8 ms·

Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they are taking. The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone, except they

Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they are taking. The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone, except they require an iPhone to use it. So instead of taking a short term hit and moving with the times they greedily hold on to their money maker and risk a competitor bringing out a standalone version and tanking the entire thing. Likewise the Apple TV is a great product and could dominate its category if it didn't require an iPhone.

Bud 4y ago
[dead]
yamtaddle 4y ago
Nothing's replacing the Smartphone unless it's got a camera in the same ballpark of quality and usability. Several use cases for a smartphone—including a couple major ones—don't really work with a watch, mostly for camera-related reasons. If it's not good as a camera, it's also not good as a scanner replacement, not good for remote check deposit, not good for things like the Measure app (or any other AR stuff), and so on. For a while I thought I'd go all-watch if they ever released a standalone watch, but paying more attention to how I use my phone, there's just no way. I'd just have to buy a separate camera, then I'd have two things to carry, plus it'd be much worse (since it's not like standalone cameras tend to have e.g. built-in text recognition). I think that's likely true for most people.
- Retric 4y ago
  I don’t think either can do it alone, but Watch + [ AR glasses or tablet + earbuds ] could more directly replace a smartphone.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Yeah, AR glasses are what will actually be the Next Smartphone, as far as rapidly attaining ubiquity. If they can fix the bulkiness and battery life issues, anyway. And sure, decent chance that'll involve tethering the glasses to some kind of watch where the actual brains and long-range radios live. Or to a smartphone or tablet that you can leave in a pocket or bag all the time (why wear a watch when the AR glasses could just paint a fake one on your wrist?)
    - eternityforest 4y ago
      But won't people feel uncomfortable being seen with AR glasses, at least for the next few years? They would have to be completely transparent, no impediment to eye contact, very small and fashionable, and so incredibly useful people would be willing to deal with any judgemental glares they got.
      - idopmstuff 4y ago
        Depends what kind of form factor they can get them to. I've got a pair of these, and they look close enough to regular Ray-Bans that nobody realizes there's cameras on them: https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-stories https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-stories
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Smartphones drew the same judgmental glares for a few years. If you were holding them up to use them, people'd think you were recording and would be irritated or upset. If you were recording, they're really be unhappy with you. People talking on or looking at cell phones in public at all were usually coded as "asshole" in basically all media in the 90s and 00s, and that pretty much reflected popular opinion. By the early 20-teens, though, all that was just normal and everyone was doing it.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I am more thinking the next 10 years than 30. AR glasses have issues with UI, comfort, style, and durability even if you fix the more core issues of weight, battery life, etc.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Until they have rainbows end tech I don’t think this will be true. Wearing glasses is a bug, not a feature.
  - _rs 4y ago
    This is likely, but I'm willing to bet any Apple AR device will require an iPhone for the foreseeable future too though
- jagged-chisel 4y ago
  But there’s no technical reason a stand-alone watch couldn’t be an option for those who actually want it.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Sure, but > The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone I simply don't think is true.
    - dijit 4y ago
      You might not, but I have gone entire days with only my LTE Apple watch. I can take calls, play music (wirelessly through my airpods), crudely reply to messages (it's only a little awkward, surprisingly usable) and pay for things without my phone. For web-browsing, I don't need to do that all the time. I use my camera a sum total of twice a month. I don't think I'm special.
      - thorncorona 4y ago
        There are people who'd be able to get by with a watch, but as an alternate perspective: - 99% of my messaging is through text, the other 1% is video calling - Most of my causal web browsing is on my phone - I've taken thousands of pictures on my phone in the last year. Most of my friends are like this as well.
        dijit 4y ago
