Apple Restricting New Pebble Smartwatches From 'Being Awesome' With iPhone

[Kal Madda]

This is a wild argument. The Pebble guys aren't asking for Apple to give them anything. They are just asking to be able to implement some features. They are willing to do all the leg work to put those features in place. Apple just says, "No, you can't have those features. Only our watch can have those features." Apple has set things up in a way that makes it impossible to compete with the Apple Watch on a level playing field. It is really wild that anyone would argue that this is okay...
Pebble doesn't want "50% of the market share". They just want to create a watch that does a few convenient things for a small group of people. Your argument about "letting people in on what their engineers spent years developing" is also a weird argument. That's how APIs work. You make them for other people. Imagine if Microsoft said that only their games could access the graphics card APIs and 3rd party games had to do all of their rendering in the CPU. Their games would run faster and look way better than the competition... which would make it impossible to make a game as great as what Microsoft could make. Surely you can see how that would be a problem.
"I'm pretty much happy that Apple keeps this kind of people away from the ecosystem." What kind of people? People who want to make smart watches? You are suggesting that Apple should be the only people allow to make smart watches? Once again... that's quite a wild take.

That’s, quite frankly, bull… Third party smart watches are fully capable of competing with the Apple Watch, and are doing so… Not all of the Apple Watch’s competition is even compatible with the iPhone, Google has the Pixel Watch, Samsung has the Galaxy Watch, and there are several other Android-only competitors. There are also those that support Android and iOS like Garmin, Amazfit, etc.

Apple isn’t telling smart watch manufacturers what features they can roll out in their own smart watch OSes, they are simply not giving away APIs to integrate with their software/OS. Apple isn’t obligated to give away a bunch of APIs to access their own software if they don’t want to. That’s a choice they can make or not make. They’re not obligated to do a bunch of extra work for free to make sure that third party smart watches can do x, y, or z with Apple’s own software…

Also, they actually do offer quite a few APIs and features that third party smart watches can make use of. Third party smart watches can integrate with many of Apple’s own apps, like Health, Calendar, etc, can receive and initiate phone calls, third party smart watches can even integrate with Siri so you can ask your watch “hey Siri” and do anything you’d do with Siri with your third party smart watch. Smart Watches can distribute watch faces and apps for their watches in their iOS apps. I think the only real “limit” is accessing iMessages, which makes complete sense since iMessage is Apple’s proprietary message encryption service, and sending iMessages to third parties who don’t necessarily care about your privacy kind of defeats the whole purpose of using iMessage in the first place…

 

[blaine00]

No, Pebble is asking Apple to do a significant amount of work to enable those features to function on third party watches. Apple engineers don't work for free, what's the ROI for Apple to do that?

They are absolutely not asking for that. First of all, the APIs are already there... Apple uses them... that is how the Apple Watch can respond to iMessage messages. Third parties are just restricted from using them. So, the "work" that would be required for Apple is they would have to give 3rd party companies permission to use them. You could argue that Apple may need to do a little work to clean them up and make them more streamline for public use, but I wouldn't imagine this would take a lot of effort. Second, if they did not have these APIs available or didn't want to make them available, the 3rd party watch companies would absolutely be willing to write their own solution. Eric did just that with the Beeper app... before Apple shut it down. They are not allowed to. Apple not only blocks the use of already created APIs, they tell developers that they can't make their own solution. An smart watch app that allowed the watch to respond to text messages would never be approved in the App Store.

 

[blaine00]

That’s, quite frankly, bull… Third party smart watches are fully capable of competing with the Apple Watch, and are doing so… Not all of the Apple Watch’s competition is even compatible with the iPhone, Google has the Pixel Watch, Samsung has the Galaxy Watch, and there are several other Android-only competitors. There are also those that support Android and iOS like Garmin, Amazfit, etc.

