4 ms·

Puhleeeese. Yes, I'm sure they "investigated" it. But it's clear they determined their business incentives were not aligned with bringing it to Android. I have

Puhleeeese. Yes, I'm sure they "investigated" it. But it's clear they determined their business incentives were not aligned with bringing it to Android. I have no doubt Apple teams would have overcome any nebulous "technical limitations" if they were actually incentivized to do so.

oluwie 3y ago
Lots of android watches work great with an iPhone. Maybe you won't get full notifications and all the other bells and whistles, but it's pretty trivial to get the basic stuff working.
- jb1991 3y ago
  But this topic is about the vice-versa.
mrcwinn 3y ago
Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie, and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly.
- tomComb 3y ago
  The idea is not to increase watch revenue, but to get people into the whole ecosystem and keep them there
- dwallin 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be a lie to be a poor excuse. The technical limitations could be something along the lines of they couldn't find a way to provide an app that wouldn't allow third parties to bypass apple gatekeeping of apple watches. Technically truthful, but in an antitrust context maybe less of a valid reasoning, but still allows them to redirect the public narrative. Edit: Sounds like it was about privacy concerns, so probably something like there not being a completely foolproof way of preventing a third party from grabbing health data from the android app.
- ghusto 3y ago
  > Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie The claim would hold up even if it were a lie. "We concluded that Androids API wasn't compatible with the Apple Watch". Not a lie, but obviously still a complete lie. > and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly. What they would love way _more_ is lock-in. You want this new shiny? It's only in the Apple ecosystem.
zitterbewegung 3y ago
Apple Watch requires the ability to go over Bluetooth or some other way to load an ipsw or some other means to update. It also needs ultra wideband tech to find the host and who knows how cellular is integrated to the phone. What Apple could do instead to get around this would be to make the watch be 100% standalone. I don’t think that’s as easy as it sounds though.
zer00eyz 3y ago
You're crossing a platform boundary. Look at something like Active Directory that is in theory ldap. Do you really want to mix AD and open LDAP? You can, and it's a massive pain in the ass. Now you have apple iWatch apps talking to android. Where does apple maintain the translation layer? Does google/samsung take a "fuck off" stance and lock them out? What does the user experience look like when the "bug" in the app is on android and your CALLING apple for support... I think that last bit is the limit that folks dont really think about. You can call apple, show up at store and they are going to try to fix your issue... when your random android device breaks who do you call? "the technical limitations" are "we cant control android" and "does not fit our customer support philosophy"
- nradov 3y ago
  Nah. Garmin smartwatches work fine with Android phones. Apple could have just done the same, regardless of what Samsung or Google wants. Platform boundaries aren't a legitimate concern in this space.
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    I spent some time working with the Garmin API. The watch I used delivered extremely accurate workout recordings to my Android phone.
  - sarlalian 3y ago
    Except that anyone who has tried to build custom apps for Garmin, knows that the ecosystem is a mess. Monkey C, just isn't good. Their API's are unstable, data transfers from apps on the watch to a phone are problematic at best. Sure apple could have likely brought the baseline functionality of Apple watch to Android, however apps would have likely been much much more complicated, and are a key part of apple watch.
    - nradov 3y ago
      There is nothing that would stop existing Apple Watch apps from continuing to work if the device was paired with an Android phone. In cases where the Watch app depends on a matching iPhone app then obviously the developer would have to build an equivalent Android app to make it work, but no one is proposing that Apple would have to do that themselves. As for issues with the Garmin ecosystem, that's totally irrelevant. The basic fact is that nothing is stopping third-party smartwatch vendors from building good integration with Android phones. Garmin is just one example. Others such as Suunto and Coros have done the same thing. There are no significant technical obstacles.
gumby 3y ago
Though initially resistant, they were incentivized to do so with the ipod which acted as a "gateway drug" for people to switch to macs. it's hard to believe anyone buys an iphone to get access to the watch, but if your watch is easier to use than your phone the incentive could run the other way
- gpm 3y ago
  I don't find it hard to believe at all. If you want a good smart watch, the apple watch is the only game in town. If you just want a phone, androids are competitive (superior based on what I want out of a phone). I've personally considered making my next phone an iphone just to get a watch (though I've so far avoided doing so out of distaste for the iphone). I've seen other people on the internet claim that they have.
  - nradov 3y ago
    That depends by what you define as "good". If you want built-in LTE connectivity then the Apple Watch is pretty much the only option. For most everything else, certain Garmin devices are equivalent or superior. Especially when it comes to battery life. One particularly anticompetitive and anticonsumer action that Apple has taken is locking down the iPhone API for replying to text messages. Android devices allow third-party smartwatches to both display and respond to text messages. Consumers can pair a third-party smartwatch with an iPhone and read text messages but they aren't allowed to reply. There is no legitimate reason for this artificial limitation beyond product tying.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      The Pixel Watch is a good option now for Android with built-in LTE connectivity. It's not on the level of the Apple Watch, but it's getting damn good, and every few months gets closer.
shalmanese 3y ago
I mean, the technical limitations are pretty obvious if you are even remotely familiar with the architecture. The watch offloads significant computation and communication to the phone in an extremely tightly integrated manner to have an acceptable computational and power consumption envelope. I don't see how they could have done it without significant co-operation from the Android OS team far deeper than even two allied companies are typically able to communicate. The other alternative would have been to design a totally different piece of hardware that operates according to the Android OS expectations but that's hardly "bringing Apple Watch to Android".
- nradov 3y ago
  Nah. The existence of fully functional smartwatches from other vendors including Garmin and Suunto prove that isn't a legitimate reason. If they want to offload some processing to an Android smartphone then all they need to do is write an Android app like the other vendors did. Simple. No Android OS changes or deep integration are needed.
  - shalmanese 3y ago
    And all of them have far worse user experiences than the Apple Watch for that exact reason. The Apple Watch is a platform, not an app. It defines the type of communication iPhone and AW apps can have in ways that provide tightly integrated experiences. Again, there exists a totally different hardware product Apple could build for Android that runs on Android OS expectations but it wouldn't be an Apple Watch.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Nah. I've used both types of watches and the UX is similar. Both are platforms. You can write an Android app or an iPhone app that communicates directly with a Garmin watch app. It's not a problem and there would be no need for different hardware to make an Apple Watch work fine with Android. It's purely a software limitation.
      - 3y ago