        I’m sure thats true, in fact, I’m certain of it. most of the use of my phone is mobile web-browsing. I can honestly live without that sometimes, especially as phones are getting large enough that you might as well have a tablet that you lug around sometimes.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    And it indeed exists: PineTime.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Cameras are doubtlessly vital to some users, but almost entirely superfluous to others. I can count the number of times per year I use the camera on my phone with just my fingers.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature. In truth they’re often really crap phones and my old flip phone had better all around phone quality and utility. But at this point I feel annoyed when I have to speak to a person. If I were meant to speak to people I wouldn’t have been born an engineer.
    - Marsymars 4y ago
      > I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature. Part of the reason this number's so high is that if a phone feature is really important to you, you're liable to get a standalone VoIP line and a headset to go with whatever handset you have rather than using a smartphone.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Yeah certainly the fact they’re universally bad phones makes them less useful as a phone, and phone phones are better at being phones. But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion.
        Marsymars 4y ago
        > But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion. Technically compared to e.g. internet-native voice communication, or you just think that remote voice communication is bad?
        fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Voice is for jocks.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  What does any of that have to do with Apple requiring people to have an iPhone to use their watch? Maybe you don't want an iPhone and are satisfied with the functionality of the watch alone. Maybe you have one of the zillions of Android phones out there and don't want an iPhone for that reason. Literally no other smart watch that I know of requires that you have a phone of any kind, so I just don't see any reason for Apple to require it with their watch.
- ohyes 4y ago
  I don’t use any of those features and the smartphone has become garbage for web browsing so I’m not sure I need one at all.
  - rwalle 4y ago
    I'm sorry your comment doesn't apply to 99% of the general population.
zikduruqe 4y ago
This. I seldom, if ever, carry my iPhone outside my house. My Apple Watch with cellular is enough for internet connectivity when away from home. In my perfect world, I could provision my Apple Watch as a standalone device, and I could get a MacBook with an eSIM.
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  I think macbook with eSIM could land once the OS has good controls over the network usage. Carriers aren’t gonna let those things run wild
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zikduruqe 4y ago
    Yep. I am very, intimately familiar with the inner workings of carriers. But one can dream.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    Just bill me by bandwidth used. It is ridiculous that one cannot buy a MacBook Pro with a cell modem. I fight with tethering at least once a week.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      i had a windows laptop with inbuilt 4G modem, was great fpr business travel. Had better reception than a phone. Many business people use mac and would love this. Really weired
    - enos_feedler 4y ago
      I think its less about money and more about network capacity and also ensuring your average mac user can leave it on without running up a surprise bill. Until users have good control with sane defaults it wont happen
heresaPizza 4y ago
Being an iPhone + Watch + AirPods user I can say the exact opposite. The Watch is the perfect iPhone companion but it can’t replace it. Its screen is so small it makes me want to complete interactions as quick as possible. I love leaving the iPhone at home when I go for a walk and still listening music and podcasts, but it’s something that requires minimal interactions. Receiving notifications is great, but replying? terrible. Imho Apple should be a bit braver when designing the Watch UI. Put an always accessible now playing widget, let apps create more complex widget etc. (but still, I am thinking about glanceable informations or single tap actions). And I didn’t mention the fact the iPhone has cameras and it’s not physically attached to you.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  For people who want to use phone less (no social media etc, like what I'm doing now HNing at breakfast) Watch alone could replace the phone function (can call, take calls, message) and a couple other devices (map, audio player) completely.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > For people who want to use phone less (no social media etc, like what I'm doing now HNing at breakfast) And that represents a vanishingly small market.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Lol. There is never a market for a nonexistent product. Products shape and create markets, not the other way around.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    The overwhelming majority of users have been voting with their dollars: they want bigger and bigger smartphone screens. Look at what people do on their phones all day. Most of that makes no sense on a watch screen.
V__ 4y ago