Apple isn’t telling smart watch manufacturers what features they can roll out in their own smart watch OSes, they are simply not giving away APIs to integrate with their software/OS. Apple isn’t obligated to give away a bunch of APIs to access their own software if they don’t want to. That’s a choice they can make or not make. They’re not obligated to do a bunch of extra work for free to make sure that third party smart watches can do x, y, or z with Apple’s own software…

Also, they actually do offer quite a few APIs and features that third party smart watches can make use of. Third party smart watches can integrate with many of Apple’s own apps, like Health, Calendar, etc, can receive and initiate phone calls, third party smart watches can even integrate with Siri so you can ask your watch “hey Siri” and do anything you’d do with Siri with your third party smart watch. Smart Watches can distribute watch faces and apps for their watches in their iOS apps. I think the only real “limit” is accessing iMessages, which makes complete sense since iMessage is Apple’s proprietary message encryption service, and sending iMessages to third parties who don’t necessarily care about your privacy kind of defeats the whole purpose of using iMessage in the first place…

I believe you can use Wear OS watches with an iPhone... at least, you could do it in the past. The experience was deeply degraded when compared to using an Apple Watch because they weren't allowed access to the same things the Apple watch could access. On the Android end, there is actually nothing stopping Apple from making the Apple Watch fully compatible with Android. They could make it work just as well as the Pixel Watch because Android provides the APIs. So, with Android, smart watches are actually given a level playing field of competition.
Apple does not allow 3rd party apps to access iMessage in any way. If Pebble was to do ALL of the work in writing the integration APIs, Apple would reject their app... because it isn't allowed. So... the amount of work required on Apple's side is a moot point... but I would counter that with, if the Apple Watch can do it, that means the API has already been written. They just have to open it up for 3rd party use.

I'm glad they offer "some API" access. My point has been, it seems very unfair and noncompetitive to engineer a situation where 3rd parties can't replicate certain features. So, in regards to the iPhone smart watch market, no one is allowed to make a watch that offers what Apple Watch offers.

 

[Kal Madda]

They are absolutely not asking for that. First of all, the APIs are already there... Apple uses them... that is how the Apple Watch can respond to iMessage messages. Third parties are just restricted from using them. So, the "work" that would be required for Apple is they would have to give 3rd party companies permission to use them. You could argue that Apple may need to do a little work to clean them up and make them more streamline for public use, but I wouldn't imagine this would take a lot of effort. Second, if they did not have these APIs available or didn't want to make them available, the 3rd party watch companies would absolutely be willing to write their own solution. Eric did just that with the Beeper app... before Apple shut it down. They are not allowed to. Apple not only blocks the use of already created APIs, they tell developers that they can't make their own solution. A smart watch app that allowed the watch to respond to text messages would never be approved in the App Store.

They are. They’re asking for Apple to do additional work in one way or another for free…

Second, the fact you’re citing Beeper in a positive way is enough to greatly undermine your argument. Beeper was trying to steal Apple’s product and distribute it without Apple’s permission while using Apple’s server space. It really wasn’t much different than if I found a way to get access to Prime Video’s library of streaming shows, and then made an app that gave access to all of Prime Video’s shows without their permission. It’s straight up piracy. So that alone discredits your argument significantly if you believe that piracy is good…

Third, it’s not just about “streamlining for public use”. Opening these APIs to public use would like also open up some major privacy and security issues and concerns. Apple has many safeguards in place that prevent them from accessing or misusing user data. But third party’s given access to some such APIs without such safeguards in place could create major privacy and security concerns.

Fourth, Apple is not obligated to make sure all other competitor’s devices have the same level of integration with their devices as their own devices do. The Apple Watch is technically its own separate device, not an accessory, even though many people view it and use it as such. It runs its own operating system, and can work independently of the iPhone. Apple doesn’t have to support Continuity features on Android phones, nor do they have to support iMessage on Android phones, and the exact same logic extends to third party smart watches as well. They are independent devices that can integrate with a smart phone, or be used by themselves. Apple isn’t obligated to make it easy to integrate some third party manufacturer’s device with their own. But still third party smart watches can actually do most of the same things an Apple Watch can do, and can even integrate with Siri. Apple if anything has actually been very generous with the level of integration they offer to third party devices in this respect. An Android phone can’t sync with Apple Health, Calendar, etc, integrate with Siri, and all those other things.

