Editorial: It's time Apple allowed third-party Apple Watch faces

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    With Jony Ive's departure this may be more likely, 
  • Reply 22 of 46
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    dewme said:
    I can only guess that Apple sees the watch faces as integral to the product and its branding and identity as a watch that competes in the watch market.

    Yep, the watch face on the Apple Watch is very much like the...
    Desktop on Mac
    Main screen on Apple TV
    Springboard on iPhone
    larryacornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 46
    fred1fred1 Posts: 1,104member
    I think this is an excellent idea. I don’t find many of the current offerings to be appealing at all and I’d love to see what others can do. If you don’t like any of those, then don’t use them!
    Also, there are lots of apps that currently can’t be shown in the Apple Watch face “complications” (strange word).  Allowing developers to offer other faces would help solve this problem.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    Maybe one word: Hermes
    The branding of a Hermes watch is 98% the face and the setting apart of this exclusive brand is what costs the $$$.
  • Reply 25 of 46
    That won’t happen.

    You cannot customize the user interface on iOS. This is certainly true for WatchOS too, unless you are a licensed brand with commitment, like Hermes.
    edited September 2019 larryaSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 46
    It has nothing to do with battery life. Nothing.

    Apple already allows 3rd party complications, each of which is vetted (or not) and approved to deploy onto watches and begin draining batteries.

    If Apple wanted to allow 3rd party watch faces (3PWF), they could (and would) restrict the number of complications a developer could include on a single watch face. They would restrict a lot of things, which ultimately would make the need for 3PWF questionable.

    But they don't want to, because they don't see what developers could offer this space, (and neither do I) and it isn't worth trading the control they maintain over it. They control the appearance of Apple Watch, while still allowing a lot of user customization. They have device-specific watch faces, that are part of the marketing for a specific series or model. But most of all, their general collection has grown so much that users already have plenty to pick from. What could a developer possibly give me that is measurably different, besides something that really isn't a watch face at all (which is I'm sure what Apple wants to prevent).

    They have a lot of reasons, most of them centering around control of the product. None have anything to do with battery life.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    macxpress said:
    Please. No.
    Why?  It wouldn't affect you in the slightest... unless you actually wanted one of the faces,   
    But it would affect the branding of the watch. Developers don't need to get their fingers into every single aspect of a piece of Apple hardware.
    That makes no sense.  It would affect the branding of the watch no more than someones picture of their cat as a background affects the branding of an iPhone.  Following that type of logic, one could erroneously claim 3rd part watch bands affect the branding of the watch.  They don't, and they're much more visible than a watch face.  
    bonobob
  • Reply 28 of 46
    Would Tiffany let Cartier design any of its watch faces?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 46
    Have you seen the mass of horrendous watch faces that are available in the Garmin Connect IQ store?  A few are okay, but in general, blech!

    This is one thing I'm kinda okay with letting Apple keep control over unless they work out some plans with some decent watch face designers.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 46
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,271member
    Does the same arguement work if it's the iPad, Mac or iPhone?

    Watchface is just notifcation centre on any of the other apple platforms. 
    The view you want to be pithy, fast and reactive doesn't make sense to me to open it up, as it then has to deal with unknowns which are anything but pithy or fast.

    To me nope doesn't work. Sure Apple could do more partnerships but the 2 they have provide a good range.
    Maybe they should hold a design competition expand the offer that way. 

    Edit to add: It is time they cut the tether.
    If iPhone is a camera first and foremost why do I need a camera to use a watch?
    Makes about as much sense as tethering your Mobile Phone to your desktop computer ever did.
    Even iPod to computer was stretch at the time driven by the need for a CD drive.
    edited September 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 46
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    fred1 said:
    I think this is an excellent idea. I don’t find many of the current offerings to be appealing at all and I’d love to see what others can do. If you don’t like any of those, then don’t use them!
    Also, there are lots of apps that currently can’t be shown in the Apple Watch face “complications” (strange word).  Allowing developers to offer other faces would help solve this problem.
    First, the word complications is a standard one in the watch industry. It means what it says. Anything other than hour, minute and second hands on a watch are called complications. Why? Because they complicate the design of the watch. They need more gears, levers, possibly springs, hands, etc. Apple has simply taken the term and used it for the extra features that complicate the software design. It makes sense, as they are trying to get watch users to move to the Watch.

    your suggestions is probably exactly what Apple is trying to avoid. As the article said, battery drain is an issue. It’s very likely that classifications of apps will draw too much power, and that’s why they can’t be used as complications. Otherwise, I don’t care if Apple allows this. Maybe I’ll find a face I like. But unlike a few here, I do like Apple’s faces. But it will take a good designer to come up with good ones. It’s not something that just anyone can do.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 46
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    It has nothing to do with battery life. Nothing.

    Apple already allows 3rd party complications, each of which is vetted (or not) and approved to deploy onto watches and begin draining batteries.

    If Apple wanted to allow 3rd party watch faces (3PWF), they could (and would) restrict the number of complications a developer could include on a single watch face. They would restrict a lot of things, which ultimately would make the need for 3PWF questionable.

