Apple to devs: Watch out, don't make the Watch into a, well, a watch Apple has banned Watch apps that tell the time from the App Store, thus forbidding them from fanbois' wrists. The terms and conditions of the store explicitly state that timepiece software is a no-go. You'll just have to use the watch faces provided by the Cupertino idiot-tax operation. It's not the first time Apple has …
More like having alternative calling application using cellular network on your cell phone (not Skype etc, but really using the same cell network). To me it makes perfect sense.
The only benefit you could do is having different UI, which is counterproductive in primary functions, not mentioning the fact that in watch business if you want different fascia you buy different watch. And their stated intent is to emulate classical watch business (up to a point).
You still have a choice. You can have Samsung. Or LG. Or...
Yah but that was hacked within weeks with a nice mod that returned the 'personalise' option to the desktop right-click context menu. I recall applying this to many a Win7 Starter netbook. And MS didn't fight back with a patch, afaik...
"
So if you had a MacBook, or a iMac. you'd be happy with a preset background and icons, never being allowed to change them?
"
I would not mind one bit - It has never bothered me that I can't change the icons or background on the controls of my TV remote, toaster or washing machine either.
On android of course you can have alternate dialler apps. Why shouldn't you. It's your phone. Some are funky, some are streamlined, some are for the short sighted, some for the differently abled.
>>not mentioning the fact that in watch business if you want different fascia you buy different watch
This one comment goes against everything that is sensible about having a watch with a screen.
Like having a DSLR with the kit lens welded on
Nope. It's more like having a Canon DSLR that has hardened paint to stop you tampering with the Canon logo to make it look shit.
Rolex make nice looking watches. They would not want their brand to be associated with arbitrary cheap after-market watch faces. Apple are in a position to enforce such compliance, and it's no great surprise that they are doing so.
I've got a really nice new Seiko.
Last week I used my watchmakers tool to open up the front bezel and remove the hands and the watchface background. I then replaced it with a new watchface background that has a photo of Tina Charles on it. I carefully replaced the hands and the front bezel/glass and I have a fantastic Seiko Tina Charles watch. Next week I might change the photo to Kelly Marie.
But Seiko are saying I've invalidated the warranty. BASTARDS.
You could display a coffinated Jobs slowly rotating in microgravity and cunningly deduce the time-of-day based on the position of his outstretched arms.
Of course, declaring Apple a "monopoly" would be stupid as it sure isn't. It's a successful business, that's all. Still, busting all the patents and flushing them down the drain would ensure that antitrust discussions would not even arise... but State loves to solve problems it has enabled itself, in particular if high-paying jobs in the bureaucracy and possible backhand deals are involved.
It certainly is by any definition a monopolist within its eco-system. It is removing freedom of choice for the device owners this is no different to the way M$ conducted itself..
I mean to say you wont allow someone to sell and App that tells the time in a unique way.. You only have to look at the new Pebble Time and see the innovative ways folks are playing with presenting the time to reserve that for yourself is monopolistic.
Their obstructive conduct their ebooks settlement shows they haven't learned anything.. time for DoJ to act.
It isn't a monopolist by a sensible definition. A decade and a half ago, Microsoft were considered a monopolist because nearly every computer sold ran a Microsoft operating system. Those that didn't - PCs running Linux, Macs, even big iron - were a drop in the ocean. Even to run Linux or another alternative OS, most people had to buy a PC that included a Microsoft license then wipe the hard drive.
Right now most personal computers sold don't run an Apple OS, most watches don't, most phones don't, most smartphones don't. They might be the biggest grossing seller in each of those markets, but they don't represent a monopoly. In other markets, e.g. Blu-ray players, there's even less interoperability with most manufacturers only allowing accessories and software that they provide.
That's like arguing that Mars have a monopoly because they're the only company that sell Mars Bars. You can argue about it all day but you still would be missing the point of what a monopoly is.
The device owners have plenty of choice - their choice is not to buy an Apple Watch and buy one of its many competitors instead.
Restricting what consumers do with your product is not monopolistic. Some restaurants allow you to bring your own wine, others insist you buy a bottle from their cellar, the latter are more restrictive but they are not monopolistic. If you don't like the more restrictive environment, go to one of the others.
>time for DoJ to act
Hyperbole much?
Because there are no other more pressing concerns for the American public.
Than protecting the God-given rights of a minority of affluent early adopters (of a device category of very debatable utility at this point) to choose their watch face on their freely-chosen fringe utility device. No, really, nothing better to do for the DoJ.
