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

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 46
    I knew there would be people here begging Apple not to allow other people to choose any watch face they desire. Could lead to dancing or some such.
    CloudTalkin
  • Reply 42 of 46
    I see what you did there.
  • Reply 43 of 46
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,942member
    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.

    Good point. Apple does know a thing or two about getting sued over watch/clock faces ;) 
  • Reply 44 of 46
    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.
    Are you saying that because a user must remember to copy, or use another workaround, to have a URL or mailto: link not open in Safari or Mail, they're not being forced?

    Is that a good UX?  Does it conform to the practices of a company that purports to care about users being their best, thinking differently, etc., any less than not being able to select a watch face outside of Apple's prescribed offerings?

    It's well past the point that Apple gives users default app choice in iOS, and if it doesn't, then it's fair game for regulators who also question what standing native apps have in the app store search results, the leverage it has over third-party iOS developers, and past practices like Microsoft's "bundling" of IE into Windows.

    Don't kid yourselves, Apple now occupies the same position that we, who are long time users, railed against during the height of the Apple vs. Microsoft days.  Apple has been more circumspect in how it goes about exerting its market power, but it does.
  • Reply 45 of 46
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    citpeks said:
    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.
    Are you saying that because a user must remember to copy, or use another workaround, to have a URL or mailto: link not open in Safari or Mail, they're not being forced?

    Is that a good UX?  Does it conform to the practices of a company that purports to care about users being their best, thinking differently, etc., any less than not being able to select a watch face outside of Apple's prescribed offerings?

    It's well past the point that Apple gives users default app choice in iOS, and if it doesn't, then it's fair game for regulators who also question what standing native apps have in the app store search results, the leverage it has over third-party iOS developers, and past practices like Microsoft's "bundling" of IE into Windows.

    Don't kid yourselves, Apple now occupies the same position that we, who are long time users, railed against during the height of the Apple vs. Microsoft days.  Apple has been more circumspect in how it goes about exerting its market power, but it does.
    The problem with Microsoft was that (and still is that) they’re a monopoly. Monopolies are, and should be, treated differently. They’re not allowed to do what smaller companies are allowed to do. Smaller, by the way, in marketshare.

    monopoly doesn’t mean monopoly in your own ecosystem. It means against the total of other similar competitors in an industry. Apple is not a monopoly, even though some incorrectly think it is.

    rhis is why, for an example, most constitutional experts have stated, and filed as friends of the court on the side of Apple, during the Supreme Court trial, that essentially, that Apple,e was shafted. Amazon was the monopoly there, and should have been cited for monopoly abuse instead.

    quite frankly, if those who wish to cite Apple for bad practices did so over an issue of importance, I would have more sympathy for their cause. But watch faces? I’m sorry, but this is a totally trivial issue.
  • Reply 46 of 46
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    Apples Watch faces have become iconic. It's dangerous to let the public tinker with them.

    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  :#   

    That's one of the best ones dating back to the iPod Watch.



    iConic.
Sign In or Register to comment.