I gifted an Apple Watch this Christmas. I checked their site and saw that an iPhone was needed, but somehow thought any up-to-date iOS device would work. Since you can set up the watch for a family member (who doesn't have an iPhone) it has to work, right? Got the newest iPad? F*k you, buy and iPhone. That was a disappointing gift, I can tell you that. There is absolutely no reason to impose such a limit. I don't understand it. However, I will never buy or recommend another Apple product ever again.
- _rs 4y ago
  Wow, I would've hoped an iPad would work at least. Thanks for confirming.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  I don't like this mandatory tie between the two Apple product lines any more than you do, but as an FYI nit on terminology: > somehow thought any up-to-date iOS device would work. [...] Got the newest iPad? iOS 12 was the last version of iOS where that name applied to iPad as well as iPhone. Starting with version 13, the version of the operating system for iPhone had been the only one called iOS, with the iPad OS called iPadOS. So, yes, I suspect that any up to date iOS device does work, through the magic of terminology peculiarities, unless currently supported Apple Watches don't support all currently supported iPhones (I haven't checked if that is the case). As for the operating system for Apple Watch, that has always been called watchOS.
  - mihaaly 4y ago
    I belive everyone entering an Apple store should complete a test on their insight into Apple nomenclature and product history. Those who fail should f*ck off!
  - radicalbyte 4y ago
    I've been an Apple customer for a decade and have had a number of iPads and this is the first time I've heard this.
  - symlinkk 4y ago
lapcat 4y ago
> Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they are taking. Serious question: On this business topic, how does it matter that you were a software engineer (according to your HN bio) at Apple?
- robbomacrae 4y ago
  Just trying to briefly qualify my viewpoint with my experience of apple. But your right, anyones opinion here as a consumer is equally valid.
nostromo 4y ago
They will cut the cord eventually. Remember, iPods required a Mac at first. Then a Mac or a PC. Then neither.
tshaddox 4y ago
I agree with your point, except that I think this is a poor example of your point. This is pretty clearly just a poor implementation of this particular user interaction. I have a feeling their legal department decided they needed to send out this terms of service requirement and they didn’t have any decent UI in the Apple TV to let you view and accept terms. This modal is probably the best thing they could throw together on their end. I’ve been an Apple TV user for many years and this is the first time I remember seeing a modal like this pop up out of nowhere. I don’t think this has anything do with trying to force Apple TV users to have an iPhone. It’s a buggy and annoying user interaction even if you do have an iPhone. For one thing, it seems to require every user on your Apple Family Sharing plan to accept the terms, which means it will show me the modal for my wife’s account when she’s not around. She has an iPhone, but this is still an absurd experience. Also, it’s just clearly buggy and inconsistent. Sometimes I’ll be watching something for an hour and when I go to the home screen it will show three identical modals one after the other.
layer8 4y ago
Apple isn’t interested in that. They want you to “buy in” into their ecosystem wholesale. Making Apple products easier to use independently would also make it easier to leave their ecosystem. They rely on the extra friction caused by combining Apple with non-Apple products.
sircastor 4y ago
I would be more concerned about this if the competition in this space was not so disappointing this far. I think there are good smartwatches in the Android space, but none of them are great, and none of them have challenged the Apple Watch in terms of feature set and quality. And Apple hasn’t sat on its laurels here. They keep making the watch a more desirable device. To me, it seems like they know they can get people to consider switching if they want the watch. And the market keeps rewarding them. I had a Moto360 early on and loved it. It was a competitor to the Apple Watch only by virtue of being an electronic watch. It would be nice if Apple would make the watch accessible to people without iPhones. I would certainly believe their rhetoric about the importance of health tech if they did that.
- darknavi 4y ago
  > think there are good smartwatches in the Android space, but none of them are great How much of that is limited by the API that Google is surfacing? Watches simply cannot compete with an Apple Watch because Apple doesn't surface the same functionality for any other device.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > I would be more concerned about this if the competition in this space was not so disappointing this far. Why does less competition make you less concerned about anti-competitive behavior? Such behavior is never good, but it's self-correcting in a market with lots of choice, and not so in a market where there's only one great option (a judgment for which I have to take your word—a Casio F-91W is the right level of watch technology for me).
  - sircastor 4y ago
