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.
Apple Restricting New Pebble Smartwatches From 'Being Awesome' With iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They’re private in that they’re not part of the government.
Every company has a monopoly on its own product.
They’re enforcing rules that they think make their products better for their customers. If customers don’t agree with that, there are plenty of alternatives.
No it doesn’t. Again, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. Pebble can make an amazing product that integrates amazingly with Android. If it’s good enough, maybe they’ll even get people to switch phones, because (again) Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
It may be illegal in the EU, but it absolutely shouldn’t be. Vote with your wallet, don’t over regulate companies to force them to help out their competitors.
This was my question. It's an odd complaint when plenty of cars without CarPlay can read and reply to iMessages and text without issue.
We built the internet on open standards. Why should app distribution be any different?
I use to wear an Apple Watch Series 6 but my wrist would feel tingly sometimes. So I stopped.
Casio MQ24 is all I need. It’s light, tells time accurately and is enjoyably and simply readable. …it just works.
I may switch to android since I’m having issues with my iPhone mini and Apple doesn’t want to make small phones anymore. I’m considering Moto Razr(+2025) (60) and this watch may be another reason to switch. I’ve always heard great things about it.
But it will be hard to pull me away from the Casio MQ24.
let me guess, iJustine will file a patent dispute for the white variant
It’s hilarious to me how so many in here like to think they’re pro-business, pro innovation, pro competition.
But when it comes to Apple, you won’t even entertain the idea that letting users decide to open up their iPhones to third parties would give consumers more choices in the smart Watch market, and would increase competition.
And as you’re refuting what I just wrote because Watch is all you ever need, and you only trust Apple, and Apple is perfect, etc., you’ll not bat an eye and go criticize Apple for Watch having no new designs, no new sensors, nothing new for years and years, no new ideas.
It’s our iPhones and our data: If we want to put it at risk by opening it up to the makers of products like Pebble then we should be able to do so in Settings.
We need more competition. We don’t need another four years of Watch with a single SiP upgrade and a single new sensor.
This indirect monopoly is hampering innovation and competition.
Maybe because iOS is a closed platform and not an open standard?
Fingers crossed!
Apple doesn’t own my iPhone or the data on it. So letting me destroy my iPhone and privacy by sending all my data to products like Pebble would only be fair.
Surely, nobody can disagree that I own my iPhone and the data stored on it? As I paid for it and there’s no TOS saying that I’m renting it from Apple?
I’m happy that there’s limits to monopolies’ power in the EU so that players who aren’t trillion dollar mega corporations also have a chance to compete.
I get that those who own Apple shares hate when anyone suggests that the corporation should grow even a tiny bit less.
But the rest of you, those who just consume, why don’t you want to push Apple to make Watch better?
Do you think Watch will get more upgrades at a slower rate or faster rate if others can offer similar products and get a legitimate chance at competing with Watch?
At large, do you understand what a scenario with increased competition vs. a scenario with less competition means for our markets and the products we can buy?
It should be closed if you want a few, giant corporations sitting on all app distribution.
It should be closed if you want less competition as the incentive to innovate and offer better value to consumers decreases as the number of competitors in markets goes down.
But if we want a wider selection of truly different products and more innovation and more competition, better specs/value sooner, then it should be open.
Apple, like all other tech giants, wants it’s closed.
You, the consumer, don’t (unless you prioritize your Apple shares over innovation).
On one hand, I guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity because this certainly got the word out that there is a new pebble watch coming soon, and nothing spreads the word like negative Apple news.
On the other hand, it’s also basically telling me that iPhone users should probably sit this one out since it won’t work as well as an Apple Watch (but then again, we all already knew that).
Perhaps they could save their energy and focus on marketing to android users instead.
On the other hand, it’s also basically telling me that iPhone users should probably sit this one out since it won’t work as well as an Apple Watch (but then again, we all already knew that).
Perhaps they could save their energy and focus on marketing to android users instead.
They don’t own your phone, but they do own the OS that operates the phone.
Correct, nothing is preventing you (or should prevent you) from jailbreaking the phone to make it work better with the pebble. But just as Apple shouldn’t dictate what you’re allowed to do with your property, the government shouldn’t be able to force Apple to do things that Apple doesn’t want to do to its property. And Apple owns the OS and should be allowed to determine what APIs they wrote and maintain.
Apple isn’t a monopoly. Pebble is perfectly capable of making an amazing watch that works for the open Android ecosystem and compete that way.
