Why do you believe Apple will give developers a play here?
I am not a dev or programmer, but I would think that any Xcode stuff that even vaguely references an iWatch/iTime would be pretty prone to leaks. But then, my impression from the community was the Swift announcement took everyone by complete surprise.
You can write iOS apps without actually having a device to run them on, right? The xcode thingy does some sort of simulator?
Do you actually believe that Apple can release a device like this without developer support?
Definitely. The iWatch with its tiny screen is not going to be suitable for complex apps anyway. All of the major developers with watch-like apps will be given early access to the apis. Everything standard that Apple will produce is already well underway and the specialty apps from health organizations and home integration companies are probably well along with their apps that will leverage the new hardware features. Apple will ship a very functional watch without the general developers. We don't need any fart apps for the watch on day one.
Do you even know what "vaporware" is? Considering you're using it to describe an announcement... I'd say you don't have a clue.
Vaporware is defined as being an announced product that does not yet exist and never materializes - never released.
I made that comment because the other day people here we calling the new LG and Samsung watch leaks vaporware. If those things are vaporware than certainly an Apple device announced now but not available for 3-6 months is vaporware too.
my guess is its all about a quality experience. the device really has no 3rd party apps right now. (picture your iphone with no 3rd party apps)
so, end the rumors, release the SDK to allow all of those (rumored) health care entities create their useful software for the device. that will allow for a better and useful item to be on your wrist from day one.
Wouldn't the World Wide Developers Conference be the place to release an SDK? I mean that's the event developers attend. These hardware events are usually just for the press.
Yes, but they would have to open the kimono on the features of a new, unannounced product -- thus destroying the surprise.
When you are talking about enhancements to existing products (screen size, TouchID, 64-bit, Metal, etc.) the SDK does [very] little to destroy the surprise of the announcement of these new versions.
Do you actually believe that Apple can release a device like this without developer support?
I might have agreed under the Steve Jobs era (Apple had been screwed over by Microsoft for their openness -- and Steve never forgot).
IMO, one of the overarching messages of WWDC 2014 was a new openness in Apple's relationship to the world and especially to developers.
It would be a big mistake to limit developer access to Apple's iWatch/iWearable devices -- thus giving developers less incentive to support Apple devices than, say, the Pebble, or Android wearables.
We are entering an era where timing (more than capability or style ) is becoming the most important aspect of a product's success.
Ballmer chasséd around yelling: "Developers, Developers, Developers ... "
Shakespeare said it better:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
IMO, developers are the force that drives the tide ...
I don't disagree. I just feel that any app worthwhile would run through the iPhone's display and that the development would be rather quick. As stated before I think it's going to be a rudimentary device and it will take some time anyway to take full advantage of it. Like with the iPhone itself.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/182023/apples-wearable-iwatch-not-expected-to-ship-until-early-2015/40#post_2586478 layout=inline]Do you actually believe that Apple can release a device like this without developer support?[/CONTENTEMBED]
Definitely. The iWatch with its tiny screen is not going to be suitable for complex apps anyway. All of the major developers with watch-like apps will be given early access to the apis. Everything standard that Apple will produce is already well underway and the specialty apps from health organizations and home integration companies are probably well along with their apps that will leverage the new hardware features. Apple will ship a very functional watch without the general developers. We don't need any fart apps for the watch on day one.
Totally disagree ...
Your answer assumes that only Apple has the answers for these devices -- and that only Apple can innovate with these devices.
If you look around, you can see evidence that those are bad assumptions.
Remember that Steve said that 3rd-party apps for the iPhone would be limited to web apps ...
The original Touch Screen tech and later TouchID tech come from 3rd parties.
Then there's the free Hyperlapse app from Instagram that synchs an iPhone camera and gyroscope to create the equivalent of a $15,000 video setup:
IMO, Apple should open its tech as much as possible ... if only, to determine which tech companies it wants to buy!
Edit:
I remember Bill Atkinson and a couple of other Apple employees came into our Sunnyvale store after a trip to evaluate the Commodore Amiga APU (which was superior to Apple's 68000 APU). Paraphrasing Bill: "It was nice -- but we can do that in software"
I think that Bill's statement rings more true to day than back in the mid 1980s -- because hardware advances have far outstripped the software's ability to exploit them.