    Anti-competitive behavior is absolutely bad, no question, but the problem doesn't come across to me as Apple pushing competitors out of the market. It feels like other Smartwatch makers don't care to match the feature set or don't care to do it as well as Apple. When viewing market from an ecosystem point-of-view, there aren't comparable pairings of Android-phone-with-wearOS-Watch to iPhone-with-Apple-Watch. There are similar pairings: Samsung's watch products with Samsung phones, and the Pixel Watch with a Pixel phone. But are either of those comprehensive in their respective ecosystems? My point is, nobody seems to be fighting for this market except Apple. I could just be naive here, but it doesn't seem like anyone else cares enough for Apple to be anti-competitive.
chimerasaurus 4y ago
I’ve built my product career working on projects that present risks to the status quo for companies. This isn’t unique to Apple. Not to defend them specifically, but a company willing to focus on long term is the exception. Most companies have leaders that are given goals that constrain them to short term gains. It drives truly suboptimal long-term decision making, but it also usually aligns with their incentives. Changing that view takes (1) an existential threat, (2) a lot of data, and (3) a team that can execute quickly and reliably once a window opens.
tzs 4y ago
Often the key to success is to not try to do too much. That was one of the big reasons the PDA market was dominated by Palm Pilot. Earlier PDAs like the Sharp Wizard and the Casio BOSS tried to do too much. They wanted you to be able to fully maintain your calendar and contacts and todo lists and notes on them. But with their little keyboards, slow processors, and limited displays they weren't very good at doing a lot of data entry or editing related to those tasks. Palm viewed the PDA not as the place all that stuff would live. In their view all that stuff lived on your computer. The PDA was for taking your data along when you were away from the computer. You might take notes on the PDA but then when back home you'd use the computer if you needed to do much editing of them. You might add or delete a todo item here or there, but if you were going to extensively reorganize your todo list, you'd do it on the computer. I think Apple is, correctly, thinking that the Apple Watch will do best if it is like the Palm Pilot. It is a peripheral for your iPhone and doesn't try to shoehorn into the inherently limited interface support for doing things that can be easily done on the iPhone it is paired with. If they tried to make it standalone without greatly reducing the functionality they would just end up with something very complicate to use. What they could do, without making it too complicated, is make it so you can pair it with things other than iPhone. iPad and Mac at the least. Maybe Android phones/tablets and Windows PCs too. But it would still be primarily a peripheral for those devices, not a standalone device.
- mark_l_watson 4y ago
  Except, the Apple Watch with its own cellular data plan is a standalone device, sending and receiving phone calls, emails, and texts. I like to leave my iPhone at home when I leave my house if I don’t need a camera.
gumby 4y ago
The iphone started out as a dependent of a computer (mac only at first? I don't remember). There are a number of settings on the watch that can be modified on the watch, but originally could be modified only on the phone. You can set up a watch for a family member who doesn't have a phone, but you do have to do that from your iphone. Not that I have any thoughts on where Apple might go with this; this is just FYI.
tommoor 4y ago
To be fair Google is doing the exact same thing, I was interested in their new Pixel Watch but it requires an Android device to use..
GuB-42 4y ago
It seems like Apple is an "all or nothing" kind of thing. Either you have everything by Apple and it is great, or you have none of it. A very common reason Apple fans give for why they buy Apple is that all their devices work so well together. And I tend to agree with them. This is their market, they don't want to make efforts to accommodate others. And why would they? They already have the best market, loyal customers with a lot of money to spend. They don't want to bring in cheap people, offer them a subpar experience because they won't enjoy the benefits of a tightly integrated ecosystem, just to have them complain and never buy again. Competitors will arrive, and Apple will gladly let them feed on the bottom, but Apple is still safe in its market. And I can't really see the Apple TV serve as a "gateway drug" to the Apple ecosystem like the iPhone can. As for the Apple Watch, like any smartwatch, it is simply too small to stand alone. It is hard to find phones less than 6 inch now, because people want bigger phones for a variety of reasons: bigger screen, better camera, bigger battery, etc... You definitely won't replace it with a 2 inch watch.
imglorp 4y ago
They're doing the same with Mac and iPad - by denying some software on each platform, they're forcing you to buy both if you want both classes of software.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rkho 4y ago
> The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone I feel like this is a technological limitation of sorts.
scarface74 4y ago
You worked for Apple yet you don’t know how tightly the Apple Watch is tied to the iPhone for functionality to offload responsibilities to save battery life for instance