oluwie 3y ago

Lots of android watches work great with an iPhone. Maybe you won't get full notifications and all the other bells and whistles, but it's pretty trivial to get the basic stuff working.

jb1991 3y ago
But this topic is about the vice-versa.

mrcwinn 3y ago

Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie, and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly.

tomComb 3y ago
The idea is not to increase watch revenue, but to get people into the whole ecosystem and keep them there
dwallin 3y ago
It doesn't have to be a lie to be a poor excuse. The technical limitations could be something along the lines of they couldn't find a way to provide an app that wouldn't allow third parties to bypass apple gatekeeping of apple watches. Technically truthful, but in an antitrust context maybe less of a valid reasoning, but still allows them to redirect the public narrative. Edit: Sounds like it was about privacy concerns, so probably something like there not being a completely foolproof way of preventing a third party from grabbing health data from the android app.
ghusto 3y ago
> Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie The claim would hold up even if it were a lie. "We concluded that Androids API wasn't compatible with the Apple Watch". Not a lie, but obviously still a complete lie. > and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly. What they would love way _more_ is lock-in. You want this new shiny? It's only in the Apple ecosystem.

zitterbewegung 3y ago

Apple Watch requires the ability to go over Bluetooth or some other way to load an ipsw or some other means to update. It also needs ultra wideband tech to find the host and who knows how cellular is integrated to the phone. What Apple could do instead to get around this would be to make the watch be 100% standalone. I don’t think that’s as easy as it sounds though.

