Slack is latest major service to drop standalone Apple Watch app

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,185member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 


    That's also not quite true. As long as your Watch and phone are on the same Wifi Network, your watch can be away and still get access to your phone to do it's thing. I've left my iPhone in my office a number of times and then end up up stairs and still being able to answer a phone call, or see the new message, etc. In the restroom for a bit, load up a news app and read a little basic news, and whatnot, all while my phone is far from me. This is on a Original Apple Watch.

    Personally for me, the greatest thing, Homekit control of my house!!! Lift wrist, "Hey Siri, Open garage", BAM my garage door starts to open. I an turn on/off my lights, adjust the temp. Soon open and close my 2" blinds I've automated, but have to use a app currently. There will be a hub for it soon giving me voice control. I love this ability on my Apple Watch.

    I limit what stuff gets sent to it because I don't want to be swamped and then start ignoring my Apple Watch. I no longer pull out my iPhone every time it dings anymore. Some apps on the Apple Watch just makes no sense. I could care less abut having Amazon on my watch. Pointless, same with Target. I don't do shopping on my watch.

    As they say, you spend hours on your Desktop, minutes on your Smartphone, and seconds on your SmartWatch. So that's really how you have to look at things. You're not going to want to hold your wrist up for a long period, shopping on your Apple Watch!!! You pull out your Smartphone for that. The ebay app was kind of nice to have. Not to go looking around for something to BUY, as in shopping, but placing a higher bid on something you're bidding on that you found on your smartphone on computer. You can still get a message on your watch that you were outbid and then go to your phone and raise your bid that way. So I kind of miss that. That was useful and a app that made sense as you only spent seconds to do something. Other apps that really made no sense like Twitter or Facebook on your Apple Watch, you're Apple Watch would be driving you nuts with all the messages. No thanks!!!

    There are some useful 3rd party apps. I like HeartWatch. Along with their auto sleep tracking app. The Apple Watch does charge pretty quickly. I'll take it off just before bed and throw it on the charger to fully charge it up. Put it back on when going to bed and start the app. In the morning, I'll take it off and throw it on the charger to top it off as I'm getting ready for work.

    I'm always using Apple Pay on it. The list of places supporting Apple Pay and NFC transactions in general continue to grow for me. So I always keep a lookout for the NFC symbol. The people at the registered are clueless. It's a big surprise for them when I do it. The bigger issue is always telling them to activate the terminal so I can pay with my Apple Watch. They don't know. They don't see a card in your hard. You're starting there waiting for the terminal to be ready for you to pay.
    Soli
  • Reply 22 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,269member
    I think this is an area Apple needs to work on for two reasons:
    1)  They are putting a strong push on exercise monitoring and tracking.  But, very few major exercise apps have migrated to running natively on the watch.  Instead they run on the phone and communicate with the watch.  From my experience that does two things: 
         a) Requires that you still need to carry a phone during a workout if you're using a 3rd party app
         b) Creates a lag in the display while they communicate.  While that is normally not a big deal, it is if you are running -- nobody wants to hold their arm in the air for a couple seconds waiting for the watch and phone to coordinate.

    2)  A main advantage of the Series 3 LTE is that you no longer need to have a phone with you for critical tasks like phone calls, messages, exercise monitoring.   But, it you're using a non-Apple app that doesn't run natively the you lose that indepence.

    I am not sure why the 3rd party vendors (particularly those involved in exercise monitoring) have been so hesitant to generate native watch apps.  But, it is hindering the appeal of the watch if only Apple's apps run natively on it.
  • Reply 23 of 37
    raymondai said:
    To attract more apps appear in Apple Watch platform, and expand the the usage of the device beyond the fitness, it needs 2 things, Apple had finished the first one, standalone communication ability, they add the cellular connection in the latest model, the second, the ability to identify the user, Touch ID won’t be an option, the components is to big to the watch, how to integrate the Face ID to the watch is critical, and not mention to battery life.
    But, if Apple really make it....
    I’m really not understanding what your item 2 is about. the AW already trusts my identity from day 1, either via PIN or using bio authentication via iphone. 
    GeorgeBMacfastasleep
  • Reply 24 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,360member
    Off topic: Is anyone (else) not using the standard 4-digit PIN for their Apple Watch?

    Since it can also be used to gain access to my Mac and since 4-digits is only 10k possibilities which can almost always been narrowed down considerably through other methods, I’ve toggled off Simple Passcode.

    One nice feature is that it doesn’t note your password length so you have the hit OK to submit the PIN. This means you can use a any number of digits, which increase your security considerably since someone may not know if you have 3, 5, 8, 10 or more digits for your PIN. I have no idea if there’s a min or max.