Bud 4y ago

[dead]

yamtaddle 4y ago

Nothing's replacing the Smartphone unless it's got a camera in the same ballpark of quality and usability. Several use cases for a smartphone—including a couple major ones—don't really work with a watch, mostly for camera-related reasons. If it's not good as a camera, it's also not good as a scanner replacement, not good for remote check deposit, not good for things like the Measure app (or any other AR stuff), and so on. For a while I thought I'd go all-watch if they ever released a standalone watch, but paying more attention to how I use my phone, there's just no way. I'd just have to buy a separate camera, then I'd have two things to carry, plus it'd be much worse (since it's not like standalone cameras tend to have e.g. built-in text recognition). I think that's likely true for most people.

Retric 4y ago
I don’t think either can do it alone, but Watch + [ AR glasses or tablet + earbuds ] could more directly replace a smartphone.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah, AR glasses are what will actually be the Next Smartphone, as far as rapidly attaining ubiquity. If they can fix the bulkiness and battery life issues, anyway. And sure, decent chance that'll involve tethering the glasses to some kind of watch where the actual brains and long-range radios live. Or to a smartphone or tablet that you can leave in a pocket or bag all the time (why wear a watch when the AR glasses could just paint a fake one on your wrist?)
  - eternityforest 4y ago
    But won't people feel uncomfortable being seen with AR glasses, at least for the next few years? They would have to be completely transparent, no impediment to eye contact, very small and fashionable, and so incredibly useful people would be willing to deal with any judgemental glares they got.
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      Depends what kind of form factor they can get them to. I've got a pair of these, and they look close enough to regular Ray-Bans that nobody realizes there's cameras on them: https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-stories https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-stories
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Smartphones drew the same judgmental glares for a few years. If you were holding them up to use them, people'd think you were recording and would be irritated or upset. If you were recording, they're really be unhappy with you. People talking on or looking at cell phones in public at all were usually coded as "asshole" in basically all media in the 90s and 00s, and that pretty much reflected popular opinion. By the early 20-teens, though, all that was just normal and everyone was doing it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I am more thinking the next 10 years than 30. AR glasses have issues with UI, comfort, style, and durability even if you fix the more core issues of weight, battery life, etc.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Until they have rainbows end tech I don’t think this will be true. Wearing glasses is a bug, not a feature.
- _rs 4y ago
  This is likely, but I'm willing to bet any Apple AR device will require an iPhone for the foreseeable future too though
jagged-chisel 4y ago
But there’s no technical reason a stand-alone watch couldn’t be an option for those who actually want it.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Sure, but > The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone I simply don't think is true.
  - dijit 4y ago
    You might not, but I have gone entire days with only my LTE Apple watch. I can take calls, play music (wirelessly through my airpods), crudely reply to messages (it's only a little awkward, surprisingly usable) and pay for things without my phone. For web-browsing, I don't need to do that all the time. I use my camera a sum total of twice a month. I don't think I'm special.
    - thorncorona 4y ago
      There are people who'd be able to get by with a watch, but as an alternate perspective: - 99% of my messaging is through text, the other 1% is video calling - Most of my causal web browsing is on my phone - I've taken thousands of pictures on my phone in the last year. Most of my friends are like this as well.
      - dijit 4y ago
        I’m sure thats true, in fact, I’m certain of it. most of the use of my phone is mobile web-browsing. I can honestly live without that sometimes, especially as phones are getting large enough that you might as well have a tablet that you lug around sometimes.
- fsflover 4y ago
  And it indeed exists: PineTime.
LarryMullins 4y ago
Cameras are doubtlessly vital to some users, but almost entirely superfluous to others. I can count the number of times per year I use the camera on my phone with just my fingers.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature. In truth they’re often really crap phones and my old flip phone had better all around phone quality and utility. But at this point I feel annoyed when I have to speak to a person. If I were meant to speak to people I wouldn’t have been born an engineer.
  - Marsymars 4y ago
    > I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature. Part of the reason this number's so high is that if a phone feature is really important to you, you're liable to get a standalone VoIP line and a headset to go with whatever handset you have rather than using a smartphone.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Yeah certainly the fact they’re universally bad phones makes them less useful as a phone, and phone phones are better at being phones. But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion.
      - Marsymars 4y ago
        > But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion. Technically compared to e.g. internet-native voice communication, or you just think that remote voice communication is bad?
        fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Voice is for jocks.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
What does any of that have to do with Apple requiring people to have an iPhone to use their watch? Maybe you don't want an iPhone and are satisfied with the functionality of the watch alone. Maybe you have one of the zillions of Android phones out there and don't want an iPhone for that reason. Literally no other smart watch that I know of requires that you have a phone of any kind, so I just don't see any reason for Apple to require it with their watch.
ohyes 4y ago
I don’t use any of those features and the smartphone has become garbage for web browsing so I’m not sure I need one at all.
- rwalle 4y ago
  I'm sorry your comment doesn't apply to 99% of the general population.