zer00eyz 3y ago

You're crossing a platform boundary. Look at something like Active Directory that is in theory ldap. Do you really want to mix AD and open LDAP? You can, and it's a massive pain in the ass. Now you have apple iWatch apps talking to android. Where does apple maintain the translation layer? Does google/samsung take a "fuck off" stance and lock them out? What does the user experience look like when the "bug" in the app is on android and your CALLING apple for support... I think that last bit is the limit that folks dont really think about. You can call apple, show up at store and they are going to try to fix your issue... when your random android device breaks who do you call? "the technical limitations" are "we cant control android" and "does not fit our customer support philosophy"

nradov 3y ago
Nah. Garmin smartwatches work fine with Android phones. Apple could have just done the same, regardless of what Samsung or Google wants. Platform boundaries aren't a legitimate concern in this space.
- hparadiz 3y ago
  I spent some time working with the Garmin API. The watch I used delivered extremely accurate workout recordings to my Android phone.
- sarlalian 3y ago
  Except that anyone who has tried to build custom apps for Garmin, knows that the ecosystem is a mess. Monkey C, just isn't good. Their API's are unstable, data transfers from apps on the watch to a phone are problematic at best. Sure apple could have likely brought the baseline functionality of Apple watch to Android, however apps would have likely been much much more complicated, and are a key part of apple watch.
  - nradov 3y ago
    There is nothing that would stop existing Apple Watch apps from continuing to work if the device was paired with an Android phone. In cases where the Watch app depends on a matching iPhone app then obviously the developer would have to build an equivalent Android app to make it work, but no one is proposing that Apple would have to do that themselves. As for issues with the Garmin ecosystem, that's totally irrelevant. The basic fact is that nothing is stopping third-party smartwatch vendors from building good integration with Android phones. Garmin is just one example. Others such as Suunto and Coros have done the same thing. There are no significant technical obstacles.

gumby 3y ago

Though initially resistant, they were incentivized to do so with the ipod which acted as a "gateway drug" for people to switch to macs. it's hard to believe anyone buys an iphone to get access to the watch, but if your watch is easier to use than your phone the incentive could run the other way

gpm 3y ago
I don't find it hard to believe at all. If you want a good smart watch, the apple watch is the only game in town. If you just want a phone, androids are competitive (superior based on what I want out of a phone). I've personally considered making my next phone an iphone just to get a watch (though I've so far avoided doing so out of distaste for the iphone). I've seen other people on the internet claim that they have.
- nradov 3y ago
  That depends by what you define as "good". If you want built-in LTE connectivity then the Apple Watch is pretty much the only option. For most everything else, certain Garmin devices are equivalent or superior. Especially when it comes to battery life. One particularly anticompetitive and anticonsumer action that Apple has taken is locking down the iPhone API for replying to text messages. Android devices allow third-party smartwatches to both display and respond to text messages. Consumers can pair a third-party smartwatch with an iPhone and read text messages but they aren't allowed to reply. There is no legitimate reason for this artificial limitation beyond product tying.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    The Pixel Watch is a good option now for Android with built-in LTE connectivity. It's not on the level of the Apple Watch, but it's getting damn good, and every few months gets closer.

shalmanese 3y ago

I mean, the technical limitations are pretty obvious if you are even remotely familiar with the architecture. The watch offloads significant computation and communication to the phone in an extremely tightly integrated manner to have an acceptable computational and power consumption envelope. I don't see how they could have done it without significant co-operation from the Android OS team far deeper than even two allied companies are typically able to communicate. The other alternative would have been to design a totally different piece of hardware that operates according to the Android OS expectations but that's hardly "bringing Apple Watch to Android".

nradov 3y ago
Nah. The existence of fully functional smartwatches from other vendors including Garmin and Suunto prove that isn't a legitimate reason. If they want to offload some processing to an Android smartphone then all they need to do is write an Android app like the other vendors did. Simple. No Android OS changes or deep integration are needed.
- shalmanese 3y ago
  And all of them have far worse user experiences than the Apple Watch for that exact reason. The Apple Watch is a platform, not an app. It defines the type of communication iPhone and AW apps can have in ways that provide tightly integrated experiences. Again, there exists a totally different hardware product Apple could build for Android that runs on Android OS expectations but it wouldn't be an Apple Watch.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Nah. I've used both types of watches and the UX is similar. Both are platforms. You can write an Android app or an iPhone app that communicates directly with a Garmin watch app. It's not a problem and there would be no need for different hardware to make an Apple Watch work fine with Android. It's purely a software limitation.
    - 3y ago