Said more succinctly: Apple cannot possibly hire and manage enough programmers [developers] to exploit their hardware ... And, I think they know that!
Yes, but they would have to open the kimono on the features of a new, unannounced product -- thus destroying the surprise.
When you are talking about enhancements to existing products (screen size, TouchID, 64-bit, Metal, etc.) the SDK does [very] little to destroy the surprise of the announcement of these new versions.
Then announce the device at WWDC and say it will be available for sale before Christmas. If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me Apple is far off from having a product good enough to sell.
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
Unless that iWatch has some health component that has to get not FCC approval, but FDA approval. No one would be ready to start gearing up for that.
Do you actually believe that Apple can release a device like this without developer support?
I might have agreed under the Steve Jobs era (Apple had been screwed over by Microsoft for their openness -- and Steve never forgot).
IMO, one of the overarching messages of WWDC 2014 was a new openness in Apple's relationship to the world and especially to developers.
It would be a big mistake to limit developer access to Apple's iWatch/iWearable devices -- thus giving developers less incentive to support Apple devices than, say, the Pebble, or Android wearables.
We are entering an era where timing (more than capability or style ) is becoming the most important aspect of a product's success.
Ballmer chasséd around yelling: "Developers, Developers, Developers ... "
Shakespeare said it better:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
IMO, developers are the force that drives the tide ...
I don't disagree. I just feel that any app worthwhile would run through the iPhone's display and that the development would be rather quick. As stated before I think it's going to be a rudimentary device and it will take some time anyway to take full advantage of it. Like with the iPhone itself.
Except, one of the big advantages to an iWatch is that the iPhone stays in your pocket or purse. If all a 3rd-party app can do is notify you through the iWatch to take out your iPhone ... why bother?
Rather, have a cloud or iPhone app that interacts with the iWatch, e.g.:
Here's a graph of your [whatever] activity * for today (tap to show graph against yesterday, week, month, etc.)
* Activity can be anything from a walk, workout, bike route, stock/portfolio performance, budget (can I afford to buy those ...).
I assume that you will be able to buy those ... with the iWatch (via the iPhone or cloud).
When it comes to other, headless, wearables it's a little difficult to predict what notifications, if any, the wearable can receive ... But, if an Apple-branded app can send those notifications, why shouldn't a 3rd-party app be able to do so too?
With apologies to Tony Orlando: Buzz three times on the shoulder if you'll meet me -- twice on the hip means you ain't gonna' show ...
Your answer assumes that only Apple has the answers for these devices -- and that only Apple can innovate with these devices.
Not at all. I'm talking for release only, not forever. Apple and its trusted major developers are perfectly capable of having a software suite suitable for launch. Everyone else can wait until after the launch. Just like they did with the M7 and 64 bit. They gave some high end game makers advance hardware and SDKs so they would have some cool stuff to show at the announcement. A delay of the launch is not necessarily BECAUSE, ALL the developers need advanced preparation time. All the major apps will get advanced SDKs and hardware to test.
I think it's odd that we have seen iPhone 6 parts for months. We have even seen nearly functional devices, but haven't seen even a watchband for an iWatch that is supposed to be announced in under 2 weeks. Even if they aren't going into production until 2015 you'd think some parts would be floating around the supply chain somewhere.
Except, one of the big advantages to an iWatch is that the iPhone stays in your pocket or purse. If all a 3rd-party app can do is notify you through the iWatch to take out your iPhone ... why bother?
Rather, have a cloud or iPhone app that interacts with the iWatch, e.g.:
Here's a graph of your [whatever] activity * for today (tap to show graph against yesterday, week, month, etc.)
* Activity can be anything from a walk, workout, bike route, stock/portfolio performance, budget (can I afford to buy those ...).
I assume that you will be able to buy those ... with the iWatch (via the iPhone or cloud).
When it comes to other, headless, wearables it's a little difficult to predict what notifications, if any, the wearable can receive ... But, if an Apple-branded app can send those notifications, why shouldn't a 3rd-party app be able to do so too?