    But they don't want to, because they don't see what developers could offer this space, (and neither do I) and it isn't worth trading the control they maintain over it. They control the appearance of Apple Watch, while still allowing a lot of user customization. They have device-specific watch faces, that are part of the marketing for a specific series or model. But most of all, their general collection has grown so much that users already have plenty to pick from. What could a developer possibly give me that is measurably different, besides something that really isn't a watch face at all (which is I'm sure what Apple wants to prevent).

    They have a lot of reasons, most of them centering around control of the product. None have anything to do with battery life.
    I think it’s more than one thing. I do think battery life is a concern. I also think esthetics are a concern, with branding. But I do believe that at some point, Apple may try allowing a few specific companies to come up with their own faces, rather than allowing everybody to do so. A slow rollout over time, could keep things under control.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 46
    jume said:
    Eric_WVGG said:
    If Apple is keeping third-party developers out because they want to keep the standards for aesthetics high (my personal theory), the answer is to be very blunt about arbitrary standards for the App Store acceptance. "Faces are accepted on the highly subjective standards of our design department. Most faces will be declined. Spend time developing at your own risk."
    Yeah the Mickey mouse face is pure aesthetics  :#   
    I don’t like it either, but it’s a classic American icon. 

    If you wanna call one out for being unaesthetic and crass, let's talk about that Toy Story shiz
    edited September 2019 jensonb
  • Reply 34 of 46
    The ringtones on an iPhone are also very... distinctive. Yet Apple allows 3rd party ringtones on their Store. I'm sure they'll see there's money to be made from watch faces.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    Fatman said:
    I would have imagined that by now an Apple sanctioned full featured custom face builder would be available - choose the colors, background, size and styles of fonts and hands, then add various complications. The more I thought about it I realized that it may not exist because people could duplicate copyright protected watch faces such as a Rolex and that  Apple could be held liable for infringement.
    You can currently customize certain watch faces with your own choice of picture.  If you choose one protected by copyright, it's you who is breaking the law, not Apple.  Same would be true of any other custom watch face.
  • Reply 36 of 46
    Appleish said:
    Never gonna happen. The face is part of the branding and fashion of the watch. They don't want bad faces out there muddying the uniform appeal.

    I'm not saying that the faces couldn't be better, but they could be much, much worse out of their control.
    You can currently customize certain watch faces with your own choice of picture.  You can choose a dick pic if you want.  I'm not sure that that is exactly what Apple is looking for in branding and fashion, but they let you do it anyway.  So why not a full-fledged, custom watch face?
  • Reply 37 of 46
    Where's the editorial about how 13 iterations in, Apple still effectively forces iOS users to use its native apps like Safari and Mail, instead of others of their own preference?

    Or will regulators have to step in force Apple to give users that choice, as they did with MS during the IE hegemony?
  • Reply 38 of 46
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,814administrator
    citpeks said:
    Where's the editorial about how 13 iterations in, Apple still effectively forces iOS users to use its native apps like Safari and Mail, instead of others of their own preference?

    Or will regulators have to step in force Apple to give users that choice, as they did with MS during the IE hegemony?
    "effectively forces" != forces.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    I agree with the article although I think it should be limited to selected developers and every watch face would need to be reviewed for possible IP infringement.   Otherwise, it's Android wild-time with replica faces of Rolex, Patek, Seiko, etc.  
    edited September 2019
  • Reply 40 of 46
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    bonobob said:
    Fatman said:
    I would have imagined that by now an Apple sanctioned full featured custom face builder would be available - choose the colors, background, size and styles of fonts and hands, then add various complications. The more I thought about it I realized that it may not exist because people could duplicate copyright protected watch faces such as a Rolex and that  Apple could be held liable for infringement.
    You can currently customize certain watch faces with your own choice of picture.  If you choose one protected by copyright, it's you who is breaking the law, not Apple.  Same would be true of any other custom watch face.
    bonobob said:
    Appleish said:
    Never gonna happen. The face is part of the branding and fashion of the watch. They don't want bad faces out there muddying the uniform appeal.

    I'm not saying that the faces couldn't be better, but they could be much, much worse out of their control.
    You can currently customize certain watch faces with your own choice of picture.  You can choose a dick pic if you want.  I'm not sure that that is exactly what Apple is looking for in branding and fashion, but they let you do it anyway.  So why not a full-fledged, custom watch face?
    There’s a big difference between you pulling a pic out of the photos app to use on your watch, phone, tablet or computer, and Apple listing a pirate version of some other company’s trademarked graphics in their App Store. Remember that apple already got into trouble for having a time face similar to another one.

    yes, Apple could police the store for that. But it would have to worth the expense of writing software to try to pick these things up, and hiring more people to go over it. If Apple just opens it up, they could have several hundred faces within a month, and thousands, over some time. I don’t see them thinking it’s worth it. I did say that they could open it up to a few companies over time, who are invited. Other fashion brands, and authorized watch band manufacturers.
    cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.