 

[Kal Madda]

I believe you can use Wear OS watches with an iPhone... at least, you could do it in the past. The experience was deeply degraded when compared to using an Apple Watch because they weren't allowed access to the same things the Apple watch could access. On the Android end, there is actually nothing stopping Apple from making the Apple Watch fully compatible with Android. They could make it work just as well as the Pixel Watch because Android provides the APIs. So, with Android, smart watches are actually given a level playing field of competition.
Apple does not allow 3rd party apps to access iMessage in any way. If Pebble was to do ALL of the work in writing the integration APIs, Apple would reject their app... because it isn't allowed. So... the amount of work required on Apple's side is a moot point... but I would counter that with, if the Apple Watch can do it, that means the API has already been written. They just have to open it up for 3rd party use.

I'm glad they offer "some API" access. My point has been, it seems very unfair and noncompetitive to engineer a situation where 3rd parties can't replicate certain features. So, in regards to the iPhone smart watch market, no one is allowed to make a watch that offers what Apple Watch offers.

WearOS watches don’t work with the iPhone for several years now. And I’m even pretty sure that many of the Galaxy Watch’s features are only compatible with other Samsung devices.

Third parties shouldn’t have access to iMessage. That defeats the entire point of iMessage. iMessage is Apple’s proprietary encryption system. Making iMessage open to third parties would likely raise many security and privacy concerns… And it would basically defeat the whole purpose.

Besides, third party smart watches can integrate with Siri, which means you should be able to just ask your watch to send a reply to a text, which is actually easier and makes more sense than typing a response on a tiny watch keyboard. So third party smart watches aren’t all that “limited”…

And smart watches are independent devices, even though we often consider them to be accessories. It would be like expecting Apple to support iMessage on Android phones. Or Continuity features. In fact, much of why the Apple Watch fits a little more seamlessly into Apple’s ecosystem is that it has Apple’s apps installed natively on the Watch. iMessage is a native app on watchOS. That’s what allows an Apple Watch to respond to an iMessage, not some API some management app for the watch that lives on the phone taps into to send a reply. The Apple Watch has a native messaging app onboard that can send and receive texts…

At the end of the day, Apple isn’t obligated to make third party hardware and software support their features…

 

[thiscatisfat]

This is a wild argument. The Pebble guys aren't asking for Apple to give them anything. They are just asking to be able to implement some features. They are willing to do all the leg work to put those features in place. Apple just says, "No, you can't have those features. Only our watch can have those features." Apple has set things up in a way that makes it impossible to compete with the Apple Watch on a level playing field. It is really wild that anyone would argue that this is okay...
Pebble doesn't want "50% of the market share". They just want to create a watch that does a few convenient things for a small group of people. Your argument about "letting people in on what their engineers spent years developing" is also a weird argument. That's how APIs work. You make them for other people. Imagine if Microsoft said that only their games could access the graphics card APIs and 3rd party games had to do all of their rendering in the CPU. Their games would run faster and look way better than the competition... which would make it impossible to make a game as great as what Microsoft could make. Surely you can see how that would be a problem.
"I'm pretty much happy that Apple keeps this kind of people away from the ecosystem." What kind of people? People who want to make smart watches? You are suggesting that Apple should be the only people allow to make smart watches? Once again... that's quite a wild take.

There's nothing wild about my take. It's Apple's hardware and software, they have every right to not let anyone in on it if they don't want to. If they want to make an Apple Watch to be the absolute best watch to be used with their hardware and software, heck even the only watch to be used with their iPhone exclusively, they're absolutely entitled to, since it's all their freaking hardware and software. Pebble and the likes want to take advantage of Apple's hard work and success, nothing more. Apple has every right to make sure you can't even use some Pebble with their hardware and software if they wanted to, how about that? If Apple wants to be the only one to be making smart watches that work with iPhone, sure they can, why not? It's their business, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm not defending Apple here specifically, I would apply this across the board. If I develop something that becomes as successful, I will want to do what I want with it, not what you want me to do with it. If you don't like what I'm doing, buy what something else is doing instead, but make the decision before you decide to spend your money on my product as-is and then complain about what I let you and what I won't let you do with it, you knew that before you bought it. Apple can do what they want with their stuff, all this "anti-competitive" bs is just that - bs.