With apologies to Tony Orlando: Buzz three times on the shoulder if you'll meet me -- twice on the hip means you ain't gonna' show ...
Again, I don't think we are in disagreement here. I just think that for release they do not require dev support. Bit they can have exactly what you laid out read plus the usual two or three invited debs to showcase their apps. That's will be sufficient for starters. Then it can roll out and give the debs the chance to develop and fully exploit the new features.
Your answer assumes that only Apple has the answers for these devices -- and that only Apple can innovate with these devices.
Not at all. I'm talking for release only, not forever. Apple and its trusted major developers are perfectly capable of having a software suite suitable for launch. Everyone else can wait until after the launch. Just like they did with the M7 and 64 bit. They gave some high end game makers advance hardware and SDKs so they would have some cool stuff to show at the announcement.
No problem with that!
I misunderstood your position.
And that approach avoids the very difficult situation where the SDK release destroys the product announcement surprise.
And, it encourages developers to innovate to where they become a member of the select few!
Wouldn't the World Wide Developers Conference be the place to release an SDK? I mean that's the event developers attend. These hardware events are usually just for the press.
In an ideal world, I suspect Apple would have liked to have this ready 3 months ago so that they could have done exactly that.
Having said that everything about the iOS release and the Xcode changes points to unusual and changeable screen sizes and making your apps work no matter what. I'm sure there are plenty of developers who could have their apps working in a small-screened device within days of any announcement. Once Apple announces the hardware specifics, they can drop the other foot and give developers all the necessary details.
Then announce the device at WWDC and say it will be available for sale before Christmas. If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me Apple is far off from having a product good enough to sell.
If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me that Apple isn't ready to sell a product until next year. How is that tautology interesting?
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
I'd say the number one reason to announce early is to give devs time to build apps for it.
I'd say the number one reason to announce is to give dev times to build apps for it.
I expect part of the timing (assuming that's what they announce on the 9th) is that the iPhone 6 is ready to go. It could be that if they weren't announcing the iPhone 6 they wouldn't be holding an iWatch event this soon (assuming it's not ready to be sold until next year). But if Apple announced the 6 and said nothing about a watch, the news would be "no iWatch from Apple" rather than "new iPhone here; iWatch coming soon."
So Apple's getting in the game of vaporwear? It seems odd that they would announce something in the fall but not have it available to ship for the holidays. If it's not ready why announce it now? Unless Apple is that worried about it leaking? Or are they getting in the business of showing off prototypes so Cook can say to Wall Street "see we are innovating"? I'd love to call this rumor bunk, but the source is usually very accurate.
Steve Jobs did the same thing with iPhone. The logic here is two-fold: (1) if it's a new product category that won't cannibalize an existing Apple product, then there is no harm, and (2) some benefit might be gained by keeping potential customers from buying something else from a competitor in the meantime (like, during Christmas).
But the rumor still may be bunk. I'm just saying that if it were true, it would not be indicative of vaporwear nor would it be unprecedented for Apple to do.
So if Apple shows it September, and doesn't ship it until 2015, wouldn't that be the "vaporware" that everyone accuses other manufacturers of pulling off?
Not if when they announce it they also show a working prototype (at least some major features) and tell you exactly when to expect it. As with Steve Jobs and iPhone in January of 2007.
Some other companies announce they are working on something and don't show it. They typically don't say when you'll get it either. For all we know, it might as well be vapor. Hence the name "vaporware".
Five months would be a lot of time for the competition to come up with something that at least resembles what apple is announcing. Like Rogifan I'm not sure what to make of this. Usually reliable source vs this huge gap between announcement and shipping. At least, they could announce it in a separate event before holiday season which would keep more people waiting and not give the competition that much time. Hm
My hunch is that Apple has spent so much time developing this because it is going to be a very rich product, including deep integration across services and some hardware components that are not easy to just up and duplicate. Think of the failed example of Samsung's fingerprint sensor. Heck, think of the 2-3 years it took to Android to really even get close to emulate an iPhone. The resemblance won't nearly be enough given only a couple of months. No problem.
Comments
Why do you believe Apple will give developers a play here?
