Custom watch faces?

[Mac 128]

Ah, of course. I'm embarrassed to say I didn't even think of such examples.

I see a drawback, though -- at times, the hands cover the subdials. On normal watches, we just put up with it because that's just how it's always been. On my AW, I've already set my faces with the date in a corner because it's not restricted to stay inside the dial where it sometimes gets blocked by the hands.

Also, most complications are "actionable" -- tap them to go to their parent apps. I suppose it'd be reasonable to tap subdials, but I think tapping the corners of the screen is more reliable.

You're thinking about this like a mechanical watch. The complications could actually shift with the hands, or the portion of the hands blocking the complications could go transparent when covering them. The complications don't have to be any harder to touch to open the related app inside the circle than outside -- the touch zone is still as clearly definable. In fact, the zones can extend outward to make it easier to hit them.

You can put roadblocks in front of any idea, even good ones. There are trade offs to everything, but making a square watch face with complications on the inside is again not rocket surgery.

 

[Lloydbm41]

I'd like to see some sample custom faces for the AW.

Look up a few posts. That is one on my Huawei watch.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Looks like good photography and post-processing to me... unless you've seen/held one.

You know what else looks like "good quality"? Every product in a marketing ad, ever.

I own one and posted up the pics above. And in terms of quality, I put it above Apple. Why? Because I don't have to deal with a sticking rotating crown, don't have o-rings popping out to deal with, don't have to worry about buffing out scratch marks and I don't have to worry about lettering rubbing off. Quality is more than just slapping an Apple logo on a product.

 

[Lloydbm41]

You're thinking about this like a mechanical watch. The complications could actually shift with the hands, or the portion of the hands blocking the complications could go transparent when covering them. The complications don't have to be any harder to touch to open the related app inside the circle than outside -- the touch zone is still as clearly definable. In fact, the zones can extend outward to make it easier to hit them.

You can put roadblocks in front of any idea, even good ones. There are trade offs to everything, but making a square watch face with complications on the inside is again not rocket surgery.

If you haven't created a watchface, then you probably wouldn't know this. But your idea of moving a complication with the hands is a bad idea, because it eats battery life. However, your idea of making the opacity 0 when moving over a complication is a really good one and easy to implement. Apple won't do it of course, but I think I will give it a try on one of my watchfaces I am currently making.

 

[Lloydbm41]

I'd be willing to bet Apple will allow much more customization (minding licensing issues - because you know people will try to skirt those)... as soon as they get the functionality and stability where they want it. Functionality trumps customization - as it should. (software, anyway). This is OS 2 - which is really 1 - we're talking about. On a rushed product. By the time they get to the .2 release, like the iPod Nano mentioned earlier, I'd bet you'll see dozens of new options, if not an entire section in the App Store. Bitching about that now is silly, considering the fact that they're scrambling just to get a polished version of the OS out to the public.

You think Apple will allow it? You do realize you are talking about the same company that hasn't allowed people to customize an iPhone since day 1? Simple things like putting an icon where you want on the screen or adding live wallpapers is still forbidden.

 

[Enygmatic]

You think Apple will allow it? You do realize you are talking about the same company that hasn't allowed people to customize an iPhone since day 1? Simple things like putting an icon where you want on the screen or adding live wallpapers is still forbidden.

Yes, I think they will. You seem pretty anti-Apple; not all of their practices have been favorites, I know. I just suggest waiting a bit to see what they do with the Watch and OS. Custom faces (or at least, a much larger variety) are a no-brainer - the fashion and customization aspect are highlighted more than any other Apple product, making iPhone comparisons moot. JBers will find a way to skirt it, but I'm pretty sure Apple's main worry will be license and copyright issues. Once they get a system in place, you'll see that open up.

 

[Mac 128]

Whether it's Jobs, Ive or Newson, Apple has long told us what we wanted, and PCs/Androids have always had much more flexibility. Plus, the Watch is Apple's first wearable, which is a different ballgame.

Either way, I disagree about none of the current faces being fashionable. The last thing I want is a digital watch face to closely resemble an analog watch face. I like the current, modern faces of the watch.

Usually this debate boils down to people's opinions about personal taste at some point. The fact is there are plenty of people who do want a smart watch face that looks like a real mechanical watch. I would argue that the Hermes does exactly that -- imitates an existing mechanical watch face. The fact that the black Hermes Cape Cod face design happens to be well suited to Apple's simplified white on black design scheme does not change that. And Apple has shown they are willing to create a digital watch face which closely resembles an analogue face for enough money (I'll be curious to see if the Hermes watch face can be modified with complications at all).