 

[Kal Madda]

They are absolutely not asking for that. First of all, the APIs are already there... Apple uses them... that is how the Apple Watch can respond to iMessage messages. Third parties are just restricted from using them. So, the "work" that would be required for Apple is they would have to give 3rd party companies permission to use them. You could argue that Apple may need to do a little work to clean them up and make them more streamline for public use, but I wouldn't imagine this would take a lot of effort.

The reason the Apple Watch can send replies to iMessages is that it has a native iMessages app installed on watchOS, not some API that an iPhone companion watch app taps into that somehow allows it to respond. It’s a direct thing that likely wouldn’t even work on other smart watches without Apple’s Messages app onboard…

 

[Kal Madda]

There's nothing wild about my take. It's Apple's hardware and software, they have every right to not let anyone in on it if they don't want to. If they want to make an Apple Watch to be the absolute best watch to be used with their hardware and software, heck even the only watch to be used with their iPhone exclusively, they're absolutely entitled to, since it's all their freaking hardware and software. Pebble and the likes want to take advantage of Apple's hard work and success, nothing more. Apple has every right to make sure you can't even use some Pebble with their hardware and software if they wanted to, how about that? If Apple wants to be the only one to be making smart watches that work with iPhone, sure they can, why not? It's their business, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm not defending Apple here specifically, I would apply this across the board. If I develop something that becomes as successful, I will want to do what I want with it, not what you want me to do with it. If you don't like what I'm doing, buy what something else is doing instead, but make the decision before you decide to spend your money on my product and then complain what I let you and what I won't let you do with it, you knew that before you bought it. Apple can do what they want with their stuff, all this "anti-competitive" bs is just that - bs.

Exactly this! Their product, their work, their property. No one is entitled to Apple’s work or property. Apple could easily make the Apple Watch the only smart watch that could have any level of integration with the iPhone. And that would probably actually be easier for Apple, because the Apple Watch has native versions of all of Apple’s core apps on watchOS. They’re not using some API for a companion app to reply to iMessages, the Watch can directly support and reply to iMessages because it has the native app built in on watchOS. Apple has actually been very generous in the way they’ve enabled third-party smart watches to integrate, they can integrate with Siri (even Android phones can’t do that), they can integrate with Apple Health, they can integrate with the Calendar and several other apps, and can do nearly everything an Apple Watch can. While we often view these smart watches as phone accessories, the truth is that they’re actually independent devices running their own OS and their own apps. So this would be akin to expecting Apple to create APIs for Android phones to access iMessage. It just doesn’t make much sense…

 

[blaine00]

They are. They’re asking for Apple to do additional work in one way or another for free…

Second, the fact you’re citing Beeper in a positive way is enough to greatly undermine your argument. Beeper was trying to steal Apple’s product and distribute it without Apple’s permission while using Apple’s server space. It really wasn’t much different than if I found a way to get access to Prime Video’s library of streaming shows, and then made an app that gave access to all of Prime Video’s shows without their permission. It’s straight up piracy. So that alone discredits your argument significantly if you believe that piracy is good…

Third, it’s not just about “streamlining for public use”. Opening these APIs to public use would like also open up some major privacy and security issues and concerns. Apple has many safeguards in place that prevent them from accessing or misusing user data. But third party’s given access to some such APIs without such safeguards in place could create major privacy and security concerns.

Fourth, Apple is not obligated to make sure all other competitor’s devices have the same level of integration with their devices as their own devices do. The Apple Watch is technically its own separate device, not an accessory, even though many people view it and use it as such. It runs its own operating system, and can work independently of the iPhone. Apple doesn’t have to support Continuity features on Android phones, nor do they have to support iMessage on Android phones, and the exact same logic extends to third party smart watches as well. They are independent devices that can integrate with a smart phone, or be used by themselves. Apple isn’t obligated to make it easy to integrate some third party manufacturer’s device with their own. But still third party smart watches can actually do most of the same things an Apple Watch can do, and can even integrate with Siri. Apple if anything has actually been very generous with the level of integration they offer to third party devices in this respect. An Android phone can’t sync with Apple Health, Calendar, etc, integrate with Siri, and all those other things.