I am not a dev or programmer, but I would think that any Xcode stuff that even vaguely references an iWatch/iTime would be pretty prone to leaks. But then, my impression from the community was the Swift announcement took everyone by complete surprise.
You can write iOS apps without actually having a device to run them on, right? The xcode thingy does some sort of simulator?
Definitely. The iWatch with its tiny screen is not going to be suitable for complex apps anyway. All of the major developers with watch-like apps will be given early access to the apis. Everything standard that Apple will produce is already well underway and the specialty apps from health organizations and home integration companies are probably well along with their apps that will leverage the new hardware features. Apple will ship a very functional watch without the general developers. We don't need any fart apps for the watch on day one.
Yes, but they would have to open the kimono on the features of a new, unannounced product -- thus destroying the surprise.
When you are talking about enhancements to existing products (screen size, TouchID, 64-bit, Metal, etc.) the SDK does [very] little to destroy the surprise of the announcement of these new versions.
I don't disagree. I just feel that any app worthwhile would run through the iPhone's display and that the development would be rather quick. As stated before I think it's going to be a rudimentary device and it will take some time anyway to take full advantage of it. Like with the iPhone itself.
Totally disagree ...
Your answer assumes that only Apple has the answers for these devices -- and that only Apple can innovate with these devices.
If you look around, you can see evidence that those are bad assumptions.
Remember that Steve said that 3rd-party apps for the iPhone would be limited to web apps ...
The original Touch Screen tech and later TouchID tech come from 3rd parties.
Then there's the free Hyperlapse app from Instagram that synchs an iPhone camera and gyroscope to create the equivalent of a $15,000 video setup:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/hyperlapse-instagrams-new-app-is-like-a-15000-video-setup-in-your-hand/
IMO, Apple should open its tech as much as possible ... if only, to determine which tech companies it wants to buy!
Edit:
I remember Bill Atkinson and a couple of other Apple employees came into our Sunnyvale store after a trip to evaluate the Commodore Amiga APU (which was superior to Apple's 68000 APU). Paraphrasing Bill: "It was nice -- but we can do that in software"
I think that Bill's statement rings more true to day than back in the mid 1980s -- because hardware advances have far outstripped the software's ability to exploit them.
Said more succinctly: Apple cannot possibly hire and manage enough programmers [developers] to exploit their hardware ... And, I think they know that!
Timing! Timing! Timing!
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
Unless that iWatch has some health component that has to get not FCC approval, but FDA approval. No one would be ready to start gearing up for that.
Except, one of the big advantages to an iWatch is that the iPhone stays in your pocket or purse. If all a 3rd-party app can do is notify you through the iWatch to take out your iPhone ... why bother?
Rather, have a cloud or iPhone app that interacts with the iWatch, e.g.:
Here's a graph of your [whatever] activity * for today (tap to show graph against yesterday, week, month, etc.)
* Activity can be anything from a walk, workout, bike route, stock/portfolio performance, budget (can I afford to buy those ...).
I assume that you will be able to buy those ... with the iWatch (via the iPhone or cloud).
When it comes to other, headless, wearables it's a little difficult to predict what notifications, if any, the wearable can receive ... But, if an Apple-branded app can send those notifications, why shouldn't a 3rd-party app be able to do so too?
With apologies to Tony Orlando: Buzz three times on the shoulder if you'll meet me -- twice on the hip means you ain't gonna' show ...
Totally disagree ...
Your answer assumes that only Apple has the answers for these devices -- and that only Apple can innovate with these devices.
Not at all. I'm talking for release only, not forever. Apple and its trusted major developers are perfectly capable of having a software suite suitable for launch. Everyone else can wait until after the launch. Just like they did with the M7 and 64 bit. They gave some high end game makers advance hardware and SDKs so they would have some cool stuff to show at the announcement. A delay of the launch is not necessarily BECAUSE, ALL the developers need advanced preparation time. All the major apps will get advanced SDKs and hardware to test.
Again, I don't think we are in disagreement here. I just think that for release they do not require dev support. Bit they can have exactly what you laid out read plus the usual two or three invited debs to showcase their apps. That's will be sufficient for starters. Then it can roll out and give the debs the chance to develop and fully exploit the new features.
No problem with that!
I misunderstood your position.