zikduruqe 4y ago

This. I seldom, if ever, carry my iPhone outside my house. My Apple Watch with cellular is enough for internet connectivity when away from home. In my perfect world, I could provision my Apple Watch as a standalone device, and I could get a MacBook with an eSIM.

enos_feedler 4y ago
I think macbook with eSIM could land once the OS has good controls over the network usage. Carriers aren’t gonna let those things run wild
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zikduruqe 4y ago
  Yep. I am very, intimately familiar with the inner workings of carriers. But one can dream.
- mcculley 4y ago
  Just bill me by bandwidth used. It is ridiculous that one cannot buy a MacBook Pro with a cell modem. I fight with tethering at least once a week.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    i had a windows laptop with inbuilt 4G modem, was great fpr business travel. Had better reception than a phone. Many business people use mac and would love this. Really weired
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    I think its less about money and more about network capacity and also ensuring your average mac user can leave it on without running up a surprise bill. Until users have good control with sane defaults it wont happen

heresaPizza 4y ago

Being an iPhone + Watch + AirPods user I can say the exact opposite. The Watch is the perfect iPhone companion but it can’t replace it. Its screen is so small it makes me want to complete interactions as quick as possible. I love leaving the iPhone at home when I go for a walk and still listening music and podcasts, but it’s something that requires minimal interactions. Receiving notifications is great, but replying? terrible. Imho Apple should be a bit braver when designing the Watch UI. Put an always accessible now playing widget, let apps create more complex widget etc. (but still, I am thinking about glanceable informations or single tap actions). And I didn’t mention the fact the iPhone has cameras and it’s not physically attached to you.

throwaway290 4y ago
For people who want to use phone less (no social media etc, like what I'm doing now HNing at breakfast) Watch alone could replace the phone function (can call, take calls, message) and a couple other devices (map, audio player) completely.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > For people who want to use phone less (no social media etc, like what I'm doing now HNing at breakfast) And that represents a vanishingly small market.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Lol. There is never a market for a nonexistent product. Products shape and create markets, not the other way around.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  The overwhelming majority of users have been voting with their dollars: they want bigger and bigger smartphone screens. Look at what people do on their phones all day. Most of that makes no sense on a watch screen.

V__ 4y ago

I gifted an Apple Watch this Christmas. I checked their site and saw that an iPhone was needed, but somehow thought any up-to-date iOS device would work. Since you can set up the watch for a family member (who doesn't have an iPhone) it has to work, right? Got the newest iPad? F*k you, buy and iPhone. That was a disappointing gift, I can tell you that. There is absolutely no reason to impose such a limit. I don't understand it. However, I will never buy or recommend another Apple product ever again.

