iOS apps on macOS would bring hope for Apple Watch, Apple Health support on Mac

Posted:
in Apple Watch
With Apple rumored to bring support for universal apps in iOS 12 and macOS 10.14, the move could also be good news for the Apple Watch, potentially untethering it from the iPhone for both setup and sync.




As an emerging and limited platform, the Apple Watch currently requires a connected and paired iPhone to set up. In addition, health data is also synced through the Apple Health app, which is exclusive to iPhone.

Notably, both the Watch and Health apps are not available on the iPad, nor are they available on macOS. This despite the fact that improvements in watchOS, as well as the addition of LTE connectivity in Series 3 hardware, have allowed the Apple Watch to become more independent from the iPhone.

This week, a new rumor has alleged that Apple will let iOS apps run on the Mac starting with software updates next year. The major change to Apple's systems is said to be known internally as project "Marzipan."

It's easy to see where this could be advantageous for both developers and users. Popular third-party apps will be available to access on the Mac, while presumably new tools will make it easier than ever for developers to port their software to macOS.




But the possibility of iOS apps on the Mac also highlights the areas where continuity between Apple's platforms are lacking, and apps from Apple itself are missing.

Most native apps on an iPhone have equivalent apps on Mac -- Safari, Mail, Notes and Calendar all have mobile and desktop versions. With iOS 11 and the new Files app for iOS, the lines between macOS and iOS have been further blurred.

But the lack of Apple Watch connectivity and support on both Mac and iPad remains an obvious area where Apple's platforms could grow and get better, together.

The addition of LTE connectivity on an Apple Watch gives it more independence from the iPhone, allowing data on the go. Battery constraints prevent it from being a full-fledged, all-day iPhone replacement, but Wi-Fi is abundantly available, and using that instead of LTE allows for much longer uptime with Apple Watch hardware.




Not to mention, sometimes managing apps or viewing data is easier or more convenient on a larger screen. It's easy to see why an Apple Health app for Mac would be preferable to some users, especially those who want to dive deep into the tracking data captured by an Apple Watch or other connected health accessories.

There is also the possibility of enticing new Apple Watch customers who may not be iPhone users. By allowing an Apple Watch to be set up and synced with a Mac instead of an iPhone, Apple's wearable device could potentially expand its reach and attract new users.

Ditching the iPhone entirely might be a stretch, especially considering the fact that notifications on the wrist, via integration with iOS, are a key selling point of the Apple Watch. But regardless, Apple Watch syncing and Health data viewing on a Mac would open the wearable device to new and exciting possibilities, especially as the hardware and battery life continue to improve.

It's a small but significant way that allowing iOS apps on macOS could be a game changer for both platforms, well beyond just letting you play Clash of Clans on your Mac.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    No need for the Mac to mimic downgraded Mac apps. And if Apple wants a touch-enhanced Mac, they should make it (and silence their VP's vocalizing that lunatic anti-hybrid attitude)
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 2 of 24
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 
    chiamacplusplusindieshack
  • Reply 3 of 24
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 
    I'm not suggesting that the iOS versions of the Watch or Health apps will come to Mac in a windowed mode, as you state. I'm saying that a universal code base version of them could, and that it would be a welcome change for the Apple Watch.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,506member
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

    Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

    As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

    But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 


    StrangeDaysmacpluspluschiaindieshack
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Rayz2016 said:
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

    Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

    As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

    But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 


    You can run iPhone apps on an iPad, all blown up and ugly if you so choose. Obviously Apple would never do that with its own apps on the Mac, but I could see lazy third-party developers doing half-baked ports of iOS apps, for the sake of having a presence on the Mac.
    chiamacgui
  • Reply 6 of 24
    I would be quite happy if my Health and HomeKit data could be synced and backed up locally. I prefer to set up my iPhones as new but doing so currently means I would lose all that Health data history. 

    I’ve been waiting for Apple to allow that data to be synced back to a new iPhone or restored iPhone without performing a complete restore. Some issues require a reinstall of iOS and not a restore from backup. In that case any Health data gets lost. That kinda sucks, for me. 

    Mid be happy even if it didn’t sync with my Mac but could be restored separately. 
    Folio
  • Reply 7 of 24
    I would be quite happy if my Health and HomeKit data could be synced and backed up locally. I prefer to set up my iPhones as new but doing so currently means I would lose all that Health data history. 

    I’ve been waiting for Apple to allow that data to be synced back to a new iPhone or restored iPhone without performing a complete restore. Some issues require a reinstall of iOS and not a restore from backup. In that case any Health data gets lost. That kinda sucks, for me. 

