New job listing hints at wider number of clock face options for Apple Watch

Posted:
in Apple Watch
Future versions of watchOS should incorporate more clock face options, building on the 12 already included, a new Apple job listing discovered by AppleInsider suggests.




The company is recruiting a software engineer to work on the Apple Watch's dedicated clock face team, according to the listing. The successful candidate will cooperate with various other teams, and build not just new faces but "complications" -- data displays -- configurable in some face designs.

Apple added three new faces when it introduced watchOS 2 last fall, namely Time-Lapse, Photo, and Photo Album. Those were shown when the Watch was first teased in 2014 however, and since fall 2015 the only new face has been an option exclusive to buyers of Hermes models.

The company is rumored to be working on partnerships with fashion brands beyond Hermes, which could be one reason for expanding the clock face team. Apple may also want to introduce more faces in general, though there don't appear to be any in watchOS 2.2, which might mean that people will have to wait until watchOS 3 to see additions.

Apple could make Watch announcements at a rumored March 15 press event, but if so the company is expected to focus on new physical customization options, rather than major hardware or software updates.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    I like the idea of tying hardware (straps and finishes) to software (special watch faces and functions). As long as Apple restricts developers from selling their own watch faces, they should be tightly controlled and buyers should receive greater value if they spend more.

    An ongoing point of irritation for me is the fact that no matter if one buys the iPad mini or spends a lot more on the iPad Pro, Apple gives both customers the same paltry amount of online storage. Customers who spend more should receive more value.
    edited February 2016 cali
  • Reply 3 of 20
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    More options/flexibility with the Modular watch face would be welcome.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 4 of 20
    About time (pun intended). The round peg in square hole look is getting old.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    larryalarrya Posts: 604member
    Is there an SDK for rolling your own, or is this still on lockdown?  
  • Reply 6 of 20
    Not sure why this is newsworthy. There are lots of job openings for Watch engineers.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Certainly hope so.  Both more watch faces, and a bit more flexibility to customize the ones there.  Really like both photo album / photo & time lapse - but to be really useful they need ability to customize (show temp, calendar, activity, etc - some of what is available on modular).

    Loving the watch, but all the current watch faces looking a bit old and unexciting.  
  • Reply 8 of 20
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    I don't really understand why they didn't hire this "watch face engineer" from day one. It's not like they didn't know that customers would want choices. Seems a little late to the ballgame. The fact they introduced three major watch faces in 2014, but we didn't see them until a year later is indicative of problems behind the scenes.
  • Reply 9 of 20
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    I like the idea of tying hardware (straps and finishes) to software (special watch faces and functions).
    I'm curious what you envision here. If the Hermes is any example, the watch face has no relation to the bands, other than Hermes happens to make the bands, which visually look no different than a hundred other bands out there in the world. It seems to me like this will necessarily limit a customer to the limited collection of basic watch faces Apple provides, and one or two others offered through some arbitrary partnership, eliminating a world of other options, not to mention a lucrative income stream for Apple vis a vis a 'watch face store'.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 10 of 20
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    I like the time-lapse one.
  • Reply 11 of 20
    mac_128 said:
    I like the idea of tying hardware (straps and finishes) to software (special watch faces and functions).
    I'm curious what you envision (FTFY) here. If the Hermes is any example, the watch face has no relation to the bands, other than Hermes happens to make the bands, which visually look no different than a hundred other bands out there in the world. It seems to me like this will necessarily limit a customer to the limited collection of basic watch faces Apple provides, and one or two others offered through some arbitrary partnership, eliminating a world of other options, not to mention a lucrative income stream for Apple vis a vis a 'watch face store'.
    They don't need to open the watch face to developers. That's the answer. They provide customization when appropriate for special hardware only, until they achieve adequate adoption by larger numbers of buyers, THEN they open the Watch faces customization to devs. 
  • Reply 12 of 20