"Monopoly within their ecosystem". Do you even know what the definition of a monopoly is? Don't like Apple? Don't buy it. Or maybe you should be counsel for DoJ?
Seriously, Apple's pointless little control-freakery can be annoying at times. And it is here. But I find the whole notion of iTards being annoyed by their iWatches rather amusing in this instance.
And it's not like Apple users, of which I am one, albeit on more useful gear, don't expect that Apple will, pointlessly or not, hobble direct competition within their own ecosystem.
Those people... can always buy elsewhere. Or, wonder of wonders, actually hold off buying a one-day-battery watch that is not even properly waterproof.
If Apple have done such a bad thing, such a heinous, outrageous abuse of their customers, such terrible evil dark dealings, then the customers can just buy something else. But as many of the same commentards that are baying evil Apple here are the same ones that said nobody would ever buy an Apple watch, then I take it this is not really anything to write home about.
Apple bosses live or die by their decisions.
This post has been deleted by its author
WTF has it got to do with Apple, surely it is up to the USERS (you know the one's paying for the bloody thing) to decide what they do and do not like.
This is why I am NOT a fan of Apple, all the success of the iPhone etc is because of the App developers that Apple exploit.
If you really want to understand Apple mentality get the low down from this interview with one of their senior engineers
Apple Engineer Talks about the New 2015 Macbook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHZ8ek-6ccc
I'm not entirely sure that the developers are that happy either, but there's cash to be had.
Last I checked, you needed to pay an annual fee in order to produce apps for iPads, etc. And you have to compile them with XCode, etc. on a licenced Mac. There are ways around it but nothing really official and everything else is technically unsupported. You can end up with two codebases and project files because of that, but the developers still seem to suffer it.
There's a reason that people who make Flash websites for schools etc. often just say "Apple? No, sorry, we might have an app in a few year's time" and when it's time for it to come out, they've just converted the website to HTML5 instead.
It's worse than that. It isn't even a "licensed Mac". Try uploading to the app store with an old mac, like one running Snow Leopard. Application Loader won't run on it, the latest XCode won't run on it. And you can't upgrade it past Snow Leopard because reasons. Then there's Apple's gatekeeping rules including "not useful" (sorry, not your decision).
I did a small app in Phonegap and we've dropped iOS. Android? Completely different experience. £30 to sign-up for life. Develop on anything. Make it look how you like. Don't include malware or porn but beyond that, it's your app.
We pretty much decided that it wasn't worth it and so are only doing Android.
>> And you can't upgrade it past Snow Leopard because reasons.
Moderately recent Mac mini here, bought for some app dev. Core 2 Duo, perfectly powerful enough for dev work. Can I still use it. Not a chance.
Although it's a 64 bit processor I can't upgrade the OS to the versions needed because Apple only included a 32 bit EFI.
Official support to allow install would probably take 1 or 2 developers a days work. Some guys off the Internet have managed to put something very long winded and complex together to allow install.
Apple. Not a chance. Bunch of asshats.
They probably do know better than you. It's quite likely that apps run in a much less efficient way to the watch face, and so a watch app would kill the power in a few hours because you'd always need to have an app running. The standard watch faces probably aren't normal apps and almost certainly have power saving built in.
So that's "Developers are too stupid, only we can program perfect apps, who cares what the user wants or whether they realise that one app is sapping all the power. And, hey, we won't bother to tell you the super-secret API tricks we use to save power because that would make your apps USEFUL to others, we'll just keep you all in the dark"
There's a reason I hate Apple. In fact, there are many.
Zap, darling...
By giving users any ability to customise the device would be "abdicating [their] responsibility as a designer". After all, they know better than us!
I've had to sanitise this because I really don't want to be identified but I used software where they refused to to allow any changes because of a similar mentality. After all what would the users of the software know about suggesting changes to make the software better?......
The management of a company I used to work for decided one day after a merger with another firm (where we got a new head of technology) that both sides of the firm should all be using the same software product across the group. This software is fairly critical to each site but isn't something that needs to interact from one site to any other and is fairly standalone. The data it produced was used on site and if it really needed to go somewhere else it would be FTP'd or some such. The new company management decide that they are going to go with supplier A who we had in the old company had ditched a while ago because their products sucked just a tiny bit and there was little innovation or desire to listen to customer suggestions. Supplier A also refused to make any changes that were suggested to them to make the product better because North America don't need it and they're our biggest market. They also said that adding the suggestions to the software might confuse people who don't need it, despite protestations that if they didn't think it was a good idea they could just hide it in a menu somewhere and stick it behind a password - no dice! So we moved to and worked with supplier B that had a good product which we liked and were happy to add the features in that we asked for "that's a very good idea give us a month to develop and test it - then it'll be in the next update. We were told that we'd be moving back to supplier A and their new product. This was "more modern" i.e. newly released - and integrated with another product from them that we'd be taking to make life 'easier' for everyone.