    The only shortcoming is that you can’t disable Simplle Passcode and then input a 4-digit PIN without it reenabling the autosubmit feature for the standard, 4-digit PIN. This means a savvy thief would know that 0000 thru 9999 are to be ignored. Not a big deal, but still seems like a bug.
  • Reply 26 of 37
    Soli said:
    Off topic: Is anyone (else) not using the standard 4-digit PIN for their Apple Watch?

    Since it can also be used to gain access to my Mac and since 4-digits is only 10k possibilities which can almost always been narrowed down considerably through other methods, I’ve toggled off Simple Passcode.

    One nice feature is that it doesn’t note your password length so you have the hit OK to submit the PIN. This means you can use a any number of digits, which increase your security considerably since someone may not know if you have 3, 5, 8, 10 or more digits for your PIN. I have no idea if there’s a min or max.

    The only shortcoming is that you can’t disable Simplle Passcode and then input a 4-digit PIN without it reenabling the autosubmit feature for the standard, 4-digit PIN. This means a savvy thief would know that 0000 thru 9999 are to be ignored. Not a big deal, but still seems like a bug.
    I’ve noticed that as well that with a longer passcode it just waits for you to tap “OK”. Seems like it should be that way no matter what, so even if you have a 4-digit passcode it isn’t obvious. 

    I’ve been using a 6-digit code for a few years now.  People get so upset about a 6-digit code rather than a 4 -digit code, but seriously, it takes very little extra time to tap in 2 extra digits.
  • Reply 27 of 37
    Soli said:
    Off topic: Is anyone (else) not using the standard 4-digit PIN for their Apple Watch?

    Since it can also be used to gain access to my Mac and since 4-digits is only 10k possibilities which can almost always been narrowed down considerably through other methods, I’ve toggled off Simple Passcode.

    One nice feature is that it doesn’t note your password length so you have the hit OK to submit the PIN. This means you can use a any number of digits, which increase your security considerably since someone may not know if you have 3, 5, 8, 10 or more digits for your PIN. I have no idea if there’s a min or max.

    The only shortcoming is that you can’t disable Simplle Passcode and then input a 4-digit PIN without it reenabling the autosubmit feature for the standard, 4-digit PIN. This means a savvy thief would know that 0000 thru 9999 are to be ignored. Not a big deal, but still seems like a bug.
    I have never spent a single moment of my life worrying about somebody stealing my watch, painstakingly brute forcing the PIN, then breaking into my house, then stealing my mac, and using the stolen watch to log into the stolen mac in order to get access to anything useful -- all before I realized it happened. No, I'm still using the 4-digit PIN on the AW.
    edited February 2018 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 28 of 37

    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    Yeah I don't find the value add worth $120 a year. Not using at this time on my AW3.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,360member
    Soli said:
    Off topic: Is anyone (else) not using the standard 4-digit PIN for their Apple Watch?

    Since it can also be used to gain access to my Mac and since 4-digits is only 10k possibilities which can almost always been narrowed down considerably through other methods, I’ve toggled off Simple Passcode.

    One nice feature is that it doesn’t note your password length so you have the hit OK to submit the PIN. This means you can use a any number of digits, which increase your security considerably since someone may not know if you have 3, 5, 8, 10 or more digits for your PIN. I have no idea if there’s a min or max.

    The only shortcoming is that you can’t disable Simplle Passcode and then input a 4-digit PIN without it reenabling the autosubmit feature for the standard, 4-digit PIN. This means a savvy thief would know that 0000 thru 9999 are to be ignored. Not a big deal, but still seems like a bug.
    I have never spent a single moment of my life worrying about somebody stealing my watch, painstakingly brute forcing the PIN, then breaking into my house, then stealing my mac, and using the stolen watch to log into the stolen mac in order to get access to anything useful -- all before I realized it happened. No, I'm still using the 4-digit PIN on the AW.
    1) Some of us bring our Mac with us everywhere we go, and have to leave them unattended, which includes leaving the Watch behind, too. I suppose I could shutdown my Mac every time its out of reach, but that's a lot of extra rigamarole to shutdown, reboot, re-input my complex and strong Mac password and not having my Mac work for me when I'm away compared to just tapping the Watch face a couple extra times and taking up a literal extra second every day or two. I could also disable the option to unlock my Mac with my Watch, but it's about balancing convenience with security (just like Touch ID and Face ID offer), hence, not using absolute, 4-digit PIN to gain access to my Mac.

    2) If the phrase "weakest link" means nothing to you then you may as well change your Mac's admin password to a 4-digit PIN and put into Hint section "this is a 4-digit PIN."


    PS: The answer to my simple query should've been a no or I don't, not a snarky retort.
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 30 of 37

    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    Yeah I don't find the value add worth $120 a year. Not using at this time on my AW3.
    The thing I like about LTE on Series 3 is it doesn’t have to cost $120 a year. Similar to LTE on an iPad, the service can be turned on and off as needed (on a monthly basis). So if I only want LTE in the summer, when I’m outside more and more likely to want to leave my iPhone behind, I turn it on and then turn it off and no longer pay when I’m done.

