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.
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"
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.
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.
If anyone involved in it could explain to me why they chose to force an OO language on people on a platform where some targets have so little memory that you’ll find yourself cutting lines of code to save memory used by the code itself, not even when it’s executing, thus throwing away a bunch of bytes supporting objects when there’s not enough space to even really take advantage of inheritance—I’d love to know the story. It’s such a weird choice.
Maybe there are the same people that invented Javacards. Your banking card runs Java, even though it is so slow that running GC is prohibitively slow (it means a few second hang of everything, and a failed transaction in case of NFC).
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.
As an Apple Watch user, I find this very funny, because data transfer between an iPhone and an Apple Watch is pretty bad too. In no small ways because of Apple insistence on slow wireless solutions with custom opaque APIs.
So, Garmin may be bad but at least they are a lot cheaper and work with more things. At any given price point, they are a lot better as sports watches too.
Anyway, I stopped caring because there is no real compelling use case for a smartwatch, my next one will be a sport watch from Garmin or another competitor. Problem solved.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Just a meta comment, I fully agree with you here, but using the word "nah" (especially as an opener) comes off as very dismissive. My guess is that is not your intention, so I wanted to offer some friendly feedback on it. It may be a regional thing, as where I'm from it usually includes significant body language that clearly shows that it's not a shallow dismissal but rather a "I disagree but not forcefully" or "I'm unconvinced" but in other regions "nah" is used in a mocking way.
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.
>> 9to5Mac’s Take... It’s not Apple’s fault that there’s no Apple Watch equivalent on Android. Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch.
The DOJ is going to argue about the Apple Watch being a lock-in? Isn't that like telling Toyota, you need to make engines for Ford cause theirs suck... Hey Tesla you need to make batteries For ford cause theirs suck.
I dont think there is a real case here. I think this is going to be a big fat L for the DOJ. I think at that point in time the US will have the ability to say other countries actions around apple are anti free market/trade.
The Apple Watch has it's own CPU, RAM, display, potentially even cell signal. Why should it need an iPhone to work? Should your Honda motorcycle stop working if you get rid of your Civic?
This is a fair point. It should not need an iPhone. I think it did in the first several generations but not today.
I suspect forcing Apple to allow this device to operate without an iPhone (even lacking features that might reasonably require an iPhone) could come out of this.
Apple Watch doesn’t stop working if you get rid of your iPhone either, they sell models with an internal cell connection for exactly this reason, so what exactly is the problem?
again, seems like half these threads are ideologue android fanboys who think there’s not a file browser or think you can’t sideload an app but are hellbent on banning the thing they don’t understand anyway.
Actually Sony does have a monopoly on the Playstation market. A monopoly is not in itself illegal. The first question is whether Sony has used that monopoly illegally or defended the monopoly illegally. Second, even if it has, the question is if the harm caused by it is worth even pursuing Sony.
Most likely neither are true for Sony but even if it is, it should be self apparent that distorting the smartphone market, or even the iPhone market, devices which are almost essential parts of modern day living can cause orders of magnitude greater harm than anything Sony could do in the game console market, which is much smaller, much narrower, and far less important.
And all this ignores that the DoJ's filing is about antitrust issues beyond just monopoly issues.
Best shot yourself in the foot argument so far. Sony Entertainment is actually bringing the controller and the games to pc. The controller's unique features are also actually usable
I get the point, but it's watered down by your example which isn't true. I'm happily using a PlayStation controller on everything _except_ a PlayStation.
> Apple’s smartwatch—Apple Watch—is only compatible with the iPhone.
So, if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone
> Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual
control of critical APIs, to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches
Fossil got fucked over and left. Google did nothing with Fitbit (dead). Samsung as a product excites no one (I own a Samsung phone, I dont want a Samsung watch).
The argument has nothing to do with what Apple's competitors are doing. The DoJ claim you're responding to applies even if a non Apple smartwatch maker didn't exist. The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
>>> The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
Printer ink? Cpu sockets? Are we going to compel apple to support intel chips again? Should Intel and AMD be forced to support old ram standards cause you happen to want to use that particular combination.
I dont think the DOJ has good enough lawyers to win this very tenuous argument. Im not even sure if they should. There are much better arguments to make both on merit and cause.