_rs 4y ago
Wow, I would've hoped an iPad would work at least. Thanks for confirming.
jkaplowitz 4y ago
I don't like this mandatory tie between the two Apple product lines any more than you do, but as an FYI nit on terminology: > somehow thought any up-to-date iOS device would work. [...] Got the newest iPad? iOS 12 was the last version of iOS where that name applied to iPad as well as iPhone. Starting with version 13, the version of the operating system for iPhone had been the only one called iOS, with the iPad OS called iPadOS. So, yes, I suspect that any up to date iOS device does work, through the magic of terminology peculiarities, unless currently supported Apple Watches don't support all currently supported iPhones (I haven't checked if that is the case). As for the operating system for Apple Watch, that has always been called watchOS.
- mihaaly 4y ago
  I belive everyone entering an Apple store should complete a test on their insight into Apple nomenclature and product history. Those who fail should f*ck off!
- radicalbyte 4y ago
  I've been an Apple customer for a decade and have had a number of iPads and this is the first time I've heard this.
- symlinkk 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they are taking. Serious question: On this business topic, how does it matter that you were a software engineer (according to your HN bio) at Apple?

robbomacrae 4y ago
Just trying to briefly qualify my viewpoint with my experience of apple. But your right, anyones opinion here as a consumer is equally valid.

nostromo 4y ago

They will cut the cord eventually. Remember, iPods required a Mac at first. Then a Mac or a PC. Then neither.

tshaddox 4y ago

I agree with your point, except that I think this is a poor example of your point. This is pretty clearly just a poor implementation of this particular user interaction. I have a feeling their legal department decided they needed to send out this terms of service requirement and they didn’t have any decent UI in the Apple TV to let you view and accept terms. This modal is probably the best thing they could throw together on their end. I’ve been an Apple TV user for many years and this is the first time I remember seeing a modal like this pop up out of nowhere. I don’t think this has anything do with trying to force Apple TV users to have an iPhone. It’s a buggy and annoying user interaction even if you do have an iPhone. For one thing, it seems to require every user on your Apple Family Sharing plan to accept the terms, which means it will show me the modal for my wife’s account when she’s not around. She has an iPhone, but this is still an absurd experience. Also, it’s just clearly buggy and inconsistent. Sometimes I’ll be watching something for an hour and when I go to the home screen it will show three identical modals one after the other.

layer8 4y ago

Apple isn’t interested in that. They want you to “buy in” into their ecosystem wholesale. Making Apple products easier to use independently would also make it easier to leave their ecosystem. They rely on the extra friction caused by combining Apple with non-Apple products.

sircastor 4y ago

I would be more concerned about this if the competition in this space was not so disappointing this far. I think there are good smartwatches in the Android space, but none of them are great, and none of them have challenged the Apple Watch in terms of feature set and quality. And Apple hasn’t sat on its laurels here. They keep making the watch a more desirable device. To me, it seems like they know they can get people to consider switching if they want the watch. And the market keeps rewarding them. I had a Moto360 early on and loved it. It was a competitor to the Apple Watch only by virtue of being an electronic watch. It would be nice if Apple would make the watch accessible to people without iPhones. I would certainly believe their rhetoric about the importance of health tech if they did that.

darknavi 4y ago
> think there are good smartwatches in the Android space, but none of them are great How much of that is limited by the API that Google is surfacing? Watches simply cannot compete with an Apple Watch because Apple doesn't surface the same functionality for any other device.
JadeNB 4y ago
> I would be more concerned about this if the competition in this space was not so disappointing this far. Why does less competition make you less concerned about anti-competitive behavior? Such behavior is never good, but it's self-correcting in a market with lots of choice, and not so in a market where there's only one great option (a judgment for which I have to take your word—a Casio F-91W is the right level of watch technology for me).
- sircastor 4y ago
  Anti-competitive behavior is absolutely bad, no question, but the problem doesn't come across to me as Apple pushing competitors out of the market. It feels like other Smartwatch makers don't care to match the feature set or don't care to do it as well as Apple. When viewing market from an ecosystem point-of-view, there aren't comparable pairings of Android-phone-with-wearOS-Watch to iPhone-with-Apple-Watch. There are similar pairings: Samsung's watch products with Samsung phones, and the Pixel Watch with a Pixel phone. But are either of those comprehensive in their respective ecosystems? My point is, nobody seems to be fighting for this market except Apple. I could just be naive here, but it doesn't seem like anyone else cares enough for Apple to be anti-competitive.