    An ongoing point of irritation for me is the fact that no matter if one buys the iPad mini or spends a lot more on the iPad Pro, Apple gives both customers the same paltry amount of online storage. Customers who spend more should receive more value.
    I agree wholeheartedly but realistically I hope this year Apple will increase iCloud storage for those that pays again.
  • Reply 13 of 20
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    'Real' engineers are feeling insulted.
  • Reply 14 of 20
    mac_128 said:
    I don't really understand why they didn't hire this "watch face engineer" from day one. It's not like they didn't know that customers would want choices. Seems a little late to the ballgame. The fact they introduced three major watch faces in 2014, but we didn't see them until a year later is indicative of problems behind the scenes.
    Apple has a number of open positions for the Watch. One was posted on Feb 8 for a fitness software engineering manager. Just because these open reqs were posted this week doesn't mean no one has been working on this stuff. In fact this particular req references joining a "Clock Face Team" so obviously there are already people on the Watch software team responsible for watch faces and complications.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Apple has not yet allowed the creation and installation of custom watch faces due to liability issues that need to be worked out.  Let's not forget Apple was sued for the face of the iOS Clock icon and lost to the tune of more than a million dollars because it looked too close to a clock made 50 years ago.  All deep pockets Apple needs is someone uploading a "Rolex" watch face and you can be sure they won't sue the creator but Apple.  
  • Reply 16 of 20
    Apple has not yet allowed the creation and installation of custom watch faces due to liability issues that need to be worked out.  Let's not forget Apple was sued for the face of the iOS Clock icon and lost to the tune of more than a million dollars because it looked too close to a clock made 50 years ago.  All deep pockets Apple needs is someone uploading a "Rolex" watch face and you can be sure they won't sue the creator but Apple.  
    As Apple would approve or disapprove Watch faces, I doubt that liability is the bigger issue. There are tons of clock faces already in the App Store. Any of these alarm clock faces could violate some manufacturers' trademark, and that doesn't seem to have happened.

    Apple came way too close to the Swiss Federal Railways clock and they knew it. And "more than a million dollars" wasn't even pocket lint.

    The bigger issue is letting a bunch of dev yahoos make clock faces that look like the crap that Pebble allows in their "store". There are a few Rolex faces there, and I haven't heard of any infringement complaints. (Of course when Apple does it, it's a different story.}  But there are some god awful butt ugly watch faces there, and like Rolls-Royce and John Lennon, I think Apple would rather not have their fashion accessory turned into tacky scribbling.

    The Watch needs some elegant rectangular faces, and faces with more granularity in customizing. One of my Watches is the gold aluminum with the midnight blue band. It has gold as a color selection in a couple of faces, and it's a nice touch. I want to see more of that.
  • Reply 17 of 20

    mac_128 said:
    I don't really understand why they didn't hire this "watch face engineer" from day one. It's not like they didn't know that customers would want choices. Seems a little late to the ballgame. The fact they introduced three major watch faces in 2014, but we didn't see them until a year later is indicative of problems behind the scenes.
    I think they had a lot on their plate and just didn't need a watch face engineer until now. People want additional faces, but there's more to be done first. New faces are nice, but they're a very small part of the Watch experience.

    watchOS 2 put the Watch where is should have been at launch. New faces wouldn't have done much at the time.
  • Reply 18 of 20
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mac fan said:
    I think they had a lot on their plate and just didn't need a watch face engineer until now. People want additional faces, but there's more to be done first. New faces are nice, but they're a very small part of the Watch experience.

    watchOS 2 put the Watch where is should have been at launch. New faces wouldn't have done much at the time.
    I couldn't disagree more. The watch faces are LITERALLY the face of the Watch. Outside of the hardware itself, when the backlight first pops on an illuminates the watch face for the first time is when the customer bonds with the device. If they don't like the watch face, they may not get deeper into the watch. Is the watch much more than its face? Yes, but the face is equally, if not more important than the bands which Apple has turned into a cottage industry, releasing more band updates, and color options than software updates. Seems like if Apple had more important things to do, they would have made the watch bands and case materials less of a priority, and spent the money elsewhere. 
  • Reply 19 of 20
    mac_128 said:
    mac fan said:
    I think they had a lot on their plate and just didn't need a watch face engineer until now. People want additional faces, but there's more to be done first. New faces are nice, but they're a very small part of the Watch experience.