My point in citing Beeper wasn't to make any sort of ethical proclamation. My point was, they are totally willing to do the leg work to implement the features. But, Beeper didn't "steal" anything... they were trying to make a client that would talk to iMessage. Sure... not a great idea... because something being able to access their iMessage servers can be seen as a security risk... and iMessage is intentionally not an open platform.

The groundwork for a public API to reply to text messages is already there. I don't feel like there would be much to add... but I'm opening to being wrong on this. The functionality to mirror the message itself already exists... so you would just need a way to send a message back. So, when first installing the Pebble app (or whatever app), you would be prompted by iOS to decide whether or not you want to give the app permission to reply to text messages. Without that permission, the functionality is locked. Notifications themselves probably already have some identifier that can be used as a reference (and if not, implementing such a reference shouldn't take more than a few lines of code). So, the watch would be sending a string of text with a tag identifying which notification it is in reference to and iOS would accept the request and pass it on to iMessage which would apply it to the appropriate message thread. The watch and 3rd party app doesn't need any direct access to iMessage. It doesn't need to be able to read anything new. In a WORSE case scenario, the app could potentially send SPAM messages to all of the message threads referenced in notifications... but this activity would quickly be discovered and be reported and the app would quickly be removed from the store. Seems like the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

Apple is not obligated to help competitors, but it seems wrong to engineer roadblocks to competition. Interesting thing about the Continuity features you mention is that, Android phones CAN actually do that. Apple doesn't provide them a way to do that, but macOS is open enough to allow developers to do it themselves. There are apps that allow you to mirror your Android phone over to the Mac. Developing the universal copy and paste wouldn't be difficult (someone may have already done it).

Apple has made a lot of positive changes over the years. I used to have a long list of reasons why I preferred Android to iPhone. Over the years, most those reasons were addressed. Things like, allowing emulators in the app store, having support for mass storage devices, scheduled text replies, and further home screen customization have been implemented in recent years. I feel like this is the last major hold out... that and allowing 3rd party web browsers to use their own web engine.

 

[victorvictoria]

Correct, it is not fair to other manufacturer's. Nobody can fully compete with the Apple Watch because Apple restricts features at the OS level for other devices. And yes, I should be able to decide what smart watch I use on my iPhone without having to lose features like responding to notifications because I am not using an Apple Watch.

This isn't Utopia. Apple is a publlcly traded, for-profit corporation. Leadership has to answer to the company's owners. That's me and every other shareholder. There is no logical reason Apple should take actions that would hinder profitability. That would be unfair to the company's owners: ie me and the millions of other shareholders. If you want a cheap imitation of an Apple Watch, you're welcome to the experience. Just don't ask us Apple shareholders to pay for it!

 

[Kal Madda]

My point in citing Beeper wasn't to make any sort of ethical proclamation. My point was, they are totally willing to do the leg work to implement the features. But, Beeper didn't "steal" anything... they were trying to make a client that would talk to iMessage. Sure... not a great idea... because something being able to access their iMessage servers can be seen as a security risk... and iMessage is intentionally not an open platform.

The groundwork for a public API to reply to text messages is already there. I don't feel like there would be much to add... but I'm opening to being wrong on this. The functionality to mirror the message itself already exists... so you would just need a way to send a message back. So, when first installing the Pebble app (or whatever app), you would be prompted by iOS to decide whether or not you want to give the app permission to reply to text messages. Without that permission, the functionality is locked. Notifications themselves probably already have some identifier that can be used as a reference (and if not, implementing such a reference shouldn't take more than a few lines of code). So, the watch would be sending a string of text with a tag identifying which notification it is in reference to and iOS would accept the request and pass it on to iMessage which would apply it to the appropriate message thread. The watch and 3rd party app doesn't need any direct access to iMessage. It doesn't need to be able to read anything new. In a WORSE case scenario, the app could potentially send SPAM messages to all of the message threads referenced in notifications... but this activity would quickly be discovered and be reported and the app would quickly be removed from the store. Seems like the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

Apple is not obligated to help competitors, but it seems wrong to engineer roadblocks to competition. Interesting thing about the Continuity features you mention is that, Android phones CAN actually do that. Apple doesn't provide them a way to do that, but macOS is open enough to allow developers to do it themselves. There are apps that allow you to mirror your Android phone over to the Mac. Developing the universal copy and paste wouldn't be difficult (someone may have already done it).