Shortly after having it installed at the one test site (and another one was being done) the complaints came rolling in, chief among them was "Why can't you queue items, you used to be able to?" There were also complaints about the GUI, why did actions have to be animated on the screen, that's pointless? Why was there a limit on the routines but not data that could be stored on the system etc. Is this just a version of the DOS program ported to Windows, because the functionality is the same i.e. no improvement? All of this was brushed aside or just ignored until one night someone applied an action to the database something the software company A had said was possible to reverse. It turned out it wasn't and roughly one terabyte of data at the test site was essentially cream crackered. So the staff revolted, the site manager chief among them (he said if the system wasn't removed he'd do it with a sledge hammer) and the roll out was put on hold and only the currently happening install was completed (would have cost more to drop it and go with something else - some custom hardware was already installed and paid for). So they went with software supplier C which was offering an similar but more modern version of supplier B software and there were far fewer complaints from other sites that were upgraded to the new C software.
This post has been deleted by its author
Having a different app to tell the time would:
1. stop people from identifying it as an iwatch (bad for apple)
2. drain the battery (bad for the user, then bad for apple with unhappy users and reviews). I'd expect there is some ultra-low-power system for doing this normally
The whole iwatch thing is on pretty shaky ground to start with, so I'm not surprised Apple are trying to prevent problems.
It amazes me the differences in how certain companies are treated.
Google = "We will bitchslap you for including Google maps, GMail etc on android but allowing others to provide similar apps to replace them."
Apple = "Sure, do whatever the hell you want, btw my account number for that transfer is......"
Let's take a counter view & add some real life experience.
It's their sandbox & if you don't like their rules then stay out.
My real life experience with Apple Watch (move on if you're not interested).
Took delivery Friday of two pre-order Apple Sports Watches.
38mm Aluminium White Strap (my wife) & 42mm Space Grey with Black Strap (me).
Two separate couriers (UPS & UK Mail).
38mm bang on schedule & mine was 4 weeks earlier than the originally quoted date.
I'm a watch guy & own many. I'm also a gadget guy, "platform agnostic", but obviously have iPhones without which the Apple Watch is almost a non-starter.
Main reasons to buy were as "a watch" & communications stuff. Don't do Social Media, retired, no more long haul, thousands of customers or masses of appointments. Very active but won't be using Activity App, calorie counter, stand up etc as they are irrelevant for me. Of the 3K claimed Apps I see nothing that I don't already have except Train Arrival confirmations for station pick ups. I'm quite capable of opening a hotel door with a key or card.
As a first effort it's great & will only get better. Give it 8 out of 10.
Have never used Siri, until now, but on the Watch it's excellent & doubles as a Dictation device.
As a Watch to tell the time the customisation of watch faces by the user (not an App Developer) is execellent. I've set up what I want & deleted the rest.
However, my major whinge is that the display powers off after 15 secs. I want the TIME displayed permanently, if I wish. Hopefully this will be addressed in later releases as real customers give feedback.
Have disabled the "turn wrist to view" which is just irritating for me & have selected the "tap to display". Same applies to my wife.
Battery life is much, much better than expected & I charge it every other day. There would be no problems taking this to the other side of the planet. (My most expensive watch is a Rolex Explorer II bought in 1980 - I have to wind this up daily. Oldest is my father's RAF Hamilton which also needs daily winding. Most other watches have batteries or solar power. Favourite is a Citizen Eco with solar power & radio signal update at £250).
The communications aspects of the Watch, complementing the iPhone, are outstanding. We're both thrilled. I can see this being especially popular with the ladies as there's little need, initially, to rummage in a hand bag, of course, this also applies to some men. OK, let's be fair..... I mean brief cases & backpacks.
Neat stuff is the changeable watch strap. Have pre-ordered Spigen "Tough Armor Case" from Amazon to protect it when I get on the mountain bike this summer. Might break an arm but the Watch will survive. Can read the display without glasses which is a big deal on a bike.
So there we have it. Let the ranting begin............. or happy to respond in this thread to sensible remarks & questions..........