    watchOS 2 put the Watch where is should have been at launch. New faces wouldn't have done much at the time.
    I couldn't disagree more. The watch faces are LITERALLY the face of the Watch.
    That's correct. And if/when all things are equal, such as in a "dumb" watch, that's just about the most important feature. But that's not the case with Apple. In making a smartwatch, that had a lot of function to consider. They had to sell the idea that for the money, the Watch had value. 

    Some people found incentive having Mickey Mouse on their watch. Others in the fact that there was the ability to change faces. Like me, many others assumed that there would be additional faces at some point.

    Of all the reasons anybody didn't buy a Watch, not having a face they liked was at the bottom of the list, if at all. People who did buy it did so because it offered some utility that they could benefit from with some form they could appreciate. 

    Read all the complaints about the Watch to date. Those saying the Watch faces are ugly or just not attractive enough barely register on the Whine meter. Battery life, lack of autonomy, shape, speed... Very few comments about the face. In fact, more people complain that the Watch faces needs to be always-on, not that it's ugly.

    The Watch should have more faces, no doubt. But having an engineer working on it from the jump wasn't a necessity. They had bigger things to worry about. I'd wager that more people care about bands than the Watch face.


  • Reply 20 of 20
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    mac fan said:
    mac_128 said:
    I couldn't disagree more. The watch faces are LITERALLY the face of the Watch.
    I'd wager that more people care about bands than the Watch face.


    I'd wager they're at least equal in the importance of marketing the watch, depending on who you're talking to. Most people who buy watches usually do it for the face, not the band. Bands are pretty basic, metal link, leather strap in brown or black. Finish in gold or silver. So there's an argument that bands are even less important to marketing the watch. But considering it's a black glass monolith, they don't have much choice to change up its appearance to make it unique from everybody else.

    Apple released 17 watch faces with the iPod nano 6 years ago, when they discovered people were wearing them as watches.



    They also managed to make major updates to the OS at the same time. The argument that a company the size of Apple couldn't dedicate one engineer to watch faces throughout the development of the watch, which their history suggests they understand full well the importance to customers, not to mention Jony Ive's acknowledgement that once a product is worn customers have the expectation of choice, is silly.

    Moreover, you're using a strawman in your argument. Nobody said the watch faces are "ugly" as far as I know, so no need for anyone to complain that they're "ugly". But there are dozens of threads on tech forums like this one about the lack of watch faces, and desire for more, and has been since the watch was announced.

    You assert that all the other features of the watch are more important than the watch face, including the watch bands! Yet nobody cares about the watch faces. That's just ridiculous. Anybody who cares about the watch band is also going to care about the watch face -- look no further than the Hermes edition for confirmation of that -- three custom watch faces for that model. And I've yet to see the Hermes edition depicted in advertising with a heart rate monitor, or exercise rings. Because that's not what attracts customers to that watch! And in exactly the same way there are all kinds of customers for the watch, some who couldn't care less about a watch face, but others who place great importance on it. But I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't have the watch face come on first. Even a customer who knows they want a fitness tracker and is undecided on which brand, is likely to base their final decision on something as arbitrary as a watch face, or a custom band.

    At at the end of the day, the watch is far from a failure, but they do have to give as many people as possible a reason to buy it, to grow the market for it, and there's a lot of people out there who don't care about fitness, or notifications, but they do care about how the watch looks, especially if it's going to replace the one they are currently wearing to get the benefits of whatever other feature(s) that appeals to them (let's say Pay since that's the main reason I was interested -- that and telling time). And if you acknowledge the bands are important to that end, I don't know how you can discount the importance of the faces. So forgive me if I bet against your "insights".
    edited February 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.