Apple has made a lot of positive changes over the years. I used to have a long list of reasons why I preferred Android to iPhone. Over the years, most those reasons were addressed. Things like, allowing emulators in the app store, having support for mass storage devices, scheduled text replies, and further home screen customization have been implemented in recent years. I feel like this is the last major hold out... that and allowing 3rd party web browsers to use their own web engine.

Beeper was quite literally committing theft because it was using Apple’s product without their permission and against their terms of use, and was also piggybacking on Apple’s server space, again, without Apple’s permission…

They work completely differently, so I don’t believe the required API already exists. Apple Watch can reply to iMessages because it has the iMessages app natively installed on watchOS. It’s a more direct thing. Third party smart watches would have to use a companion app on the iPhone, which is different from the way the Apple Watch works, so the required APIs would likely also be different. I don’t think any of us have a complete picture of what potential privacy and security issues could be opened up by third party devices integrated with iMessages. And as I already mentioned, third party smart watches can integrate with Siri, so you should be able to just ask Siri to send a response, which is better than trying to type on a little smart watch keyboard anyways…

My point is you can’t just automatically AirDrop files from an iPhone to an Android phone, nor can you automatically use things like Universal Clipboard. Apple doesn’t go out of their way to create extra APIs for those standalone devices to integrate with iOS functionality, why should they be expected to go out of their way to create APIs for other standalone devices to integrate with iOS functionality. Because the truth is that smartwatches aren’t really on the same level as earbuds or styluses. Those are more classic “accessories”. Smart watches are really standalone devices. They run their own OS, their own apps, etc. So expecting Apple to create APIs, or allow hardware from other companies to use Apple features like AirDrop, Universal Clipboard, or iMessages, makes no sense…

 

[Spock]

This isn't Utopia. Apple is a publlcly traded, for-profit corporation. Leadership has to answer to the company's owners. That's me and every other shareholder. There is no logical reason Apple should take actions that would hinder profitability. That would be unfair to the company's owners: ie me and the millions of other shareholders. If you want a cheap imitation of an Apple Watch, you're welcome to the experience. Just don't ask us Apple shareholders to pay for it!

Not really how that works. If that were the case, Apple would still be using Lightning port on all devices so they could continue to profit over Made for iPhone.

 

[Kal Madda]

Not really how that works. If that were the case, Apple would still be using Lightning port on all devices so they could continue to profit over Made for iPhone.

And that would be their prerogative… It’s their product, they should be free to decide whatever port they choose to ship it with. The EU is way out of line with their silly edicts that are far outside the proper scope of government authority…

 

[blaine00]

WearOS watches don’t work with the iPhone for several years now. And I’m even pretty sure that many of the Galaxy Watch’s features are only compatible with other Samsung devices.

Third parties shouldn’t have access to iMessage. That defeats the entire point of iMessage. iMessage is Apple’s proprietary encryption system. Making iMessage open to third parties would likely raise many security and privacy concerns… And it would basically defeat the whole purpose.

Besides, third party smart watches can integrate with Siri, which means you should be able to just ask your watch to send a reply to a text, which is actually easier and makes more sense than typing a response on a tiny watch keyboard. So third party smart watches aren’t all that “limited”…

And smart watches are independent devices, even though we often consider them to be accessories. It would be like expecting Apple to support iMessage on Android phones. Or Continuity features. In fact, much of why the Apple Watch fits a little more seamlessly into Apple’s ecosystem is that it has Apple’s apps installed natively on the Watch. iMessage is a native app on watchOS. That’s what allows an Apple Watch to respond to an iMessage, not some API some management app for the watch that lives on the phone taps into to send a reply. The Apple Watch has a native messaging app onboard that can send and receive texts…

At the end of the day, Apple isn’t obligated to make third party hardware and software support their features…

Third parties would not need access to iMessage. They would only need access to an API that could pass replies to specific message based on which notification you are replying to. The watch would pass the reply along with a reference tag so that iOS would know what message to apply it to. Nothing more would be needed. No crazy authentication or backdoor.

