I would presume it is down to user experience.
Im no expert (obviously) but the app would need to be inch perfect regardless of Android OS in order for the seamless experience that Apple strives for is to exist.
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 Watch Continues to Dominate With Estimated 1 in 3 Share of Smartwatch Sales Last Quarter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would presume it is down to user experience.
Im no expert (obviously) but the app would need to be inch perfect regardless of Android OS in order for the seamless experience that Apple strives for is to exist.
Indeed, it just wouldn’t work that well on android due to how the OS is in comparison.
What an insane discussion, as always on MacRumors. Crazy stuff!
Never quite understood why Android users are so drawn to this forum. I’m sure there are lots of Android forums for discussing Android Wear and so on.
Apple Watch will never, ever work with Android.
The reason why Apple Watch is so good is simple: it only works on an iPhone and iOS.
Trying to make it work on hundreds of different Android phones with different OS versions, Bluetooth stacks etc. is just not worth it. You would end up with a really dumb product.
Just buy an Android Wear device. You will then also get the impractical round display you all seem to want.
If you want an Apple Watch, get an iPhone. It really isn’t very complicated.
Also, Android users are generally low income, non-valuable customers. There is not much point in catering for that market if you want to make money.
Oh, and the analyst report which said that Apple only sold 37 million iPhones.
That’s rubbish - iPhone revenue was 37,3 billion USD. That would mean an ASP of $1000 if they only sold 37 million.
The ASP was between $700 and $800 in the holiday quarter when expensive XS models were fresh. I don’t recall exactly, but it’s in the previous Q financial report.
Why would the ASP suddenly jump to “never seen before” record levels in the first Q?
Never quite understood why Android users are so drawn to this forum. I’m sure there are lots of Android forums for discussing Android Wear and so on.
Apple Watch will never, ever work with Android.
The reason why Apple Watch is so good is simple: it only works on an iPhone and iOS.
Trying to make it work on hundreds of different Android phones with different OS versions, Bluetooth stacks etc. is just not worth it. You would end up with a really dumb product.
Just buy an Android Wear device. You will then also get the impractical round display you all seem to want.
If you want an Apple Watch, get an iPhone. It really isn’t very complicated.
Also, Android users are generally low income, non-valuable customers. There is not much point in catering for that market if you want to make money.
Oh, and the analyst report which said that Apple only sold 37 million iPhones.
That’s rubbish - iPhone revenue was 37,3 billion USD. That would mean an ASP of $1000 if they only sold 37 million.
The ASP was between $700 and $800 in the holiday quarter when expensive XS models were fresh. I don’t recall exactly, but it’s in the previous Q financial report.
Why would the ASP suddenly jump to “never seen before” record levels in the first Q?
Did not say he was locked into anything. Said if he wanted to replace most of the core components of iOS, he would never be able to do that, and he was right, he should not consider iOS.
No free solution. Very similar, just not free.
You keep saying I disagreed with him. From my very first post, I said he was correct, if those were things he wanted to do, he would never be able to do them on iOS and he should stay on Android. Please show how any of my quote says he is wrong or that I disagreed that what he wanted to do was impossible and would always be impossible?
Again, you keep saying that I said he was locked into something, in order to support your narrative that I disagreed with him. I do not disagree with him. If he wants to replace core components of iOS, iOS is not for him. I do not think he is wrong. I think he has every right to want to do those things that he said he wanted to do, and if they are requirements for him to be able to use iOS, it is very likely that he will never be able to do them and so, he should not consider iOS.
What I disagree with is that Apple should allow those things. I understand that Google made a different set of choices with Android and I am glad that people are able to choose between these options. What I do not want is a system where people who share my views are forced to accept trade offs (that things like full time multi-tasking, as an example, require) to support things that do not matter to us. If he, you or anyone else, wants to do those things, then you are free to use Android.
At some point it is likely, Apple’s new silicon will make some additional multi-tasking possible without compromising the things that matter to me and I am happy to wait until then (if it ever happens).
I think it is because they are not content with having the system they choose to use support the features that matter to them, they want those of us who prefer iOS to realize that their choices are the right ones. That is why we constantly get posts like: “Android allows this.” in response to some limit that Apple has chosen for iOS. At the moment, I like the choices that Apple has made. It is always possible that at some point there will be something I want to do that is critical to me that I will not be able to do on iOS and I will switch. What I do not want is to be forced to accept trade offs for things that do not matter to me.
At some point, the custom silicon that is the core of Apple Watch will have progressed far enough that it can be a truly stand alone. When that happens, it might be possible to allow one to set up an Apple Watch from an Android device. Until then, it is just an adjunct to iOS, and as such, will not work with Android devices.
I would put that a bit differently. The reason the Apple Watch is so good is that Apple controls all aspects of the hardware and software. All aspects of the system are tightly coupled from the custom silicon to the software integration with iOS. If that integration does not matter to you, you should buy a different product.