And that approach avoids the very difficult situation where the SDK release destroys the product announcement surprise.
And, it encourages developers to innovate to where they become a member of the select few!
We're in agreement!
Wouldn't the World Wide Developers Conference be the place to release an SDK? I mean that's the event developers attend. These hardware events are usually just for the press.
In an ideal world, I suspect Apple would have liked to have this ready 3 months ago so that they could have done exactly that.
Having said that everything about the iOS release and the Xcode changes points to unusual and changeable screen sizes and making your apps work no matter what. I'm sure there are plenty of developers who could have their apps working in a small-screened device within days of any announcement. Once Apple announces the hardware specifics, they can drop the other foot and give developers all the necessary details.
Then announce the device at WWDC and say it will be available for sale before Christmas. If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me Apple is far off from having a product good enough to sell.
If we don't get a product for sale this year that tells me that Apple isn't ready to sell a product until next year. How is that tautology interesting?
That's not fair - the poster clearly meant that the iPhone used hard-to-get-a-hold of parts because it was such a new category (not for Apple, but for the industry); Blackberry even called an emergency meeting where they thought that this thing can't be real IIRC. No way any company could catch up in 6 months to iPhone in 2007. (Still they only did it because it has to clear FCC, not because they had a jump on competition)
For an "iWatch" the competition could see the renders/demo product and in 6 months easily copy the design and turn out a production model with the ubiquitous availability of touch screens, mobile processors etc. It's a different landscape for sure.
I think the only reason Apple would announce it early is because it has to go though FCC, because they promised stuff this year (sort of and I really doubt this would be a reason), or because it has to go through some other regulatory body (like a Health arm of the government or however it works down there). Or MAYBE to show it to developers, but it seems like WWDC would have been the time for that, if it wasn't in production yet anyway.
I'd say the number one reason to announce early is to give devs time to build apps for it.
I'd say the number one reason to announce is to give dev times to build apps for it.
I expect part of the timing (assuming that's what they announce on the 9th) is that the iPhone 6 is ready to go. It could be that if they weren't announcing the iPhone 6 they wouldn't be holding an iWatch event this soon (assuming it's not ready to be sold until next year). But if Apple announced the 6 and said nothing about a watch, the news would be "no iWatch from Apple" rather than "new iPhone here; iWatch coming soon."
So Apple's getting in the game of vaporwear? It seems odd that they would announce something in the fall but not have it available to ship for the holidays. If it's not ready why announce it now? Unless Apple is that worried about it leaking? Or are they getting in the business of showing off prototypes so Cook can say to Wall Street "see we are innovating"? I'd love to call this rumor bunk, but the source is usually very accurate.
Steve Jobs did the same thing with iPhone. The logic here is two-fold: (1) if it's a new product category that won't cannibalize an existing Apple product, then there is no harm, and (2) some benefit might be gained by keeping potential customers from buying something else from a competitor in the meantime (like, during Christmas).
But the rumor still may be bunk. I'm just saying that if it were true, it would not be indicative of vaporwear nor would it be unprecedented for Apple to do.
Thompson
So if Apple shows it September, and doesn't ship it until 2015, wouldn't that be the "vaporware" that everyone accuses other manufacturers of pulling off?
Not if when they announce it they also show a working prototype (at least some major features) and tell you exactly when to expect it. As with Steve Jobs and iPhone in January of 2007.
Some other companies announce they are working on something and don't show it. They typically don't say when you'll get it either. For all we know, it might as well be vapor. Hence the name "vaporware".
Thompson
Five months would be a lot of time for the competition to come up with something that at least resembles what apple is announcing. Like Rogifan I'm not sure what to make of this. Usually reliable source vs this huge gap between announcement and shipping. At least, they could announce it in a separate event before holiday season which would keep more people waiting and not give the competition that much time. Hm
My hunch is that Apple has spent so much time developing this because it is going to be a very rich product, including deep integration across services and some hardware components that are not easy to just up and duplicate. Think of the failed example of Samsung's fingerprint sensor. Heck, think of the 2-3 years it took to Android to really even get close to emulate an iPhone. The resemblance won't nearly be enough given only a couple of months. No problem.