Garmin smartwatches are functional. Some of them include functionality that isn't even available in Apple watches. But in other areas they are deficient. It really depends on what you're looking for.
Google did not do "nothing with Fitbit (dead)." You can buy new Fitbit's right now. They also incorporated a lot of Fitbit tech into the Pixel Watch, which is also a very functional smart watch.
It's not too far-fetched, I think. Apple could have collaborated with Google and car OEMs to standardize an open interface for smartphone-car communication. Instead, we have two APIs that essentially do the same thing in every car OS.
> Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?
I was a Fitbit user from the day the initial fitbit went on sale for preorder. I used pretty much every 'flagship' fitbit since then until Google bought them. Ever since Google took over the Fitbit product got worse and worse. I decided a year ago I needed out when they got rid of the communities favorite feature, challenges. I'm pretty sure when I finally packed my fitbit away I had logged more days of usage then anyone else.
I started exploring what the other options were but was not able to even consider the apple watch because I do prefer android to ios. If it had supported android I'd have potentially gotten one though. Anyway as apple placed themselves out of the running I explored other options and decided Garmin had the best offerings. The biggest issue there though was they had way too many models and way too many versions of each model and little help to figure out which one is the best for you beyond super high level titles like "runner". That said I ended up settling on the Fenix series and after a year of use I can say I'm quite happy with it!
When I upgraded my phone this past fall to the latest Pixel Google actually was giving away free Pixel watch 2's with every purchase so I did wear a pixel watch for a couple of weeks to test it out. It was.. not great... especially the battery which was supposedly improved from the pixel watch 1.
Anyway, yes, I do agree with the statement that Google hasn't created something good enough, but I don't think they've actually tried. Like other hardware they've bought (nest) they just let it die. Garmin needs some major marketing help, but I do feel like they got a great thing going over there.
It is important that you might have considered Apple Watch if it were available for Android. This gatekeeping seems the crux of the lawsuit.
However, given your deep experience with Fitbit / Google's offerings and careful consideration of Garmin's as well, I'm curious: What do you think of the merit of suing Apple for antitrust for Apple Watch not supporting at least some set of Android devices?
I've had a Pixel 2XL, Pixel 6Pro or XL (worst phone I've ever owned), and now a Pixel 8 Pro. I strongly considered moving to iPhone after my Pixel 6 experience, but decided to give it one last chance since I really prefer Android over iOS.
When I bought the 8 I got a "free" Pixel Watch 2 with the purchase. I have not owned an Apple Watch, but my wife has an older model.
They do have Fitbit integration and it works pretty well for tracking walks, jogs, and cycling. I don't use it religiously and I'm not an exercise maniac.
The watch is nice and very functional. My biggest complaint is the battery life is really bad. I have to charge it daily -- I usually only wear it during the day and charge overnight. It'll charge pretty quickly 1-2hr but I don't care enough to do it.
It looks decent and works well enough to manage notifications and take calls when I can't grab my phone. The normal functions are on par with my wife's (older model) Apple watch.
I think if I was a serious fitness and outdoor activity kind of person I would buy a Garmin. I didn't do an in-depth comparison of the watches because I only use the base functionality of fitness tracking watches (my previous smart watch was a Withings) so it's entirely possible a new Apple watch offers some great feature I'm not aware of or wouldn't personally use.
That's my personal experience with the Pixel Watch 2. It's fine for my use case, but the battery life truly is bad.
If you disable "always on" display you can get 2 to 3 days of battery life from it. I love always on display, but I have it disabled currently because of that
Ink is ink and paper is paper. How hard could it be?
I accidentally bought a large inventory of toner during a sale, and it's really cost prohibitive for me to buy a new printer as a result.
My comments might be a joke, but they're about as rigorous as the claims in the DoJ complaint. They invent a "performance smartphone market" and then claim Google is a distant third to Samsung and Apple because of iMessage lock-in.
Unlike smart watches where integrating the watch and phone probably has lots of opportunity for innovation left, I agree there isn't much value in proprietary printer inks and standardization probably has more consumer benefit.
This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said.
Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch:
> Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone.
So, ifApple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new , Android -compatible smartwatch
> By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence
on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth.
> Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual
control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly
I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.
Agreed. Government doesn't get to force a company to make their product compatible with another platform. Unless I am missing it, did the DOJ plead that Apple actively prevented Google from making Android work with Apple Watch? If so, then it would be a different story.