Round watches are an artifact of using watch hands to display the time. In that world, they are the most efficient design (nothing extends far past the end of the watch hand anywhere). The Apple Watch is not an analog device, and as such, it does not make sense to have a round display. For those who value form over function, the round Wear OS watches are available. I have nothing against them, they just do not fit my needs. I love my series 4 because of the larger display. Given that wrist size is a limiting factor for watches, I want the shape that conveys to most information (in this case square or rectangular).
My way of saying this is: If you are comfortable with the design choices Apple has made within the ecosystem, it is a great choice for you. If you are not, do not expect it to change, just because “Android allows that.”
Be serious that's exactly what you said.
On Android he can change the default voice assistant on iOS thta's not possible. A clear example of inflexibility and something he can't do on an iphone.
Yeah it's not like Google Photos so it can't replace it, that's what I wrote.
Yeah most of what you wrote is quite off topic and in short irrelevant to what he wrote. That was obvious from the start
At no point you proved in any convincing way that introducing certain features would result in general OS trade-offs like you claimed.
What you actually proved is that you don't really understand ins and outs of how Android or even iOS function.
Last edited:
And yet, Apple still made 11B in profit in one quarter. Even with a flip and a budget phone at a premium price tags.
Oh boy, they‘re losing market share even with the Apple Watch - the one Apple product that is actually better the competition
Ufortunately for you, Reality is different than what you believe here.
SMartphones is a class. That ranges from $50 pieces of junk android you get at walmart with prepaid plans all the way up to the most expensive designer luxury phone in existence.
Trying to pick and chose "IT ONLY MATTERS IF IT'S $1000+ SMART PHONES!" is irrelevant. Completely, Utterly 100% irrelevant to the point of the report you are arguing against.
And yes. MANY do look at these reports to make business decisions. It's the whole point these reports are commissioned in the first place and the people who generally create them make money doing them. These sorts of stats and figures, while rarely taken in vacuum, absolutely are used in future planning business decisions by companies, especially the ancilliary companies that provide 3rd party support for smartphones and their platforms.
If you're making a 3rd party service, tool, or part for a smartphones and you have limited capital in where you spend your resources and time. Do you create aim for 11% of the market or 89% of the market? Do you focus on a specific companies products? Does Samsung for example have enough market share to get dedicated time and resources for it's 3rd party options? Does Apple have enough market share to be worthwhile? Does Huewei? Etc. this is all relevant. Examples of this, BBOS10 and Windows Phone. Both of which died horrible deaths, because due to their low shares, developers of Apps refused to spend any time or money working on them. They languished and died. continous shrinking market share is something that every company pays attention to.
Just because the data doesn't match your previous expectations doesn't mean the data is wrong or useless. It just means that maybe you neeed to re-adjust your expectations to match the statistics.
Last edited:
1. I just checked eSIM support on Apple's website. The two EU countries which I currently have physical SIMs for have have zero carriers supporting eSIM, and a third country I visit often only has a single carrier (and it looks like that carrier requires a contract to offer it). The support isn't there.
2. Does anyone really need anything? No, it's just better. Putting 512 GB storage into my phone cost almost nothing (compared to Apple's insane markup) so why not just do it and then never have to think about storage again. I can take as much 4k video as I want. I can download a season of a TV show from Amazon Prime just in case we want to watch it on a trip. I have my entire music library whereas on my previous iPhone I would have to maintain playlists of my favourite songs and only sync them. I know what managing with lesser storage is like because I do it all the time with my SSD on my MacBook Pro.
3. I used to live somewhere where the most convenient and cheap travel was a prepaid transport card. It was topped up online but transferring the credit to the physical card required me (using an iPhone then) to travel to the central station to use their machine (which would also frequently be out of order). Android users could just use their app to update the NFC card directly with their phone.
4. Many YouTube videos don't require full attention. YouTube used to mimimise to a small window in the corner if you left the app while a video was playing. That window is small but was very convenient for videos that were just commentary. Now YouTube wants to charge $12/month for that feature, so I just split screen for free.
5. I used to have my wife on my TouchID iPhone too. Now I have a fingerprint on my wife's phone for when I help her with tech support (easier than constantly handing back and forth), and she has one on mine because just in case she ever needed to use my phone I prefer for her to be able to. Having different profiles then isn't so much as a privacy issue as a customisation one, e.g. bookmarks, email accounts, social media.
7. I can't comment on failure of USB-C because I've only been using it for 1.5 years, but lightning definitely screwed me on multiple occasions.
It’s a nice straw-man argument. The real question is do you aim for the 11% of the market that will pay or the 89% that won’t?
Actually, that's not possible. The Apple Watch is too bulky. It needs to be round. It's like they just shrunk the original iPhone design down. It's just another solution in search of a problem. What can it do that your smartphone can't? etc.
My phone can't perform an ECG for a start...
Actually, that's not possible. The Apple Watch is too bulky. It needs to be round. It's like they just shrunk the original iPhone design down. It's just another solution in search of a problem. What can it do that your smartphone can't? etc.