    Mid be happy even if it didn’t sync with my Mac but could be restored separately. 
    Health data syncing/backup issues are because of security concerns, which, admittedly, are a technical hurdle Apple would have to overcome to allow watch sync and setup syncing with other devices. Maybe the solution is making the watch hardware itself the “home” for all health data. You could view it on a Mac securely as long as the watch is within range and unlocked. But without your watch on and nearby, the data would be inaccessible. The other data — apps, messages, etc. — could be synced to a Mac (or iPad) without those same concerns. 

    The limited size and capabilities of the Apple Watch mean it’s likely that a parent device will remain necessary. I just don’t think the iPhone needs to be the only potential parent device, particularly in Apple’s ecosystem. 
    chia
  • Reply 8 of 24
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    edited December 2017 berndog
  • Reply 9 of 24
    nhughes said:
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 
    I'm not suggesting that the iOS versions of the Watch or Health apps will come to Mac in a windowed mode, as you state. I'm saying that a universal code base version of them could, and that it would be a welcome change for the Apple Watch.
    I’m referring to this line - “rumor has alleged Apple will let iOS apps run on the Mac”. That’s more of AI’s take on the Gurman rumor. I don’t think rumor is alleging Apple is going to let iOS apps run on the Mac. So far the best discourse on this topic has circled around universal apps from a unified dev environment; but those apps for the Mac won’t be your iphone iOS app but running on Mac. 
    edited December 2017 Rayz2016
  • Reply 10 of 24

    nhughes said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

    Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

    As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

    But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 
    You can run iPhone apps on an iPad, all blown up and ugly if you so choose. Obviously Apple would never do that with its own apps on the Mac, but I could see lazy third-party developers doing half-baked ports of iOS apps, for the sake of having a presence on the Mac.
    Running iphone on iPad isn’t the same as either on Mac, because input interface affects app design. Of course Apple won't do this with its own iOS apps, but I don’t think XCode will even give you a way to simply port your iOS views (apps) for the Mac target. You will create a macOS desktop project, which will share your common assets.

    AI’s headline about ‘running iOS apps on Mac’ is one opinion, but I suspect it won’t be what we see. It will be more like what MR’s headline of this story is:

    “Apple Plans to Let Developers Release Universal Apps That Work Across iPhone, iPad, and Mac”

    https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/20/apple-plans-universal-ios-mac-apps/

    ...(argh this text editor won’t let me resize that headline text). The difference may seem subtle but it’s completely different. 
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 11 of 24
    I would be quite happy if my Health and HomeKit data could be synced and backed up locally. I prefer to set up my iPhones as new but doing so currently means I would lose all that Health data history. 

    Back up your health data to iCloud, it is in the Settings. And don’t forget to unpair your Apple Watch whenever you change or restore your iPhone, so that your health data gets backed up during unpairing. 
    Folio
  • Reply 12 of 24

    nhughes said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

    Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

    As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

    But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 
    You can run iPhone apps on an iPad, all blown up and ugly if you so choose. Obviously Apple would never do that with its own apps on the Mac, but I could see lazy third-party developers doing half-baked ports of iOS apps, for the sake of having a presence on the Mac.
    Running iphone on iPad isn’t the same as either on Mac, because input interface affects app design. I don’t think XCode will give you a way to simply port your iOS views into the Mac target. 

    AI’s headline about ‘running iOS apps on Mac’ is one opinion, but I suspect it won’t be what we see. It will be more like what MR’s headline of this story is:

    “Apple Plans to Let Developers Release Universal Apps That Work Across iPhone, iPad, and Mac”

    https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/20/apple-plans-universal-ios-mac-apps/

    ...(argh this text editor won’t let me resize that headline text). The difference may seem subtle but it’s completely different. 
    I suspect that you are right and this will be universal code across platforms. But I also suspect that the quality of Mac apps, as a result of the universal app base, will go down as the number of available apps goes up. Will developers be inclined to spend considerable time rethinking their apps for macOS when the audience is much, much smaller than the iPhone, or even the iPad? It will be interesting to see the outcome.

    Bloomberg's original report suggested that Twitter users, specifically, could be a beneficiary, because the official Twitter client for macOS is updated so infrequently when compared to the iOS app. Interesting to note that the Twitter app for Mac has an almost iPhone-like vertical interface. Might give us an idea of what a hastily-ported-to-macOS app might look like in our brave, new world (if the rumor is even true).
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 13 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,155member
    Bacillus3 said:
    No need for the Mac to mimic downgraded Mac apps. And if Apple wants a touch-enhanced Mac, they should make it (and silence their VP's vocalizing that lunatic anti-hybrid attitude)
    You making an incorrect assumption that a Mac running iOS apps requires touch. 
  • Reply 14 of 24
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    I agree, most people will continue to carry their smartphone, but this is about potentially opening up sales of the Apple Watch to people who have other devices. There is less and less of a need for the watch to be tethered to the iPhone (or any phone). The iPad and iPhone used to require a Mac or PC to set up, now they can be set up on their own. Entering passwords and stuff on a watch is not happening, so I think you still need a "parent" device for setup, but why does that parent device need to be an iPhone? Why not a Mac or iPad?

