5 ms·

If you want to use the apple watch you must have an iphone, which somehow seems worse: https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-android-phone htt

If you want to use the apple watch you must have an iphone, which somehow seems worse: https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-android-phone https://www.imore.com/can-you-use-your-apple-watch-your-andr...

tomjakubowski 6y ago
It doesn't seem worse to me. Apple is free to make and sell accessories for its own hardware products. It would be a problem if Apple sold its smart watch while also breaking iPhone's compatibility with third party smart watches.
- anoncake 6y ago
  It's also a problem that Apple sells its own phones while breaking the Apple Watch's compatibility with other phones.
  - boardwaalk 6y ago
    They never did that. “Breaking” implies it was ever there to begin with.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      The result is exactly the same.
      - boardwaalk 6y ago
        Whether it is or not, it’s fundamentally useful to use accurate language or people will dismiss your underlying point because of the dishonest premise.
        anoncake 6y ago
        It's fundamentally useless to nitpick like that and accuse someone of dishonesty for glancing over irrelevant details.
liamwire 6y ago
Critically, if I want to use a smartwatch with an iPhone, I’m not limited to the Apple Watch.
- sida 6y ago
  But the analogy here is that if you buy Apple Watch, it is reasonable that it is tied tk iPhone. just like you are buying oculus quest knowing that it is tied to FB
  - dannyw 6y ago
    There are legitimate and practical reasons for tying an Apple Watch (hardware) to an iPhone (hardware). You can also use both without an Apple account. As an analogy, this is like Geico insurance requiring you to sign up for a United MileagePlus account because Berkshire Hathway owns both (hypothetically).
  - Digit-Al 6y ago
    I don't own any Apple products personally but I would say that the difference is that an Apple Watch is specifically sold as an accessory to your iPhone. You wouldn't, for example, buy an X-Box controller and expect it to work with a Playstation. On the other hand, the Oculus is not an accessory to Facebook it is a platform for playing games. People had no problem with tying their Oculus to an account, to manage their purchases, etc.., but people do have a problem with being forced to have it tied to a social media account. I would say the difference here is that when we create a social media account we know, to a degree, that we are making a Faustian pact to have our data harvested in exchange for free services. But the Oculus is actually purchased with real money so we don't expect to have our privacy violated so the company can make even more money off us by harvesting our personal data.
- grumple 6y ago
  Critically, as an Apple Watch owner, if I want to buy a different phone I will lose access to my watch. Which is the situation I’m actually in right now. I hope it’s clear why this is anticompetitive. The watch has been a disappointment anyway, so once this phone craps out they are both gone.

tomjakubowski 6y ago

It doesn't seem worse to me. Apple is free to make and sell accessories for its own hardware products. It would be a problem if Apple sold its smart watch while also breaking iPhone's compatibility with third party smart watches.

anoncake 6y ago
It's also a problem that Apple sells its own phones while breaking the Apple Watch's compatibility with other phones.
- boardwaalk 6y ago
  They never did that. “Breaking” implies it was ever there to begin with.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    The result is exactly the same.
    - boardwaalk 6y ago
      Whether it is or not, it’s fundamentally useful to use accurate language or people will dismiss your underlying point because of the dishonest premise.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        It's fundamentally useless to nitpick like that and accuse someone of dishonesty for glancing over irrelevant details.

liamwire 6y ago

Critically, if I want to use a smartwatch with an iPhone, I’m not limited to the Apple Watch.

sida 6y ago
But the analogy here is that if you buy Apple Watch, it is reasonable that it is tied tk iPhone. just like you are buying oculus quest knowing that it is tied to FB
- dannyw 6y ago
  There are legitimate and practical reasons for tying an Apple Watch (hardware) to an iPhone (hardware). You can also use both without an Apple account. As an analogy, this is like Geico insurance requiring you to sign up for a United MileagePlus account because Berkshire Hathway owns both (hypothetically).
- Digit-Al 6y ago
  I don't own any Apple products personally but I would say that the difference is that an Apple Watch is specifically sold as an accessory to your iPhone. You wouldn't, for example, buy an X-Box controller and expect it to work with a Playstation. On the other hand, the Oculus is not an accessory to Facebook it is a platform for playing games. People had no problem with tying their Oculus to an account, to manage their purchases, etc.., but people do have a problem with being forced to have it tied to a social media account. I would say the difference here is that when we create a social media account we know, to a degree, that we are making a Faustian pact to have our data harvested in exchange for free services. But the Oculus is actually purchased with real money so we don't expect to have our privacy violated so the company can make even more money off us by harvesting our personal data.
grumple 6y ago
Critically, as an Apple Watch owner, if I want to buy a different phone I will lose access to my watch. Which is the situation I’m actually in right now. I hope it’s clear why this is anticompetitive. The watch has been a disappointment anyway, so once this phone craps out they are both gone.