Yeah I reckon the Garmin ones certainly look better. Surprised they're not higher up as lotsa people I know have got 'em!
I think Garmin has a problem with marketing and why they're not selling.
I know this is anecdotal. But back when I was more athletic, Garmin still was very underrrated for their fitness aparel and monitoring. People tend to think of Garmin as the "outdoorsy" stuff. GPS devices for automotive and wilderness stuff. Range finders, etc. So often their fitness stuff went unnoticed.
I remember once in the change room after a game of hockey and someone had on a garmin heart rate monitor strap. It became a discussion point in the locker room, and one thing everyone kind of said was "who knew Garmin made this stuff?"
Actually, that's not possible. The Apple Watch is too bulky. It needs to be round. It's like they just shrunk the original iPhone design down. It's just another solution in search of a problem. What can it do that your smartphone can't? etc.
Well for one thing I leave the house everyday with no phone. That in and of itself makes it worth every penny. Gone are the days sitting around staring at a smartphone instead of being present wherever I am.
Apple Watch is passive. You can’t surf the internet with it or waste much time but you can receive all correspondence and listen to music etc. I hope it gets a little bigger and bulkier so it’ll be able to do a little bit more for longer.
You aim for wherever you're going to make money. End of story. your point here doesn't add up, because you're also assuming that 100% of that 11% of users spend money, and 100% of that 89% don't. That's fallacious binary argument.
but you clearly are aso nitpicking my comment to fit your own narrative. I did clearly state that "while rarely taken in vacuum". This means that it is not the only consideration, but A consideration.
But to ignore the reality that declining marketshare poses potential concern for 3rd party vendors is absolutely blind thinking. As your market share declines, especially in a mature market that isn't growing significantly, you have to take real concern and stock of the situation that the pool of potential purchasers is shrinking and that your potential customer audience is not going to be as strong or robust.
We're going to do some simple hypothetical math:
Company A and Company B, both make widgets of various sizes and shapes.
Company A sells 110, Company B sells 890
you're a vendor making adapters for those widgets. You have a budget for R&D of $5,000
Going rate for those adapters is $25. This price point is non-elastic.
Company A users are more willing to buy. They have a sell through rate of 60%. This equates to 66 purchases of adapters at $25, for a total Revenues of $1,650.
Company B users are less willing to buy. They have a sell through rate of only 25%. This equates to 222 purchases of adapters at $25, for a total Revenues of $5,550
In this scenario, the logical business choice will be to focus your attention only on Company B's Widgets.
Ideally, if the 3rd party companies had unlimitted funding, than yes, of course it makes sense to provide your product to 100% of the market as best possible. But unfortunately, We all have to deal with the idea of limited resourcing and having to make opportunity costs.
it's why these sort of reports are valuable. They're not the whole picture and any CEO making decisions exclusively based off this sort of data is crazy, but to ignore it completely and say it's irrelevant is an incorrect opinion that ignores reality as it is.
This amuses me because You are going to base your hard earned dollars (or venture capital) in basically what amounts to guesstimates. You cooked up a hypothetical scenario to support an hypothetical situation.
There has to be some truth to why some think that new products and services come to Apple/iPhones first. Because their 11% market share is willing to pay.
At any rate I wouldn’t risk my hard earned money on guesstimates of smartphone market share from a firm which allegedly gets more wrong than right.
You must not have read the article or looked at the charts. Apple has "only" 1/3 of market so you should be seeing twice as many total other watches.
Perhaps reading the thread would help? I clearly explained this is other posts.
Maybe for all that private data about you and your family that Google is sucking up off the Androids, they could pay you enough to afford both???
Complete and utter BS. You sound like Eric Schmidt (of Google).
Back in Dec 2011 Schmidt was asked about developers favoring iOS over Android. His answer? That within 6 months developers would switch and make Android their priority. His reason? Developers go where the market share is, and Android market share had passed iOS earlier that year. WOW, was he wrong on that one. Here we are 8 years later and his prediction still hasn't come true.
So much for your ridiculous argument that companies spend their capital on the 89% and not the 11%. The reason is simple. 11% of people who actually spend money on Apps is worth more than 89% of people that don't. iOS App Store revenues are a whopping 2X Google Play revenues despite lower market share. Adjusted per user and the average iOS user generates 4X as much revenue as the average Android user.
So tell me where the developers go? To the platform that generates literally twice the revenue or the platform that has more users. We know the answer already - they go to iOS/ The App Store. This is one example why nobody would look at this stupid IDC report to decide where they should invest money.
In all my posts I have never once claimed that Apple is currently at risk of losing developers.
Only that these sorts of reports DO fall under consideration for future planning.
your need to jump to Apples defence, even when Apple is not being attacked belies your own opinions on the matter, and no amount of logic or truth is going to matter anyways
So have a great day
I recommend calming down
don't think so.. xcode is complex and hard to get roi.The only bigger market only on us compare 2 world.