Regardless, Apple could have tried a little harder to offer more initial options. As I pointed out earlier, the iPod Nano had 18 watch faces once Apple saw people were wearing it as a watch, all within its first year. Obviously Apple admired Hermes, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the watch face team had already mocked up the Hermes face before Jony Ive ever had his lunch with Hermes. So they were already thinking in terms of a square analogue watch face, but held it back either because they wanted the Hermes to stand out (in much the same way holding back the gold Sport allowed them to spotlight the Edition), or for some other reason. The net result is a paucity of selectable watch face designs.

What Apple is doing by selling you a digital watch without the ability to chose your own face, is like selling you an iPod that can only play the music Apple selected for you. Or more directly, limiting ringtone options on your iPhone to just those few offered by Apple.

At a minimum, around the same time Apple launched the third party band program, they should have launched a third party face design program, which could have started with something simple like Trademark designs for Professional sports teams, college logos, and trademark characters. But I keep coming back to the iPod Nano, and the 18 watch faces. So Apple knows how important these kinds of options are to people, and a year after the Watch was announced, there's not even the 12 original options they introduced with the first keynote. For such an important first time product, especially considering the lessons learned with the iPhone and App Store launch a year later (which was well ahead of where the watch is now), I'm just surprised Apple didn't do a little more with the faces, especially considering the variety of bands and finishes they continue to bring to market, and their intense focus on the luxury fashion watch business.

 

[Enygmatic]

I own one and posted up the pics above. And in terms of quality, I put it above Apple. Why? Because I don't have to deal with a sticking rotating crown, don't have o-rings popping out to deal with, don't have to worry about buffing out scratch marks and I don't have to worry about lettering rubbing off. Quality is more than just slapping an Apple logo on a product.

I haven't experienced any of the issues you've mentioned. Of course, my experience doesn't reflect everyone's... much like your random examples don't. I'm glad you really seem to enjoy your other watch... do you own an Apple Watch?

 

[BarracksSi]

If you haven't created a watchface, then you probably wouldn't know this. But your idea of moving a complication with the hands is a bad idea, because it eats battery life. However, your idea of making the opacity 0 when moving over a complication is a really good one and easy to implement. Apple won't do it of course, but I think I will give it a try on one of my watchfaces I am currently making.

Let us know how it goes. I'm not sure I would want one of the hands turning transparent when I just want to see the time.

 

[Mac 128]

If you haven't created a watchface, then you probably wouldn't know this. But your idea of moving a complication with the hands is a bad idea, because it eats battery life. However, your idea of making the opacity 0 when moving over a complication is a really good one and easy to implement. Apple won't do it of course, but I think I will give it a try on one of my watchfaces I am currently making.

Why would changing the positions of the complications eat more battery life? The display only stays on for 15 seconds, so I wouldn't expect the complications to move in real time, but simply be in an unobscured position the next time the backlight came on to check the time. Are you saying the extra recalculation to render them between time checks would add a significant extra power drain? Whatever the reason I think I would prefer a transparency over the complications of those two scenarios.

Regardless, the point was there's any number of creative ways to tackle such a problem, and those were two off the top of my head without giving it any forethought.

 

[Enygmatic]

Usually this debate boils down to people's opinions about personal taste at some point. The fact is there are plenty of people who do want a smart watch face that looks like a real mechanical watch. I would argue that the Hermes does exactly that -- imitates an existing mechanical watch face. The fact that the black Hermes Cape Cod face design happens to be well suited to Apple's simplified white on black design scheme does not change that. And Apple has shown they are willing to create a digital watch face which closely resembles an analogue face for enough money (I'll be curious to see if the Hermes watch face can be modified with complications at all).

Regardless, Apple could have tried a little harder to offer more initial options. As I pointed out earlier, the iPod Nano had 18 watch faces once Apple saw people were wearing it as a watch, all within its first year. Obviously Apple admired Hermes, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the watch face team had already mocked up the Hermes face before Jony Ive ever had his lunch with Hermes. So they were already thinking in terms of a square analogue watch face, but held it back either because they wanted the Hermes to stand out (in much the same way holding back the gold Sport allowed them to spotlight the Edition), or for some other reason. The net result is a paucity of selectable watch face designs.

What Apple is doing by selling you a digital watch without the ability to chose your own face, is like selling you an iPod that can only play the music Apple selected for you. Or more directly, limiting ringtone options on your iPhone to just those few offered by Apple.