As with all this stuff: buy, don't buy, who cares? etc etc At least there's a choice & in the grand scheme of life any watch is a luxury.
I don't think anyone doubts the functionality of the iWatch, I'm sure it's pretty awesome. I think my Android watch is pretty awesome too.
I think the point is, the Android watch has 100s of watch faces thanks to user developed apps, giving the user "choice".
Apple will not let users do the same for their iWatch, which I think is it a bit pants to be honest.
Chands - Fair comment but it's probably more to do with the Mondaine fiasco as HtB & many others across the Web mention. Apple & other large companies are targeted by Patent trolls & other low life. Of course, they are never guily of poaching copyrights from others or copying ideas !!!! Tomorrow all of this will be yesterday's news as techie journalists dream up something else to fill their blank screens. Great fun.
I own one too. I agree with the 15 seconds limit. Especially if you're looking at something!! I have a galaxy tab s that 'knows' if I'm looking at it, maybe that's the way to go.
A fairly balanced review though rather than the haters, hating it for no other reason that it comes from Apple. Like you, I like all tech, regardless of supplier, I don't pick one piece of tech over another based on who builds it but whether it's something I want to own and play with.
I also own more watches than a sane person should. I'm sure I'll get bored of fiddling with the sports strap (which you didn't mention btw) and go back to one of my radio controlled variants at some point.
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. The first digital watches required the pressing of a button to show the time, because the LED segment displays used so much power and the battery tech wasn't up to it. That's why the first Hitchhiker's Guide book frequently references digital watches - even the technophile Adams thought it was pretty stupid to replace perfectly good clockwork watches with digital models that had less functionality. I guess he got that one wrong...
I've got one of those of about the same age, great watch (all stainless steel). As for the daily winding you can get an automatic winder for £20 or so, they (Rolex) don't really like being allowed to run down to a stop, just stick it on a timer and forget it until you want to wear it again.
Yes, because Microsoft were a monopoly, Apple aren't. Microsoft forced several large companies almost out of business by leveraging the Windows monopoly to make their competitors' products effectively obsolete or so far behind the curve that no one would buy them. Apple aren't doing that, in fact the App Store has been a profit powerhouse for many startups and larger companies.
Apple do keep a tight rein on the App Store which is frustrating at times, but also keeps it free of the dross that the various Android stores are packed with. On the desktop they've retreated from a number of markets and effectively given them back to their competitors (mainly Adobe with Aperture/Lightroom, Final Cut Pro/Premier). I don't think Apple are in any danger of being fined.
I only have an iPhone for work, so load a very small number of pre-specified apps for work. However, when I needed a bluetooth file transfer application, the app store was exactly the opposite of, "tight rein." it was a free-for all disaster with so many apps getting hammered in the ratings that I gave up after a considerable amount of installing, testing, removing, searching again ... rinse and repeat ... and use the iPhone for only taking work calls and handling work e-mails. That experience (much complained about lack of bluetooth file transfer, and the inability to get one from the app store that I could trust to actually work) was the final straw in the Apple coffin as far as I am concerned. Fortunately, there is now a switch to Android so I look forward to my phone getting replaced in the near future.
*"...a button that when pressed plays a far noise..."*
You mean like distant thunder?... or that the app 'throws its voice'? Sounds acoustically very interesting, either way.
[Wouldn't it be just terrible if you'd tried to make a really lame "fart app" joke but fell on your arse by not even managing to spell "fart" properly?]
My understanding is that at present 3rd-party watch app's all run on the phone with which the watch is communicating over Bluetooth. So an app that displayed a watch face would need to create the watch face graphic on the phone and transmit it to the watch every second. That would clearly be much worse for battery life (both of the watch and the phone) than a "native" watch face. Maybe this is the reason for the restriction?
If that's the only way to get a new watchface to the iwatch, then it's pretty crappy, and I can understand Apple wanting to stop it.
I assume that the ability to create new watch faces (which run on the iwatch) will come along at some point in the future, but IMHO it's a massive oversight for Apple to not enable this basic smartwatch capability on day 1.
I would have expected Apple to launch an app similar to canvas (for pebble) which allows you to create/configure/customise your own watchface using a simpe app on your phone.
Its interesting that the pebble route, is to allow 2 types of dev : (1) watchfaces only and (2) apps (which can be anything but sometimes are just watch faces. Pebble pushed this as a major feature, and I'm not aware of any watch manufacturere complaining about copyright, but then the basic B+W crappy display(*) is not really going to be confused with a real Rolex :)
(*) I'll point out that I own & love my pebble, but aesthetically it's a little challenging!