    For instance, we do a lot of boating in the summer and one of us always brings a phone. With Series 3 I don’t need to worry about where my phone is on the boat, if it’s getting wet or potentially going overboard. I can just take my Watch and still have the ability to call and text for just $10 a month.  I like having that flexibility. 
    lkalliance
  • Reply 31 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,269member
    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    So, because it doesn't fit your needs, it's "lame"?   It's must be nice though always being connected to WiFi...   But then, why do you even have a phone?   An iPod Touch would work just as well under those circumstances.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,360member
    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    So, because it doesn't fit your needs, it's "lame"?   It's must be nice though always being connected to WiFi...   But then, why do you even have a phone?   An iPod Touch would work just as well under those circumstances.
    What I find odd about his statement is that he then concludes with his Watch receiving calls away from his iPhone as if that's a problem and not the intended result. Not everyone needs to have cellular on their Watch, just as not everyone needs a Watch, but it's just as foolish to says that the Watch is lame because I don't need one as it is to say that LTE on a Watch is lame because I don't need that feature.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,269member

    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    Yeah I don't find the value add worth $120 a year. Not using at this time on my AW3.
    The thing I like about LTE on Series 3 is it doesn’t have to cost $120 a year. Similar to LTE on an iPad, the service can be turned on and off as needed (on a monthly basis). So if I only want LTE in the summer, when I’m outside more and more likely to want to leave my iPhone behind, I turn it on and then turn it off and no longer pay when I’m done.

    For instance, we do a lot of boating in the summer and one of us always brings a phone. With Series 3 I don’t need to worry about where my phone is on the boat, if it’s getting wet or potentially going overboard. I can just take my Watch and still have the ability to call and text for just $10 a month.  I like having that flexibility. 
    And.... Where do you carry your phone when you swim?

    Those people who are knocking the LTE most likely spend their days at a desk or on a couch.  For active people, it can make a difference -- particularly if your activity makes carrying a phone inconvenient (like while you're swimming or running).

    Another very much overlooked feature is for seniors when they get that:  "I've fallen and I can't get up" moment.  For them, it can, quite literally, be a life saver.
  • Reply 34 of 37
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,420member
    One thing I love and I think people forget or don’t even know about is using the camera app to see a preview from the iPhone camera and then trigger the shutter. So great, especially when using a tripod. 
    Have not had a chance to use that feature yet - can't wait to show it off though!
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 35 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    So, because it doesn't fit your needs, it's "lame"?   It's must be nice though always being connected to WiFi...   But then, why do you even have a phone?   An iPod Touch would work just as well under those circumstances.
    iPod Touch doesn't fit on my wrist, moron!
  • Reply 36 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Soli said:
    fallenjt said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    foggyhill said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Meh. 

    In many cases there’s little point in having a watch app if your phone has to be in your pocket to make the watch app work. 
    That's not the case of the new LTE watch, but maybe they don't want to spend to many wholly independent, one app is enough work :-).
    Trouble with the LTE watch is the carriers make it pretty unattractive price wise, if the carry it at all

    Apple needs its own network. (That is a suggestion: I’m not saying Apple will implode if it doesn’t deliver what I’m asking for by the middle of next week).  
    LTE watch is lame. It's great on paper but in the real life, it's rarely used. I don't see much beneficial for $10/mo. As long as AW is connected to a WiFi, it can receive any notifications, text, phone calls from the remote connected iPhone. I thought they have to be on the same WiFi for it to push, but I was wrong. I forgot my AW at home, and my wife complained because many phone calls I received at work, also happened on my AW at home.
    So, because it doesn't fit your needs, it's "lame"?   It's must be nice though always being connected to WiFi...   But then, why do you even have a phone?   An iPod Touch would work just as well under those circumstances.
    What I find odd about his statement is that he then concludes with his Watch receiving calls away from his iPhone as if that's a problem and not the intended result. Not everyone needs to have cellular on their Watch, just as not everyone needs a Watch, but it's just as foolish to says that the Watch is lame because I don't need one as it is to say that LTE on a Watch is lame because I don't need that feature.
    It's an opinion. Didn't I say everyone shouldn't need it? Did I complain about AW received the call remotely? I said I didn't know that AW could received the push as long as it's connected to any WiFi, not the same WiFi.
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 37 of 37
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,285member

    While I didn't find notifications of deliveries from Amazon very useful, EBay's Watch support was really useful. The bid notifications were a real boon since they reminded me to check the status of what I wanted.

    Yeah, but you don't need a native Watch app to get those notifications mirrored on your Watch from the app on your iPhone.
Sign In or Register to comment.