At a minimum, around the same time Apple launched the third party band program, they should have launched a third party face design program, which could have started with something simple like Trademark designs for Professional sports teams, college logos, and trademark characters. But I keep coming back to the iPod Nano, and the 18 watch faces. So Apple knows how important these kinds of options are to people, and a year after the Watch was announced, there's not even the 12 original options they introduced with the first keynote. For such an important first time product, especially considering the lessons learned with the iPhone and App Store launch a year later (which was well ahead of where the watch is now), I'm just surprised Apple didn't do a little more with the faces, especially considering the variety of bands and finishes they continue to bring to market, and their intense focus on the luxury fashion watch business.

Jesus... will you give them a minute? Let them get the OS squared away... regardless of the variety of faces, complications and apps would still be the driving features (aside from fitness and communication) - and those are areas they're still working on. Their focus has to be getting that right, while keeping it secure. They haven't even finished rolling the Watch out everywhere... by the time wOS 2 is at a .2 update (like your beloved Nano was when it got its 18 wonderful faces) there will be more options. Guaranteed that Apple will offer (or allow) more faces. If we haven't heard/seen anything by .2 or however they approach updates, THEN pull out the authoritarian analogies.

 

[Mac 128]

Let us know how it goes. I'm not sure I would want one of the hands turning transparent when I just want to see the time.

Again, your limiting your thinking here -- the entire hands wouldn't turn transparent, just the section over the complication, and it would not be 100% transparent, more like 70% so the hand would be clearly visible and you could read the complication. Moreover, the hands would be designed so that they were outlines, like radium hands, with the center portion revealing the complications, such that transparencies are barely noticeable.

And finally, I hope you recognize that just because your personal taste does not find any of these solutions as acceptable as your current face configuration, doesn't mean many others won't. Yours is a case of particular subjective tastes tempered by the technology available to you, and the options you prefer. What I and others are saying is that everyone should have as many acceptable options as you seem to, regardless of whether you would appreciate them or not. Every watch face design has a trade off the more you ask it to accommodate. Unlike mechanical watches, digital ones don't face nearly as many as limitations to offer the same things. But the choice should be the users, not Apple's.

 

[douglasf13]

Usually this debate boils down to people's opinions about personal taste at some point. The fact is there are plenty of people who do want a smart watch face that looks like a real mechanical watch. I would argue that the Hermes does exactly that -- imitates an existing mechanical watch face. The fact that the black Hermes Cape Cod face design happens to be well suited to Apple's simplified white on black design scheme does not change that. And Apple has shown they are willing to create a digital watch face which closely resembles an analogue face for enough money (I'll be curious to see if the Hermes watch face can be modified with complications at all).

Regardless, Apple could have tried a little harder to offer more initial options. As I pointed out earlier, the iPod Nano had 18 watch faces once Apple saw people were wearing it as a watch, all within its first year. Obviously Apple admired Hermes, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the watch face team had already mocked up the Hermes face before Jony Ive ever had his lunch with Hermes. So they were already thinking in terms of a square analogue watch face, but held it back either because they wanted the Hermes to stand out (in much the same way holding back the gold Sport allowed them to spotlight the Edition), or for some other reason. The net result is a paucity of selectable watch face designs.

What Apple is doing by selling you a digital watch without the ability to chose your own face, is like selling you an iPod that can only play the music Apple selected for you. Or more directly, limiting ringtone options on your iPhone to just those few offered by Apple.

At a minimum, around the same time Apple launched the third party band program, they should have launched a third party face design program, which could have started with something simple like Trademark designs for Professional sports teams, college logos, and trademark characters. But I keep coming back to the iPod Nano, and the 18 watch faces. So Apple knows how important these kinds of options are to people, and a year after the Watch was announced, there's not even the 12 original options they introduced with the first keynote. For such an important first time product, especially considering the lessons learned with the iPhone and App Store launch a year later (which was well ahead of where the watch is now), I'm just surprised Apple didn't do a little more with the faces, especially considering the variety of bands and finishes they continue to bring to market, and their intense focus on the luxury fashion watch business.

I really see it more like computer or iPhone backgrounds/screen savers, where they offer a handful of native choices, or you can use your own picture.

Apple has never been like Android or PCs, where you have dramatic options in this regard. It creates continuity, and they're only going to offer designs that someone like Ive or Newson (or Hermes) approves, and this is particularly important when getting into the fashion space.