I owe zero Apple shares and still vehemently oppose the idea of forcing Apple to change their integrated business model when an open model exists and is actually more popular than Apple’s.
I honestly wish Apple would open up a bit, but I strongly believe it’s not government’s place to force them to do so. The free market works - vote with your wallet.
The consumer electronics market is incredibly competitive. Just because you can’t imagine ever switching to Android doesn’t mean others wouldn’t. If Pebble or Samsung or whoever makes an amazing watch that blows the Apple Watch out of the water then plenty of people will switch.
Last edited:
It depends whether the Patent Office or a judge considers smartwatches and processors to be sufficiently different segments so as not to cause confusion. But given that so many in this thread have made the association with Intel, Intel could probably make a reasonable claim against Pebble.
Apple literally is a private company…
That’s as stupid as saying “Walmart has a 100% monopoly on Walmart products”… Of course, it’s their product… McDonald’s has a 100% monopoly on Big Macs as well… That’s not called a monopoly, that’s called owning a product. There are plenty of other competing smart watches and phones out there. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on the smartwatch business, and plenty of third party smart watches work great with iPhones. I know, because I use one of those third party smart watches…
Deciding what products you line your establishment’s shelves with isn’t “abusing a monopoly”. It’s the basic right of any business to decide what products they stock in their stores…
Apple doesn’t control the smart watch market by a long shot. That’s absurd. They control the Apple Watch, their product, and the iPhone, also their product. They don’t control anyone else’s products…
Not illegal, regardless of what some bureaucrats in the EU may claim... Again, basic business rights…
I think there are arguments for Apple being anticompetitive, but saying they have a “100% monopoly” on devices that they make that run their own software is a little ridiculous, don’t you think? When it comes to the App Store, absolutely, they do some shady things. But when it comes to the actual operating system, they’re not obligated to require android to run on it. I mean, just buy an Android phone at that point. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them.
It’s been established in the U.S. and as well as in the EU that Apple does not have a monopoly.
Your statements are plain false.
If you buy a device and there are very limited accessory selections, then that would be a downside of that device and you should probably check out another device (an Android).
Because competition.
Playstation has a 100% monopoly on devices running Playstation operating system
Sony is abusing that monopoly to control app distribution
???
With that logic, we’d all still be using AT&T and landlines would still be all the rage. Anti-trust is a big hammer but creates huge opportunities for innovation when justly wielded. I’m not arguing Apple is a monopoly, but some of their anti competitive practices are being increasingly addressed, especially in the EU. Apple should be forced to compete more, either with the App Store or with phone peripheral and api accessibility. Competition is good.
Is it possible to build my own App Store on Playstation consoles? Nope.
Is it possible to distribute my movies on Netflix platform? Nope.
Is it possible to load my own OS onto any major car infotainment system? Nope.
Is it possible to load my own OS onto any major smart TV line? Nope.
Is it possible to load my own OS onto this new Core 2 Duo watch easily? Nope.
The problem for us consumers is that Apple doesn’t make something like a Pebble. Ever since Pebble exited the market, I’ve been waiting for anyone else to truly replace it. No company has, and Apple seems not interested in making any variant of the Apple Watch that strays away from the core original product. No e-ink, no round face, no long battery life, etc.
So, the walled garden feels extra restrictive in this case. If Apple doesn’t want to open things to 3rd parties, fine, but at least make something that competes more directly with the product some of us actually want.
So, the walled garden feels extra restrictive in this case. If Apple doesn’t want to open things to 3rd parties, fine, but at least make something that competes more directly with the product some of us actually want.
1986 called, they want their UI back. 🤣
It doesn't matter if Apple opened the door for them or not, there aren't many apps they could build that would be useful with that dot matrix display.
If Apple's products are so bland and incremental, seems like it should be easy for an innovator to move in and take over their market share. I constantly see people with all these great ideas about "Apple Killer" products, but they never seem to move beyond the "ideas" stage.
It doesn't matter if Apple opened the door for them or not, there aren't many apps they could build that would be useful with that dot matrix display.
Why is it Apple's responsibility to help make other companies successful? If they want to be more successful they should build better products. Build your own phones/tablets/computers and code your own OS and then you don't have to worry about what Apple will or won't let you do.
If Apple's products are so bland and incremental, seems like it should be easy for an innovator to move in and take over their market share. I constantly see people with all these great ideas about "Apple Killer" products, but they never seem to move beyond the "ideas" stage.