Couldn't Apple also make a 1st amendment argument that the government can't force them to "speak" something (make iPhone work with Android)?
The government argued that Apple does not support Apple Watch on Android, which makes it cost prohibitive for Apple Watch users to switch to Android, since they'd have to buy a new smart watch. I wish this was made up, but it's 20% of their arguments for Apple violating anti-trust law.
Some would argue that Apple is obligated to provide all the API necessary to let Google implement support for Apple Watch on Android phones because anything short of that would be an abuse of its monopoly position in the "Apple Watch host device" market.
I don't think DOJ is arguing that. Their argument seems to be that Apple isn't supporting Android. Providing an api is different from actively supporting another platform. API would usually be agnostic.
Also, couldn't Apple make a first amendment argument?
Yes, but I'm saying some would respond to your claim that it's Google's responsibility to bring Watch support to Android with the fact that Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to bring Watch support to any platform. It's like saying it's Google's responsibility to support iMessage on Android: sure, but it's not technically possible anyhow without Apple doing work.
I agree that government forcing interoperability in this way is pretty concerning. Maybe Apple is an exception (arguable, I don't believe it, but not preposterous).
Government literally forced Microsoft to make their products interoperable in a previous antitrust case from 2001. The defendant didn't attempt a 1st Amendment argument.
I guess I'm confused. Apple says it can't because of a technical issue. Is it bluetooth? I know some android phones have issues with bluetooth devices like GoPros, the Pixel line in particular. That said if Samsung was able to get their Gear watches (which I don't think they support iOS anymore) to work, then I only see this as a big excuse. I have a feeling it was more of a privacy issue?
I suspect BT is a major cause. Apple may want to make sure that the apple watch experience is at least as good as it is on iphone. So apple may be unwilling/unable to spend the resources to support every android device out there.
And working in BT consumer products, yes, android bluetooth is still a shitshow and device-dependent. Each radio vendor and android device has its own quirks that take time and resources to account for. Apple has had a very tight leash on what its devices do for bluetooth.
That is obviously not the real reason. Garmin has succeeded in maintaining reliable Bluetooth connectivity between their smartwatches and a wide range of third-party Android phones. And they did it with a small fraction of Apple's resources.
> Whatever the "technical issue" was, it would have to be hardware related givent that AOSP is open source.
And it would have to be an issue that none of the other "works with android" wearables faced / managed to circumvent and an issue that google wasn't going to fix upstream.
I'm sure apple "tried" to bring the watch to android the same way a puppy tries to "drop it" before running away with something it knows it shouldn't have.
Just because AOSP exist doesn't mean that Apple would be able to get any Apple Watch specific things merged. And if you get something merged into AOSP today it will be quite a while before a significant portion of the Android devices in the wild actually contains those additions.
Some of the links in the article go nowhere, and others seem to contradict what they claim to say. But follow the links in the links and you end up with contradictions on the contradictions.
Very confusing. Maybe wait for a better source or for them to fix this article.
I have a hard time believing that Apple is incapable of providing at least a limited API for the Apple Watch. I wouldn’t expect full feature parity when using an Apple Watch with an Android phone, but even some basic functionality like texting and simpler notifications could have helped avoid this legal trouble.
I don’t see how the government could force any company to make a product that works on a competitor’s product (e.g. forcing Apple to make the Watch work on Android).
What I can see them doing is forcing Apple to allow the same level of access to APIs, sensors, etc. for competitors to be able to make their own integrations (e.g. publish the Watch protocols and allow third party apps to use them). Or to allow apps on the phone access to the same APIs, like allowing Tile to use the same APIs available to AirTags. There’s already precedent for that where Microsoft had to publish the SMB protocol so Samba could use it.
2. Apple products don't work very well (or at all) with non-Apple products
I would propose that these are both necessary entailments of the same principle, whose articulation we owe to, of all people, Martin Heidegger, the early-twentieth-century German phenomenologist. In _The Question Concerning Technology_ he called this 'referral', and it's present in all forms of tech, and the degree of referral increases with the complexity of the tech. For example, a fountain pen 'refers' to an inkwell. The more efficiently the fountain pen fits the inkwell -- the less _waste_ there is in the design of the inkwell and the pen -- the _less likely_ it is that another pen can use the same inkwell. (This is my example, not Heidegger's; also, I'm not sure if he noticed that referral increases with complexity -- it's been a couple decades since I read the QCT.)
