Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A developer's take on Watch SDK
- Thread starter Rogifan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple missed the train.Watch is vaporware (Spring 2015? you gotta be kidding) and so is developer support (Summer 2015 to start write first apps? ridiculous)
I'm writing this holding Gear S I got today. It's amazing, and there are already 3rd party apps for it. While Ive is busy talking about his vaporware that's still half a year from being released, other companies are delivering amazing products.
As also the owner of a Gear S here you need to stop bragging on it's application support. a HUGE number of apps promised for it haven't seen the light of day, even apps like Fleksy that were supposed to be pre-installed.
As the owner of a Gear S I'll answer this, and I tend to be a bit more platform agnostic.
No, you can't use all it's functions without a phone paired. And it won't pair - without hacking that is to a phone other than a Samsung. It will however do calls and emails and texts on it's own without the phone needing to be nearby. Catch though - It can only respond to mail and text - not initiate. In that light it can do 100% more than an Apple watch can do for the primary fact that you can own one. Show me where I can buy an Apple watch today?
Apple watch is still vaporware. And yes, Rogifan I know what vaporware is - it's a product promised and hyped that you cannot buy. No one other than Apple and probably not even them can guarantee what features it will finally hit the market with (6 months can be an eternity in technology time), so any promises by the rank and file here or anywhere are no more than hopeful speculation. . It's quite clear by the SDK though that the watch does little to nothing than serve as a display for functions offloaded back to the phone and displayed on the device. Based on SDK functions the watch is no more than a GUI for an app running on the phone. Run the phone flat on battery with the watch and you have two non-functioning devices. That was what made me return the Gear 2. And before the Apple faithful pile on claiming their batteries are so much better go reference the battery life threads on IOS8.
Moto 360/Android Wear suffers the same fate as the Apple watch in that there's still a total dependency on the mobile device, although it's only bar to access is the version of Android. On the hardware level that circular display isn't really circular. There's a small cutout at the bottom of the screen that doesn't display and apps may have to be modified for it since it's unique. Call it the Moto 270 to be honest. That becomes a bar to development which hinders adoption.
Last edited:
From that:
"Next year will likely bring a next generation Watch"
That'll be the one to consider. Apple isn't bad on V1 iterations, think iPad, MBA, etc, but the 2nd gen is usually more refined. They're really not alone in that respect though.
2 Apple watches in one year? Just can't see it.
----------
If you set it in a way that it only tells you the time (something that a typical watch does) then you may get close to a week without needing to be charged.
Apple's current DEV Rules seem blindingly obvious to me, and must be as transparent to others also.
Yes we know the battery life is going to be rubbish (I'm not saying that's Apple's fault BTW)
So, in order to not make it look quite so rubbish, and get bad press, we are only going to allow Apps from Devs that are momentary/quick use apps.
Anything that lets the user enjoy the device, more than momentarily we shall not allow past our approval process.
That would be the honest thing to say.
Yes we know the battery life is going to be rubbish (I'm not saying that's Apple's fault BTW)
So, in order to not make it look quite so rubbish, and get bad press, we are only going to allow Apps from Devs that are momentary/quick use apps.
Anything that lets the user enjoy the device, more than momentarily we shall not allow past our approval process.
That would be the honest thing to say.
Except Apple says native apps are coming in 2015. My guess is something will be announced at WWDC. When the iPhone was launched in 2007 Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall were passing off Safari web apps as iPhone apps. Heck at WWDC Steve called it a really innovative way to create apps for iPhone and referred to it as a "sweet solution". But we know Apple was already working on an SDK as it was released less than a year later.
In the case of Watch Apple has been very clear that native apps will be allowed just not immediately. I think that's perfectly legitimate compromise. This is a brand-new category of device for Apple. A phased approach gives them time to better understand usage patterns and battery life which will allow them to tweak the SDK as necessary. I'd rather Apple take the time to get it right so the user experience is good. iPhone didn't suffer because it didn't have all the bells and whistles out of the gate I don't think Watch will either.
I know some would say 4th gen iPad, but I think that was an anomaly not the norm. is there any other time Apple released two generations of a product in the same year?
That's exactly why I don't believe there would be a second gen Apple watch before at least 2016.
As I say, I don't blame Apple.
In their shoes I may probably do the same.
They have chosen the build a device that's much more than just a notification device. One could almost say an iPod Touch for the wrist.
It's silly to just wall it a watch really as that diminishes what it is.
So, they have chosen this route, and they have chosen how to power it. Battery inside the case.
Given that we are still awaiting the miracle battery, this is a major, and I mean MAJOR in 100ft tall glowing letter problem.