    I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.

    Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
  • Reply 15 of 24
    nhughes said:
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    I agree, most people will continue to carry their smartphone, but this is about potentially opening up sales of the Apple Watch to people who have other devices. There is less and less of a need for the watch to be tethered to the iPhone (or any phone). The iPad and iPhone used to require a Mac or PC to set up, now they can be set up on their own. Entering passwords and stuff on a watch is not happening, so I think you still need a "parent" device for setup, but why does that parent device need to be an iPhone? Why not a Mac or iPad?

    I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.

    Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
    At the current state of the affairs, in a pragmatic way, thinking like that may be helpful:
    Which way Apple Watch can provide the most functionality? a) Thinking of it as an extension to Mac or b) thinking of it as an extension to iPhone? Or c) Thinking of it as a totally standalone device?

    It is easy to answer c: when you think of it as “c” you just get a Fitbit, nothing more, despite the availability of LTE.

    For a and b, let’s go by examples for now: in Health and Fitness, thinking of it as an extension to Mac doesn’t make sense, because the Mac is not a source for health and fitness data. In contrast the iPhone is a source for health and fitness data thanks to accessories and the iPhone’s own input. So, aggregating the health and fitness data on the iPhone makes more sense than aggregating on the Mac.

    The same thinking can be generalized to other domains, such as playback, directions, events, notifications... As a whole, integrating it with the iPhone provides more functionality to the Watch than integrating it with the Mac.

    edited December 2017
  • Reply 16 of 24
    nhughes said:
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    I agree, most people will continue to carry their smartphone, but this is about potentially opening up sales of the Apple Watch to people who have other devices. There is less and less of a need for the watch to be tethered to the iPhone (or any phone). The iPad and iPhone used to require a Mac or PC to set up, now they can be set up on their own. Entering passwords and stuff on a watch is not happening, so I think you still need a "parent" device for setup, but why does that parent device need to be an iPhone? Why not a Mac or iPad?

    I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.

    Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
    At the current state of the affairs, in a pragmatic way, thinking like that may be helpful:
    Which way Apple Watch can provide the most functionality? a) Thinking of it as an extension to Mac or b) thinking of it as an extension to iPhone? Or c) Thinking of it as a totally standalone device?

    It is easy to answer c: when you think of it as “c” you just get a Fitbit, nothing more, despite the availability of LTE.

    For a and b, let’s go by examples for now: in Health and Fitness, thinking of it as an extension to Mac doesn’t make sense, because the Mac is not a source for health and fitness data. In contrast the iPhone is a source for health and fitness data thanks to accessories and the iPhone’s own input. So, aggregating the health and fitness data on the iPhone makes more sense than aggregating on the Mac.



    Interesting take. I would argue that option “c” is inevitable, and does not relegate the Apple Watch to being “just a Fitbit.” I’d also argue that iPhone independence (or platform agnosticism) would make the watch more valuable to many consumers. Every single update to watchOS to date has made efforts to allow the watch to be more independent from the iPhone. I think completely breaking free from the iPhone is the natural progression of that. 

    What if watch management could be done via a browser on any device, and was controlled via the cloud? That would be an alternative solution for more complex setup and sync activities that can’t be done on a tiny screen (activities like adding apps, adding Apple Pay cards, viewing health data, entering account passwords, etc.). I don’t think Apple would go this route (I think a native Mac app is a better option), but it’s interesting to think about. 
  • Reply 17 of 24
    nhughes said:
    nhughes said:
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    I agree, most people will continue to carry their smartphone, but this is about potentially opening up sales of the Apple Watch to people who have other devices. There is less and less of a need for the watch to be tethered to the iPhone (or any phone). The iPad and iPhone used to require a Mac or PC to set up, now they can be set up on their own. Entering passwords and stuff on a watch is not happening, so I think you still need a "parent" device for setup, but why does that parent device need to be an iPhone? Why not a Mac or iPad?

    I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.

    Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
    At the current state of the affairs, in a pragmatic way, thinking like that may be helpful:
    Which way Apple Watch can provide the most functionality? a) Thinking of it as an extension to Mac or b) thinking of it as an extension to iPhone? Or c) Thinking of it as a totally standalone device?

    It is easy to answer c: when you think of it as “c” you just get a Fitbit, nothing more, despite the availability of LTE.

    For a and b, let’s go by examples for now: in Health and Fitness, thinking of it as an extension to Mac doesn’t make sense, because the Mac is not a source for health and fitness data. In contrast the iPhone is a source for health and fitness data thanks to accessories and the iPhone’s own input. So, aggregating the health and fitness data on the iPhone makes more sense than aggregating on the Mac.