I'm always surprised when a new Apple product arrives and people complain about customization. They way Apple probably sees it, they're saving many of us from our own bad taste and the paradox of choice. There are other options out there, if one has an issue with that.

 

[Mac 128]

They way Apple probably sees it, they're saving many of us from our own bad taste and the paradox of choice. There are other options out there, if one has an issue with that.

Exactly. Apple appears to have set its sights on the luxury fashion market first and foremost. And this strategy may very well pay off for them. On the other hand, now that Apple has shown all the other smart watch makers, as well as the traditional watch makers how it's done, for those who do put choice above function -- and as I've observed before, the majority of the functions of the Watch are hardly exclusive to smart watches -- there will be other options without even much of a significant trade off.

If Apple can justify an entire product division which caters exclusively to the luxury fashion market, without concern for the majority of the customers who use their products, then locking the garden off from custom watch faces is surely the best way to go. But if Apple is relying on volumes equal to those of the iPhone and iPad for the success of the product, then they may not be so successful, as other smart watch makers improve build quality, and offer improved UIs with greater choice for the customer.

 

[douglasf13]

Exactly. Apple appears to have set its sights on the luxury fashion market first and foremost. And this strategy may very well pay off for them. On the other hand, now that Apple has shown all the other smart watch makers, as well as the traditional watch makers how it's done, for those who do put choice above function -- and as I've observed before, the majority of the functions of the Watch are hardly exclusive to smart watches -- there will be other options without even much of a significant trade off.

If Apple can justify an entire product division which caters exclusively to the luxury fashion market, without concern for the majority of the customers who use their products, then locking the garden off from custom watch faces is surely the best way to go. But if Apple is relying on volumes equal to those of the iPhone and iPad for the success of the product, then they may not be so successful, as other smart watch makers improve build quality, and offer improved UIs with greater choice for the customer.

I think the latter is what Android phones are already doing, and it doesn't seem to matter. Whether we want to admit it or not, there's a "cool" factor to the Apple products that pulls people in, and that's more important than ever with wearables. It certainly helps having world renowned designers, like Marc Newson, too.

It would have been a hard sell for me to go from a Rolex to a smartwatch, when looking at Android watches, but, create a watch that looks at home in a design magazine or MOMA catalogue, and it opens my mind to giving it a shot. I've worn it everyday since.

 

[Mac 128]

I think the latter is what Android phones are already doing, and it doesn't seem to matter. Whether we want to admit it or not, there's a "cool" factor to the Apple products that pulls people in, and that's more important than ever with wearables. It certainly helps having world renowned designers, like Marc Newson, too.

It would have been a hard sell for me to go from a Rolex to a smartwatch, when looking at Android watches, but, make a watch that looks like it's from a design magazine or MOMA catalogue, and it opens my mind to giving it a shot. I've worn it everyday since.

I made a distinction between the smart watch and smart phone for a reason -- the smart watch is merely a mirrored relay to the phone running an entirely different OS. Phones do a myriad of essential things and to do them well takes more care than Anroid and others have shown, who cram in esoteric features without cleaning up their own security problems. The smart watch doesn't have that kind of issue.

I don't want to debate the issue of taste with you, because you're looking at it strictly from your perspective. I can do the same thing with the gold iPhones -- I think they're garish and tacky, yet they seem to be the most popular color choice worldwide. It remains to be seen whether Apples restrictions to basic minimalist watch faces will be enough to drive customers to other options, everything else being essentially equal. The watch will not be used the same by everyone, and they'll buy it for different reasons -- why would some who wasn't interested in a smart watch before, suddenly be interested in one now that Hermes is branding it? Would they have just bought it because it was yet another watch offered by Hermes on their next trip to the store, without even understanding the smart watch features? And how big can hat market truly be? The customers Apple needs to be concerned about are the ones who understand why they want an smart watch and have certain expectations about using it. These are the people driving adoption of the watch, not the halo Edition products. And back to your iPhone analogy ... Until Apple changed their position 180 degrees and offered the 6 & 6 Plus, Android and Samsung was breathing down their neck, having taken a huge market share. All I'm saying is the watch is a much less compelling product about which to limit choice than an iPhone, especially when watch makers have been offering the widest choice of any product for over a century -- if customers didn't care about choice in a wearable, why would the watchmakers compete essentially on that basis?

Whatever Apple's reasons for delaying custom watch faces, I don't buy that they plan to position the product so exclusively that they will simply never offer it. For one thing, there's too much money to be made, and so far Apple has not shown any signs of leaving any money on the table for anything - they have more product variations now than at almost any other time in their history, an explosion that seems to have happened over the asst few years.