Designs that optimize for interchangeability and multi-part sourcing are _intrinsically wasteful_ -- for example, your Electron app runs slowly because it uses several elaborate engines (Blink, V8) that in turn rely on protocols that are also in some sense wasteful (they aren't binary; they aren't protobufs, etc.).
Now, wasteful doesn't mean _bad_, but I propose that in some high-complexity fields where the envelope is being aggressively pushed (e.g. creating new market categories, like 'biometric, account-interlinked, phone-finding, app-running smartwatch'[^1]) it may be a tradeoff that is rejected by the market.
Further thinking:
Suppose that complexity necessarily increases over time (the Complexity Ratchet -- a persuasive theory I tend to endorse.) If this implies that Referral is always increasing, and does this imply that we are moving asymptotically towards a point where the amount of 'waste' necessary for competition is simply incompatible with the requirements of what is being engineered? This would imply that there is a level of technological complexity after which we lose the substantial benefits of free markets, as competition becomes impossible. I need to think about this more.
[^1] Yes, I know Fitbit got to 'smartwatch' first, but I'd argue that the Apple Watch is a tremendous advance over Fitbit, which is why they are preferred.
This is a really cool idea you're sharing from Martin Heidegger, I feel like it puts to words part of why I tend to side a bit more with Apple on this.
It seems adjacent to my thinking of who (and under what authority) can tell a company that they need to dedicate their resources to work on something they don't want to? In this case, the outcome would be the DOJ basically forcing Apple to use it's resources to help Samsung/Google. Apple certainly has the resources to do this, but it feels like there's a missing logical bridge here and that it sets a precedent that is based somewhat just on the current zeitgeist.
I acknowledge this could just be my interpretation of everything, and that if there's political will and support for action to be taken, then so it goes.
Knowing Apple’s love to introduce artificial limitations this news are not surprising. Even on their native platform, Apple Watche is half usable in terms of notifications - there is no way to get call notifications from apps other than gsm caller and iMessage. All you get is missed call notification. Why? Because of Apple said so
Lame excuse from Apple but the DoJ is also picking the lamest argument to prosecute Apple over. Feels very performative, especially in an election year.
The DoJ could choose something with teeth but that would require actually wanting to regulate monopolies.
Seems like they should release whatever API is needed to make it possible from their end, and then they can say it's not their choice, android manufacturers don't seem interested in making their devices compatible.
This is going to be a hilarious lawsuit. Reminds me of LOTR and the dragon hoard his gold. It'd be much cheaper for Apple to just comply in a few really simple areas:
* Send high-def photos to other phones
* Allow full access to NFC
* Give same API access that Apple Watch uses to it's competitors
* Reverse course on the malicious compliance for EU, instead implement faithfully in the spirit of the law, and make those changes global
Instead they'll choose suicide; since Apple is unlikely to do any of that, it's time to break Apple up: Desktop Computers, Mobile Phones, Mobile Payments, Wearables, and software applications division (like iMessage and other things).
I agree with the comments, that's a pretty lame excuse. But I've gotta understand where others are coming from here. I just don't see why Apple is in such hot water here - they created a gadget (well multiple) that people like. We're not forced to buy those gadgets and we have alternatives. Sure Apple has made a butt load of money on this, but it's not like other players are prevented from making similar gadgets. I guess if I made a thing, say a new type of keyboard and I also make a motherboard and ultimately some new type of computer - then isn't it my prerogative to decide that I'm only going to support that keyboard with that computer? Or is that thinking too simple: instead is the problem that Apple isn't allowing others to take the device they bought (keyboard in this example) and on their own make it work with their Asus computer? eh, maybe a lame example but happy to hear thoughts and feedback.
The lawsuit alleges Apple uses their control over iOS to push users away from Android compatible watches to Apple Watches. Specifically, by adding restrictions to third party watches that don't apply to Apple Watches.
The DOJ views this as a way to deter iPhone users from switching phones. To do so they would need to buy a new watch.
They reference an Apple VP who wrote Apple Watches, "may prevent iPhone customers from
switching.”
This may be a strawman, "9to5Mac's Take" points out Google's acquisition of Fitbit has not resulted in a competitive product to Apple Watch.