chimerasaurus 4y ago

I’ve built my product career working on projects that present risks to the status quo for companies. This isn’t unique to Apple. Not to defend them specifically, but a company willing to focus on long term is the exception. Most companies have leaders that are given goals that constrain them to short term gains. It drives truly suboptimal long-term decision making, but it also usually aligns with their incentives. Changing that view takes (1) an existential threat, (2) a lot of data, and (3) a team that can execute quickly and reliably once a window opens.

tzs 4y ago

Often the key to success is to not try to do too much. That was one of the big reasons the PDA market was dominated by Palm Pilot. Earlier PDAs like the Sharp Wizard and the Casio BOSS tried to do too much. They wanted you to be able to fully maintain your calendar and contacts and todo lists and notes on them. But with their little keyboards, slow processors, and limited displays they weren't very good at doing a lot of data entry or editing related to those tasks. Palm viewed the PDA not as the place all that stuff would live. In their view all that stuff lived on your computer. The PDA was for taking your data along when you were away from the computer. You might take notes on the PDA but then when back home you'd use the computer if you needed to do much editing of them. You might add or delete a todo item here or there, but if you were going to extensively reorganize your todo list, you'd do it on the computer. I think Apple is, correctly, thinking that the Apple Watch will do best if it is like the Palm Pilot. It is a peripheral for your iPhone and doesn't try to shoehorn into the inherently limited interface support for doing things that can be easily done on the iPhone it is paired with. If they tried to make it standalone without greatly reducing the functionality they would just end up with something very complicate to use. What they could do, without making it too complicated, is make it so you can pair it with things other than iPhone. iPad and Mac at the least. Maybe Android phones/tablets and Windows PCs too. But it would still be primarily a peripheral for those devices, not a standalone device.

mark_l_watson 4y ago
Except, the Apple Watch with its own cellular data plan is a standalone device, sending and receiving phone calls, emails, and texts. I like to leave my iPhone at home when I leave my house if I don’t need a camera.

gumby 4y ago

The iphone started out as a dependent of a computer (mac only at first? I don't remember). There are a number of settings on the watch that can be modified on the watch, but originally could be modified only on the phone. You can set up a watch for a family member who doesn't have a phone, but you do have to do that from your iphone. Not that I have any thoughts on where Apple might go with this; this is just FYI.

tommoor 4y ago

To be fair Google is doing the exact same thing, I was interested in their new Pixel Watch but it requires an Android device to use..

GuB-42 4y ago

It seems like Apple is an "all or nothing" kind of thing. Either you have everything by Apple and it is great, or you have none of it. A very common reason Apple fans give for why they buy Apple is that all their devices work so well together. And I tend to agree with them. This is their market, they don't want to make efforts to accommodate others. And why would they? They already have the best market, loyal customers with a lot of money to spend. They don't want to bring in cheap people, offer them a subpar experience because they won't enjoy the benefits of a tightly integrated ecosystem, just to have them complain and never buy again. Competitors will arrive, and Apple will gladly let them feed on the bottom, but Apple is still safe in its market. And I can't really see the Apple TV serve as a "gateway drug" to the Apple ecosystem like the iPhone can. As for the Apple Watch, like any smartwatch, it is simply too small to stand alone. It is hard to find phones less than 6 inch now, because people want bigger phones for a variety of reasons: bigger screen, better camera, bigger battery, etc... You definitely won't replace it with a 2 inch watch.

imglorp 4y ago

They're doing the same with Mac and iPad - by denying some software on each platform, they're forcing you to buy both if you want both classes of software.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rkho 4y ago

> The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone I feel like this is a technological limitation of sorts.

scarface74 4y ago

You worked for Apple yet you don’t know how tightly the Apple Watch is tied to the iPhone for functionality to offload responsibilities to save battery life for instance