samsung
Galaxy
Gear
had
a
squarish
display.Photo:
Vlad
Savov
/
The
Verge
Then,
last
year,
Samsung
furiously
backpedaled
and
reintroduced
the
rotating
bezel
with
the
Galaxy
Watch
6
series
after
enough
customers
demanded
its
return.
You’d
think
Samsung
would’ve
learned
something
after
switching
up
the
bezel
didn’t
go
over
well.
But
now,
it’s
trying
to
switch
up
the
shape?
Also,
we
just
established
how
beloved
the
physical
bezel
is.
Would
a
rotating
physical
bezel
even
work
on
a
square
display?
Are
we
really
doing
this
again?
It’s
true
that
Samsung
started
off
with
a
square
display
on
the
Galaxy
Gear.
But
starting
with
the
Gear
S2,
Samsung
went
all
in
on
a
circular
display
—
so
much
so
that
when
I
think
of
Samsung
smartwatches,
I
immediately
envision
a
circular
watch
with
a
rotating
bezel.
Over
time,
it’s
helped
Samsung’s
devices
stand
out
from
the
pack.
I
ought
to
know,
given
that
I
just
reorganized
my
smartwatch
collection,
and
among
a
sea
of
Android
watches,
it’s
always
easy
to
pick
out
Samsung’s.
The
Galaxy
Watch
6
series
brought
back
the
rotating
bezel
due
to
popular
demand.Photo
by
Amelia
Holowaty
Krales
/
The
Verge
Circular
displays
also
feel
like
a
tangible
link
to
the
past.
It’s
not
that
there
aren’t
rectangular
analog
watches.
But
if
you
were
to
picture
a
wristwatch,
I’m
willing
to
bet
most
people
think
of
a
circular
face.
That’s
why
so
many
people
tend
to
find
circular
smartwatches
more
aesthetically
appealing.
Hell,
I
still
get
the
occasional
disgruntled
commenter
who
laments
that
they
would
buy
an
Apple
Watch,
if
not
for
the
rectangular
display.
Conversely,
the
Galaxy
Watches
are
effortlessly
elegant
—
especially
now
that
they’re
not
quite
as
thick
as
they
used
to
be.
I
can’t
lie.
There
are
benefits
to
a
square
display.
It’s
slightly
easier
for
reading
notifications,
and
it’s
easier
on
app
developers
given
the
shape
is
closer
to
a
phone.
Since
Wear
OS
3,
many
Android
watches
don’t
even
work
with
iOS
anymore
—
meaning
Samsung
doesn’t
have
to
set
itself
apart
from
the
Apple
Watch.
It
has
to
differentiate
itself
from
other
Android
watches,
most
of
which
are
circular.
On
paper,
these
are
sensible
reasons
for
wanting
to
make
the
switch.
Wearable
design
isn’t
always
about
what
makes
business
sense
But
wearable
design
isn’t
always
about
what
makes
business
sense.
When
you
wear
something
on
your
person,
there’s
an
emotional
attachment
that’s
hard
to
quantify.
For
years,
the
combination
of
a
circular
face
and
a
physical
rotating
bezel
has
been
embedded
in
the
brains
of
Galaxy
Watch
fans.
While
I’m
sure
some
folks
will
embrace
a
square
Galaxy
Watch,
I
have
a
feeling
there’d
be
a
visceral
backlash,
too.
Granted,
SamMobile’s
report
was
light
on
details,
only
citing
unnamed
internal
sources
as
saying
the
switch
was
“very
much
in
the
cards.”
It
could
also
be
that
Samsung
is
mulling
this
over
not
for
the
Galaxy
7
but
future
Galaxy
Watches.
If
that’s
the
case,
I
hope
the
folks
at
Samsung
are
thinking
long
and
hard
about
why
they
want
to
do
this.
I’m
as
guilty
as
the
next
reviewer
for
griping
that
each
Galaxy
Watch
looks
the
same.
But
when
you
have
an
iconic
design,
any
significant
change
has
to
be
a
thoughtful
one.
In
this
case,
changing
to
a
squarish
display
risks
the
Galaxy
Watch
losing
a
core
part
of
its
identity...
for
what
exactly?
(Originally posted by Victoria Song)
Comments