Fitbits were very popular, is this a fair characterization that lack of comparative first party hardware in the Android ecosystem demonstrates Apple Watch's limitation to Apple is not an anti-competitive play?
I'm not sure I buy "three years" of concerted, Apple-class effort.
It's probably something that got brought up occasionally, maybe even some exploration was done to see what it would take to port stuff across.
My feeling is that the business case just wasn't there. Their customer base is people that buy into the complete Apple Experience. Not being able to control the OS-level removes a lot of that control, and the inevitable friction issues that result may tarnish the experience.
It's like: Could the French Laundry offer takeout / to-go? Sure. Do they want to? Ehh..
The goal is to welcome people into the Fold, not just sell them a watch. They want them to have an iPhone, so that they then use iCloud and buy apps / videos / subscriptions in the Apple universe.
My wife buys a new watch and keeps her iPhone, so now we have 1 useless watch as we only have 1 iPhone in the house. I would use the watch as would my daughter, it's a nice watch, but we have Androids.
You could sell the watch which is useless to you to someone from whom it's useful in exchange for local currency. Next, you could exchange that local currency for an item you do find useful. Problem solved!
The AW is an iPhone accessory. It's a bit like complaining her old iPhone case won't work on your Androids. They aren't made to work together, and I would find it odd to force Apple to make it work.
Its not about being die hard or for the sake of an Apple logo alone.
Apple just often does stuff in such an elegant way that it defines entire product categories. In most cases, Apple products are qualitatively and quantitative better.
Apple Silicon-based laptops, XDR Pro Display, Apple TV, Airpods, etc.
Better for who? People locked-in to the Apple ecosystem. Their laptops aren’t qualitatively better because the CPU is fanless, I can’t run Linux on them without the help of someone cracking the problem for me. That’s qualitatively worse. You can name any set of features that are better and I can name reasons the product is worse, because it’s objective to your personal beliefs about hardware usage.
> without the help of someone cracking the problem for me
Apple had no plans to support such an endeavor and still don’t regardless of how many pieces of the puzzle they hand the Asahi team. The Asahi effort is marginally above a Hackintosh in terms of Apple sanctioned device usage.
Ehh... you can't use an NVIDIA card without someone cracking the problem for you. Having started using Linux in the late 90's, you couldn't run linux on most systems without someone cracking the problem for you. I certainly can't run FreeBSD on most laptops, regardless of vendor because no one has cracked the problem for me. This is the nature of open source OS's. You absolutely can run Linux on it, because Apple worked with the Asahi linux team to make it possible.
You think Microsoft had any plans to support Linux on a Surface Pro? You think IBM ever planned to support linux on Thinkpads before users did it on their own? This isn't the example of anticompetitive behaviour that you think it is.
That seems like a bold claim that there's no way to compete. I can see the argument that no one can make that better product because of Apple's locked APIs and internal carve outs, but there's a huge third party peripheral market for Apple devices, and even people who are all in on the ecosystem use them. Most people I know have non-Apple cases on their iPhones and use non-Apple wireless charging, specifically because there's better and more diverse products there.
If anything, Apple Watch is the product where they're the most vulnerable to someone else doing it better, and also the one that would most likely have insane sales if it worked well on Android.
> That seems like a bold claim that there's no way to compete. I can see the argument that no one can make that better product because of Apple's locked APIs and internal carve outs
So you agree? Apple does limit the available APIs. Just because a bunch of companies can make charging cables does not prove isn’t being anticompetitive. Cases and cables are the part of the market Apple can’t control.
I agree that Apple can be anti-competitive. I disagree with your assertion that it's because Apple users "never would consider buying non-Apple products". I even know people with iPhones and non-Apple smartwatches and workout tracking peripherals that they're happy with.
Your argument in the now-flagged OP was essentially that the reason no one made another smartwatch was because anyone with an Apple product is incapable of even considering buying anything non-Apple, which is patently untrue.
What is patently untrue is that Fitbit was ever given a fair chance to be as good as a product when paired with an iPhone. That is what my comment was originally pointing out, that there are other consumers out there with agenda to not buy another wrist computer brand. There are dogmatic consumers and non-dogmatic consumers and everyone inbetween but Apple made it impossible to choose another device.