I personally don’t want there to be a back door built in for devs to get to my personal data.

There wouldn't need to be a back door. That's not how APIs work. The API would just pass the reply to iMessage which would then apply it to the message you are replying to. The watch doesn't need to access iMessage directly. It would reply based on the notifications it receives.

 

[blaine00]

I would never send this guy a dime. He sold out and left original Pebble owners with basically bricks and paper weights.
Fool me once.

He did not. His company was going bankrupt so it was sold to Fitbit. Many of the employees went on to work there. As far as the services, he worked with the Rebble community to allow for the Pebble services to continue. They even released an updated to the Pebble app to allow it to connect to Rebble since Fitbit was decommissioning the old services. Of course, he could only go so far... he couldn't continue to update the app because it was owned by Fitbit. He himself has continued to wear and use his Pebble watch thoughout the years.

My question is, what do you think he should have done? Refuse to sell and let the company go bankrupt... which would have had the same result?

 

[NufSaid]

Last i checked....there isn't any restrictions on developing their own phone to work their watch. Stop griping and get designing.

 

[Kal Madda]

Third parties would not need access to iMessage. They would only need access to an API that could pass replies to specific message based on which notification you are replying to. The watch would pass the reply along with a reference tag so that iOS would know what message to apply it to. Nothing more would be needed. No crazy authentication or backdoor.

We don’t necessarily know what all potential privacy and security threats could be opened up. And besides, the API that would be required would likely be different than what Apple currently does with the Apple Watch, so it would likely require extra work to implement vs what they doing with the Apple Watch, which has a native iMessages app which allows it to reply. Besides, smart watches can integrate with Siri, why not just ask Siri to send a response to the text?

And again, Apple is under no obligations to smart watch manufacturers. They could make it impossible to integrate any smartwatch other than the Apple Watch if they wanted, and that would be their prerogative. It’s their product…

 

[blaine00]

We don’t necessarily know what all potential privacy and security threats could be opened up. And besides, the API that would be required would likely be different than what Apple currently does with the Apple Watch, so it would likely require extra work to implement vs what they doing with the Apple Watch, which has a native iMessages app which allows it to reply. Besides, smart watches can integrate with Siri, why not just ask Siri to send a response to the text?

And again, Apple is under no obligations to smart watch manufacturers. They could make it impossible to integrate any smartwatch other than the Apple Watch if they wanted, and that would be their prerogative. It’s their product…

I didn't realize the Siri integration was an option. Are there any watches doing that that you know of?

 

[John_Blackthorne]

You realise that this is over 25 years old, right?

I watched some BBC today. Still looks like trash.

 

[azhava]

If consumers were equally tied to Walmart as iPhone users are tired to the Apple App store, your argument might make sense. Perhaps if we reach a point where, as a condition of buying your house in a certain city, you are only allowed to shop at Walmart, then maybe it would be close to the same thing. Of course, if that kind of thing were to exist in the real world, people would absolutely expect Walmart to be required to carry competing brands. This of course is a pretty silly exercise because the parallel you are trying to point to doesn't actually exist anywhere in the world.

There are some things we buy that are only available at Walmart; other grocery stores don't carry that brand/product. So our choice is if we insist on getting that particular brand/product, we have to shop at Walmart. Otherwise we can shop at another store and make the best of what they have available, even though it's not exactly what we wanted.

Life's full of choices like that.

 

[Kal Madda]

I didn't realize the Siri integration was an option. Are there any watches doing that that you know of?

The Garmin Venu 3 does it. I almost bought that one, but it was a bit pricey at the time. 👍🏻. But I’ve seen people use it with Siri, and it’s pretty great! 👍🏻

 

[victorvictoria]

Not really how that works. If that were the case, Apple would still be using Lightning port on all devices so they could continue to profit over Made for iPhone.