No, the watch is not a citrix client.
Pebble had a problem and had to warn developers after watchmakers got upset about people making faces that aped Cartier, Rolex, Omega etc and even had the logos on them. They can't really stop it except on their own store, but as Pebble developers can write apps that run on the watch and load them without any checking or signing they can do what they like.
I guess Apple could head these off at the App store, but it would be a whole heap of more work for them.
Apple doesn't think blind people are hip enough to wear Apple Watches. Apple are for people who wear £80 pre-ripped jeans and roll through Shoreditch on tiny scooters, not people who tap-tap down the street with a white stick and a labrador with a reflective jacket. It just doesn't work from an image point of view.
"Apple doesn't think blind people are hip enough to wear Apple Watches. Apple are for people who wear £80 pre-ripped jeans and roll through Shoreditch on tiny scooters, not people who tap-tap down the street with a white stick and a labrador with a reflective jacket. It just doesn't work from an image point of view."
But isn't that illegal discrimination against the disabled? If web sites have to accommodate the blind, doesn't an actual device like the iWatch?
No. Manufacturers do not legally have to make products for the blind.
motorbike makers dont have to make motorbikes for the blind.
boing dont have to make aircraft that the blind can fly.
a power drill maker doesnt have to make a drill with brail.
Now... it gets more interesting with any company who is providing a service, rather than a product.
services generally have to be provided to all, or it's discriminatory.
but even then, common sense still takes precedence. A firearm trainer can refuse to train the blind.
if every manufacturer had to make a version of their product for the blind, many simply could'nt afford yo do so.
Apple could afford it. But as a product maker they are not obliged to.
by the way.. I expect any app that reads the time out rather than displays it is ok.
@Spleen:
Apple's Marketing people need to be a bit more discerning then, because I got one.
Don't worry. I won't be seen outdoors with it. :)
Yes, I like it. The Remote app, especially--cordless headphones and watch means no more carrying about an iPod Touch just to rewind a few seconds whenever the headphones need to come off for something. That and handling iOS notifications while I'm on the shitter. It's no must-have, but it's nice.
@Denigor:
Incorrect, unless you aren't interested in US government contracts. Section 508. But you're quite right that ultimately, the law cannot stipulate mandatory requirements in the general case, even though it is very arguable that free-market capitalism is no solution. There's something to be said for extending reasonable accommodation to products and services even in cases where there isn't a clear need to those otherwise disenfranchised, but I'm sure the neoliberal ideologues and the bigots would rather the money go to some more worthwhile endeavour that suited their own interests better. Sadly too often the case in the technology sector. And I hope you're not suggesting that I won't one day be able to fly an aeroplane. :)
And Apple are the best there is at accessibility, by several large galaxies. Whether because of regulation, market opportunity or sheer altruism, or any combination of the three, I really don't care all that much. The blind in fact now have a functional and fully accessible smart watch, if they want it, and frankly I think the best choice of accessible smartphone platform goes to Apple as well. OS X, less now that they've clearly stopped caring about the platform, but an excellent philosophy if you can deal with Apple's smugness and over-trivialisation of its software which increasingly I can't.
As it happens, Apple already allows a blind person to tell the time just by raising their wrist, or tapping the screen or the crown.
I don't get it. Microsoft shipped with a default Web browser app and also let you install others of your choice but get hit by an anti trust lawsuit.
Apple sell you a device with a default watch app and you can't install other watch apps and somehow this is not anti trust?
Someone is getting paid off to look the other way.
Microsoft had a monopoly. Almost all PCs ran Windows and they were judged to have abused that fact to ruin other companies chances by bundling their own browser.
At the moment Apple don't have a monopoly on the smartwatch business. That may change if they do really well. (I personally hope they don't because in my opinion the concept of apps, especially ones on watches is stupid and is damaging to the progress of the whole tech industry)
The thing is I do think that Apple should have been given quite a bollocking on for their anti-competitive behaviour when the iPhone was being planned. Mainly for the way they were pretty much the only company in the MP3 selling market, used that position to lock users into iTunes, which then locked them into using iPods, which in turn they went to great lengths to ensure only worked with iTunes. Then they nicely evolved iPods into iPhones. Now if that's not a clear example of using dominance in 1 market to disrupt others I don't know what is.
Well,
I reckon this ban will be down to limited edition watch faces that will appear.