I just thought the article paragraph was a bold take and not true (and obviously 9to5mac is biased), and it resulted in flagging which is unfortunate but not uncommon for any Apple criticism threads.
That may be true, but having customers who want to only use products from one company doesn’t make that company a monopoly, which is the topic sitting behind this article.
So then we agreed that final paragraph is irrelevant to the arguments of a monopoly. It’s misdirection from the fact that no one can build a competing quality product on their locked down platform. It has nothing to do with consumer choice because there is no choice. That is the monopoly, lack of ability to fairly build on their platform.
I’m not sure what Android has to do with consumers that limit themselves to the Apple ecosystem, based on the enforced belief that only Apple products work together. Of course you can switch to the Android ecosystem but how easy is it to do that and transfer everything over? You act like there aren’t huge limitations to what you’re suggesting a consumer should do.
But in many cases people, myself included, swapped to using Apple products because Android and Windows Phone were so much worse and had peripherals that interfaced way worse. I spent most of a decade on Android, paying essentially the same price as I would have on Apple, to get products that worked worse, lasted less time before losing official support, and interoperated worse even within the Google, LG, or Samsung ecosystems.
I ate the cost to swap off of Android (which also doesn't make it easy to get off of it, though maybe better than Apple) because I got value out of it.
I did. I totally abandoned Apple once before, and I moved out of it for laptops in the last two years with no real disruption. I use almost no Apple services on my phone in a way that locks me into them. Most of the apps I use on iOS, I have subscriptions to some apps outside of Apple where they would transfer to Android just fine. I'd have to get a different fitness tracker, but I'd probably just not use one because all the Android ones I've used have been terrible.
By contrast, I still have 4 major Google services from my time in Android that I have yet to work out of my life - Maps, Gmail, Photos, and Calendar.
I got so frustrated with Android Wear being stuck, with no new chips for years, that I switched to an Apple Watch and iPhone in 2019 after having lived the Pixel/Pixelbook/Android Wear train for years. I bought the $1000 Pixelbook, and it remains one of my favorite machines just from a form factor I've ever used.
So I'm not an Apple fanboy and would consider switching back to Android (and have) if I could. Sadly, various apps I've begun to use (not just Apple's, Signal for instance) don't allow you to switch platforms without losing all your data, so I'm stuck. I won't buy a new phone unless it's an iPhone, or I lose years of messaging history and it won't work with my Watch Ultra (which with like 3 days of battery life is extremely excellent and arguably the best smart watch on the market).
But I'd be a lot more likely to switch and buy a new watch and phone on Android if there wasn't this platform lock-in effect.
I mean the level of integration and seamlessness I get by using their products on their ecosystem is not matched by many (if any?). Microsoft has a few things here and there that reach that level, and maybe Google, not sure about Amazon. You can buy every piece of tech from Apple in your life and the experience is insanely seamless from device to device. I can't think of a company that has achieved this in a cross-platform way. Bluetooth is a nightmare, but I dont ever have issues with the Airpods.
Yes but it’s seamless because they lock-down their APIs and hardware, even limiting their available documentation so you can’t build something as seamless. Apple doesn’t let anyone else compete on their platform.
What? This reads like you’re working backwards from an assumption, and that assumption is that my comment is out of spite? What is this 2011?
My comment is about Apple not allowing other vendors to even develop products for it’s platform as some sort of argument that the market is in capable of building equivalent products. It has nothing to do with IQ level.
Re-read your comment. Trying to claim it’s anything but “Apple fanboys so dumb, hur hur” isn’t credible. That’s the entire post that you made. Parent read it correctly. You’re trolling.
I never called Apple consumers dumb. You should reread the comment, maybe go for a walk and chill out. You’re trolling by claiming there’s some sort of malicious intent. I’m sure Apple thanks you for your loyal downvotes and agitation at any criticism though.
"We couldn't figure out how to make a bunch of people buy this ugly thing unless they were already neck-deep in the ecosystem. For three years we tried to make it legitimately useful in its own right! Or at least somewhat attractive. You know, so that if you wear it in a photo it doesn't immediately date the photo. Then when you look at a nice photo where everyone is dressed up there isn't this ugly thing on your wrist that screams "2015!" or whatever. But yeah, this is a tough nut to crack. I'd go so far as to say it's an AirPower-level problem in terms of difficulty."