So how does it work? Is Apple not a publicly traded company? Is the not company answerable to its shareholders (the owners)? And you missed the boat with your "Lightning" analogy. Apple adopted USB-C not to abandon a proprietary connector. Apple did it in the name of PROFIT! Since USB-C connections are mandatory by EU mandate, Apple was faced with two bad choices and one good one.
1) Abandon the EU market: BAD, BADDER, BADDEST
2) Use different connectors for EU and non-EU nations: BAD and expensive
3) Adopt USB-C for all its future devices: GOOD and that's how you maintain profits, the only reason Apple is in business.

If you want to learn the reasons for any capitalist nation's business activities, just follow the money. It's always about the money.

 

[Abazigal]

He did not. His company was going bankrupt so it was sold to Fitbit. Many of the employees went on to work there. As far as the services, he worked with the Rebble community to allow for the Pebble services to continue. They even released an updated to the Pebble app to allow it to connect to Rebble since Fitbit was decommissioning the old services. Of course, he could only go so far... he couldn't continue to update the app because it was owned by Fitbit. He himself has continued to wear and use his Pebble watch thoughout the years.

My question is, what do you think he should have done? Refuse to sell and let the company go bankrupt... which would have had the same result?

I owned the OG Fitbit, and while I loved it, I also felt it was a blackberry waiting to happen. You can only push a Casio watch so far before it stops being a Casio watch altogether, and I believe that's why Fitbit ultimately failed in the market as well. People ultimately wanted more in a smartwatch than what they were able to give.

Its limitations go beyond not having deeper integration with iOS. Build quality was cheap, the software was very basic, and app support is non-existent. I remember paying for a notes app and having to jump through hoops just to pay for it, get it onto my pebble watch, and sync text on it.

The much-lauded 7-day battery life never quite materialised (I often got 3-4 days). The charger had a tendency to stop working (I think it was due to corrosion of the pogo pins). It was cute, it's clear that the founder lacked the resources to take it to the next level, and as it turns out, not even Fitbit could save the brand.

My takeaway is that the man is not going to stop at just demanding for access to actionable notifications (since my Apple Watch does way more than that). There's also Siri access, contactless payments, there's integration with other apps (like controlling the camera via the watch), and just having basic functions like a calculator.

Will this be enough to resuscitate the brand? I doubt it.

 

[Spock]

So how does it work? Is Apple not a publicly traded company? Is the not company answerable to its shareholders (the owners)? And you missed the boat with your "Lightning" analogy. Apple adopted USB-C not to abandon a proprietary connector. Apple did it in the name of PROFIT! Since USB-C connections are mandatory by EU mandate, Apple was faced with two bad choices and one good one.
1) Abandon the EU market: BAD, BADDER, BADDEST
2) Use different connectors for EU and non-EU nations: BAD and expensive
3) Adopt USB-C for all its future devices: GOOD and that's how you maintain profits, the only reason Apple is in business.

If you want to learn the reasons for any capitalist nation's business activities, just follow the money. It's always about the money.

All you are doing is explaining why Apple does what they are doing. I know why they do it and it’s wrong and several countries agree. Apple just lost an appeal this week in Germany. "The products and services that Apple offers are highly vertically integrated, closely interconnected and largely reserved for users of Apple devices,"

 

[terrapinjess]

If you want the Apple Watch experience, buy an Apple Watch. This is coming from someone who ABSOLUTELY LOVED the original Pebble Watch. I now use a Garmin Instinct 2X but I have it set up to not send me notifications from iPhone and it just syncs the health data to the app and I LOVE IT. It’s the best watch I’ve ever owned. Some folks want the Apple Watch experience and some don’t want it anymore after having it; that’s me. I had a series 4, 7, and Ultra. I won’t go back… too much micro-management and no tactile buttons. I’m curious to see what Pebble will do now that they’re “back” but it’s going to take a lot to get me away from this Instinct.
What I’m trying to say is, make your own product; if you want the Apple Watch, you can have it, there are like 12 iterations of it. If you want something else, sounds like FitBit, Garmin, and now Pebble again, are available.
Pebble should focus on creating a unique experience, not reinventing the same thing already offered. That’s what I loved about them during their heyday.