Just imagine, you could buy one of only 10,000 Deputy Dog or Fritz the Cat to poo on other watch owners.
Yours for only 30 smackers, or 300 smackers if they try to turn it into FaceCoin.
You bought the device. (for a hefty premium too) You should be able to install pretty much what you want on it, as long as it's been vetted for malware and basic quality (eg. it doesn't crash all the time), and if the software sucks, change it or live with it. No clock apps for your iPhone/Watch, eh? Say what you will about Android, but at least you can do what the hell you want with your device, which is what drives evolution and innovation--finding uses you never knew you needed. If I buy an Apple TV device, will it eventually have software to filter out all appearances of Roku, Kindle Fire, etc. in media content?
I understand that it would be stupid to mention a competitor’s products in a good light if you're trying to make money off your own. But it's still a silly strategy that fools no one (God, I hope), any more than watching a TV show where they've cunningly blocked out the manufacturer emblem on a car, but anyone who's not an idiot can still see it's a Ford or whatever.
As has been previously stated, its Apple's hardware & Apple's OS, that is why they can get away with what can & cannot go on their device's without the fear of restrictive trading practice actions .(as long as the end customer understands this prior to purchase, there is not a probem).
No one is forced to buy the iWatch & or any of there other devices. Don't like it then vote with your wallet.
Note my caveat about clearly notifying the end customer prior to purchase of the restrictions.
This is common practice with software you buy, which you agree to by ticking that box after reading the small print (like we all do!!). You do not own that but you buy the use of it. Apple have appeared to have taken this one stage further by applying it to the hardware they design, have manufactured & market so annoyingly seductively.
So what are you buying?, The agreed use of it!
The question is, were these restrictions & the permission to add more retrospectively, presented clearly to you before you bought in?
Yes another reason I do not own/lease Apple devices.
An app that displays pictures of famous landmarks as its main function, but also displays the time.
Suggested landmarks include (but not limited too)
aspects of the architecture at the top of the Elizabeth Tower at the Houses of Parliament
the exterior of the astronomical display at Wells Cathedral
views around the Royal Observatory Greenwich.
Ideally you'd want to be able to zoom right in on some of these to appreciate the design work, you'd "clock it full in the face" to use an older colloquial phrase.
If Apple is so confident of the superiority of it's designs they should have no worry about the acolytes looking elsewhere. Any organisation that not only denies but enforces it's afficionado's from trying alternatives is
1) Supremely arrogant.. "We the already enlightened have seen the truth and can save you, join us and do as we say"
OR
2) Running scared "We the already enlightened know we are selling you a crock of crap so we can't allow you to go elsewhere."
It smacks of at least the Wizard of OZ comment "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." or at worst the sinister genuine cults <insert_crackpot_religion_name_here> . A shame really because once you strip away the marketing guff and huge mark ups, Apple kit is well made and well thought out.
I buy my apples in a fruit store.
The time is everywhere, no one cares what any company thinks they can control when they don't.
I've never bought **anything** from Apple. When they first-first started out I price-compared them to real PCs and never looked at them again.
Apple is the proof we are all going to hell; that is is Apple doesn't co-opt it first as a marketing delaying tactic.
Allowing 3rd-party apps to take over the core function of the watch would take the design experience away from Apple, and I can see how they wouldn't want that.
More importantly however, I wouldn't WANT a 3rd-party app as the core function of my device. Most apps on the App Store are very scammy, to put it lightly. I don't think Apple wants it's product tarnished by reports of apps popping up on your watch for the latest candy crush or medieval raid game. Or to be tracked.
Design Experience?
I would trust that's been done ages ago in an office somewhere before the first watches came out of the factory and is something only experienced by a few.
Of course what Apple want is to restrict the 'Design Experience' so that new developers can't share in it.
God, how I hate these twatBadgery words and phrases. Experience, Solutions, Paradigm, Zeitgeist and the like. These, and their users, need to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Yep, Apple products are artificially locked down and restricted. I don't want the vendor holding my hand, so I would never buy an Apple product. You all can buy one if you want, but please don't act all surprised when Apple tells you (or the app developers) they can't do various things with it -- I'm telling you now, it's no surprise and par for the course.
What I really dont understand is why apple wont allow 'good' time apps into their store.
if tbe app looks great, works great, and clearly shows off the apple watch capability... then why not allow it?
If its rubbish.. then decline it.
seems tbeir over zealousness could cause them to miss out on some great apps that would actually help apple sell more...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