    Interesting take. I would argue that option “c” is inevitable, and does not relegate the Apple Watch to being “just a Fitbit.” I’d also argue that iPhone independence (or platform agnosticism) would make the watch more valuable to many consumers. Every single update to watchOS to date has made efforts to allow the watch to be more independent from the iPhone. I think completely breaking free from the iPhone is the natural progression of that. 

    Apple would do that already with LTE if that was the case. I think after long discussions, brainstorming and research, they ended up with designing it as an extension to iPhone.

    The other way was the easiest, less functionality but more market share with platform agnosticism. As many clones have already proven, such a watch cannot survive against the pressure from traditional watchmakers. You can put one and only one watch in that spot on the wrist. Not two, not along with a fitness tracker or any other gadget. And that one watch must provide the most functionality to replace traditional watches. Their iPhone arsenal came to the rescue and they succeeded...
  • Reply 18 of 24
    nhughes said:
    nhughes said:
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    I agree, most people will continue to carry their smartphone, but this is about potentially opening up sales of the Apple Watch to people who have other devices. There is less and less of a need for the watch to be tethered to the iPhone (or any phone). The iPad and iPhone used to require a Mac or PC to set up, now they can be set up on their own. Entering passwords and stuff on a watch is not happening, so I think you still need a "parent" device for setup, but why does that parent device need to be an iPhone? Why not a Mac or iPad?

    I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.

    Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
    At the current state of the affairs, in a pragmatic way, thinking like that may be helpful:
    Which way Apple Watch can provide the most functionality? a) Thinking of it as an extension to Mac or b) thinking of it as an extension to iPhone? Or c) Thinking of it as a totally standalone device?

    It is easy to answer c: when you think of it as “c” you just get a Fitbit, nothing more, despite the availability of LTE.

    For a and b, let’s go by examples for now: in Health and Fitness, thinking of it as an extension to Mac doesn’t make sense, because the Mac is not a source for health and fitness data. In contrast the iPhone is a source for health and fitness data thanks to accessories and the iPhone’s own input. So, aggregating the health and fitness data on the iPhone makes more sense than aggregating on the Mac.



    Interesting take. I would argue that option “c” is inevitable, and does not relegate the Apple Watch to being “just a Fitbit.” I’d also argue that iPhone independence (or platform agnosticism) would make the watch more valuable to many consumers. Every single update to watchOS to date has made efforts to allow the watch to be more independent from the iPhone. I think completely breaking free from the iPhone is the natural progression of that. 

    Apple would do that already with LTE if that was the case. I think after long discussions, brainstorming and research, they ended up with designing it as an extension to iPhone.

    The other way was the easiest, less functionality but more market share with platform agnosticism. As many clones have already proven, such a watch cannot survive against the pressure from traditional watchmakers. You can put one and only one watch in that spot on the wrist. Not two, not along with a fitness tracker or any other gadget. And that one watch must provide the most functionality to replace traditional watches. Their iPhone arsenal came to the rescue and they succeeded...
    LTE battery life is nowhere near a full day. I imagine that is the main limiting factor. 

    Frankly, I think for people who really want a well designed smart watch, don’t care about phone notifications and just want a quality fitness tracker/timepiece, optional iPhone independence would be nice. 

    Definitely agree with everything else you said though. Being tightly integrated into the iPhone platform is the key to initial watch success. My question is, where does it go from here? And how?
  • Reply 19 of 24
    LTE is not available worldwide on Apple Watch. 
    https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/

    So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.

    Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.

    And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
    Im holding out for the iPad Apple Watch combination and eliminating the iPhone and the Mac more portable and touch screen
    nhughes
  • Reply 20 of 24
    Rayz2016 said:
    nhughes said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Other news sources didn’t interpret this as “iOS apps on Mac”, but rather a unified development environment that allows for universal app projects, in the same way as iPhone and iPad apps are universal but quite different implementations — an iPad app is an iPad app, and not just the iPhone app running on an ipad. 

    It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different. 

    I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested. 

    Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out. 

    As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on. 

    But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style. 


    You can run iPhone apps on an iPad, all blown up and ugly if you so choose. Obviously Apple would never do that with its own apps on the Mac, but I could see lazy third-party developers doing half-baked ports of iOS apps, for the sake of having a presence on the Mac.
    AI interpreted what could be happening differently from other sites who have a better understanding of technology in general and Apple tech in particular
    I appreciate your input as well as the discussion, but comments with the sole purpose of disparaging the integrity of the site are a bannable offense. If you don’t like AI, feel free to email me to discuss, or tweet about it, or take it to another site that has a supposed “better understanding of technology in general and Apple in particular.” We’re a private, independently owned company, and it does us no good to host and provide a platform to our own detractors. Our house, our rules. 
Sign In or Register to comment.