They will know that, if "Angry Birds Watch Edition" Launched on Day One, together with "Movie Viewer Watch" etc etc, then their new device would be slammed in the world media.
"Apple Watch only lasts 4 hours on a full charge"
"Apple Watch needs charging six times a day"
Possible type headlines, which could be true, and of course, what Apple don't want.
And none of us would want either if we were in Apple's shoes.
I'm making those numbers up of course, as I have no idea how long the watch would last if you were pushing it as hard as you could, for a game, and the game was running constantly for a few hours.
To avoid this, possible, negative launch media attention from every happening, it makes marketing sense to limit and restrict what can be done with the device, at least for the time being.
Once the device is established for a while, the media have done their reporting, and it's been confirmed, when using Apple's built in apps, and Approved 3rd party limit apps, that the Apple Watch is good for a Day or a Day and a bit...
THEN.....
If someone brings out an App, when Apple allowed, that does burn the battery, it will be seen as the apps and devs fault, as we will already know, from the early days, that the watch is good for a day.
Such a plan, will divert the problem away from the device, which has proven itself, and onto the poor app programming.
So yes, this is all totally logical and makes sense perfectly from a makers point of view, and is a very good plan.
I do cringe a bit at the use of term from Tim Cook along the lines of:
"You are going to enjoy the product so much, you are going to want to charge it every day"
I know we all know what that means, and how he is carefully using the words to turn a negative into something that sounds positive.
But I do cringe a bit when I hear that play on words.
I don't get why there would need to be. It makes no sense to me that Apple would announce native apps coming in 2015 and then release a product that couldn't handle those apps. I don't think hardware is the reason native apps aren't launching out of the gate.
It's not and you are right. Apple is being conservative and wants to do it a step at the time. Apple wants to gather statistics on App usage and battery life to fine tune the 2ed SDK before releasing full aWatch Apps.
I dint say it would need to be. Was just quoting on the guy who said next year we will likely see the next gen watch.
Business Insider quoting an unnamed developer? We're supposed to take that seriously?
What I find hilarious is when Watch was first announced there were complaints that it did too much (one poster here posted a photo of the original iPhone home screen saying they wish it looked something like that). Heck Ben Thompson originally said there shouldn't have been an SDK (though he's since changed his mind on that). But now after the first SDK is released Watch will be a failure because it doesn't support native apps from the get go? Seriously?
What I find hilarious is when Watch was first announced there were complaints that it did too much (one poster here posted a photo of the original iPhone home screen saying they wish it looked something like that). Heck Ben Thompson originally said there shouldn't have been an SDK (though he's since changed his mind on that). But now after the first SDK is released Watch will be a failure because it doesn't support native apps from the get go? Seriously?
Last edited:
Why does it take a name attached for you to take something seriously? Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
Here's the message:
"The watch and the phone are constantly talking. The code actually sits on your phone. Only the [user interface] elements are on the watch."
"This will present dev problems. This can be overcome, but sharing app state and data will be tricky."
"It's interesting how little the watch does; it seems that it literally does nothing except [user interface] work."
What do you have to say about the message itself, not the messenger?
Another... code monkey take.
It's not tricky for programmers deserving their name.
There are rules for the Model-View-Controller pattern.
Views don't hold data, views link data to the models.
Views don't do actions, views call the controllers to do the actions.
Enabling WatchKit, for the App dev, is only a question of designing another set of views. The Models and the Controllers are the same.
Wrong. Controllers update views, so they have to be aware of the new Watch views added to iPhone application. That code needs to be added, it won't magically work by itself. Also, since you have zero experience in iOS development, you think it's "only a question of designing another set of views" (like dragging and dropping some controls from pallete onto a view, piece of cake!) - you've zero idea of amount of UI glue code behind view controllers that needs to be written by hand.
It's a little farfetched to say, flat out, that he's wrong.
A good (and experienced) developer would have split the logic from controllers, which I think is then biggest problem with Apple's MVC design "guides" for newer devs as it encourages too much weight on the controllers end. And in Watch's case, the controller are even more simplified and strict so there is a lot less customization available to the end-developer.
However, that goes to say that it is work. Not hard work or even a lot of work. But Sami is right, it's more than just dragging and dropping view components into a Storyboard. Storyboards (Views) and Controllers are tightly tied in Xcode, so for each view, you need to have it's one and only owner and each controller should be responsible for its one and only view. Plus if you want to do more, which I assume users and developers want, you'll have to put in as much effort as it takes to do more in iOS. The effort can't be easily shared, yet.