 

[prezasti]

I have hope that Apple will eventually allow more flexibility in watch faces. I am sure one of the large concerns is the lack of respect for copyright (see the example below) for watch vendors. AndroidWear watch faces were rife with non-official watch faces from Rolex, Bell & Ross, Seiko, etc.

I don’t think copyright is Apples concern as much as is their control over their product. For example, what’s the difference of putting an after market (Fake) Rolex band on your apple watch vs a (Fake) digital face that resembles a Rolex face? People will see the band before they notice the face anyway, but no one will care, because it’s still an Apple Watch. If someone were to try to sell the watch on ebay as a Rolex, anyone would know it’s not a real Rolex, it’s an Apple Watch with a fake watch band and a fake Rolex face. Rolex wouldn’t be able to sue Apple because someone was trying to pass off their Apple Watch as a Rolex, because apple had nothing to do with it. Even if third party software available on the App store had a Rolex like face on it, since apple didn’t sell the watch with the Rolex face in the watchOS or the Rolex band, they don’t have any liability. Another example, if I take my Jeep and put Ferrari wheels on it, Ferrari logo’s on the front and back and sides and Ferrari decals all over the interior, Jeep is not liable for it if I try to pass my off as a Ferrari. Jeep sold me the Jeep as is and allows me the option to upgrade it however I want.

What if someone put a real Rolex band on their apple watch? That doesn’t make it any different than if they put the fake one on. The end user can call it whatever they want, but it still doesn’t change the fact it’s an apple watch.

This brings me to the Hermès edition. All apple did was put a Hermès band on the watch, a fake Hermès face and inscribed Hermès on the bottom of the watch. There is no difference between the Apple Watch and the Hermès edition other than looks. The body is the same body, the OS is the same OS and the internals are all the same. Hermès didn’t design the internals or the software. Apple has an agreement to sell the watch as a Hermès edition. That doesn’t stop me from buying a real Hermès band to put on my watch and calling it a Hermès. If I decide to sell it as a custom Hermès edition, Apple can’t sue Hermès for selling watch bands and Hermès can’t sue Apple, because they allowed 3rd parties to put bands on their watches. It’s my custom watch and I can do what I want with it.

90% of the time I’m the only one that can see the screen on my watch, because it only displays for 15 seconds and soon to be 70 seconds with watchOS 2. I don’t want a watch face that lists a name brand, I just want the ability for third parties to add watch faces to the watch.

 

[BarracksSi]

Again, your limiting your thinking here -- the entire hands wouldn't turn transparent, just the section over the complication, and it would not be 100% transparent, more like 70% so the hand would be clearly visible and you could read the complication. Moreover, the hands would be designed so that they were outlines, like radium hands, with the center portion revealing the complications, such that transparencies are barely noticeable.

Fragmented hands* don't sound like a good idea to me. When I use an along watch face, I want the hands to be consistent and clear. A watch's primary function is to tell the time. I've avoided many other watches simply because they weren't easily legible.

*An exception could be made for hands like on an Omega Seamaster Pro, but even its fans (I'm a fan of it, too) realize that its hands, while distinctive, aren't always quick to read.

(I don't own one; this pic was in NYC)

 

[Enygmatic]

I don’t think copyright is Apples concern as much as is their control over their product. For example, what’s the difference of putting an after market (Fake) Rolex band on your apple watch vs a (Fake) digital face that resembles a Rolex face? People will see the band before they notice the face anyway, but no one will care, because it’s still an Apple Watch. If someone were to try to sell the watch on ebay as a Rolex, anyone would know it’s not a real Rolex, it’s an Apple Watch with a fake watch band and a fake Rolex face. Rolex wouldn’t be able to sue Apple because someone was trying to pass off their Apple Watch as a Rolex, because apple had nothing to do with it. Even if third party software available on the App store had a Rolex like face on it, since apple didn’t sell the watch with the Rolex face in the watchOS or the Rolex band, they don’t have any liability. Another example, if I take my Jeep and put Ferrari wheels on it, Ferrari logo’s on the front and back and sides and Ferrari decals all over the interior, Jeep is not liable for it if I try to pass my off as a Ferrari. Jeep sold me the Jeep as is and allows me the option to upgrade it however I want.

What if someone put a real Rolex band on their apple watch? That doesn’t make it any different than if they put the fake one on. The end user can call it whatever they want, but it still doesn’t change the fact it’s an apple watch.

This brings me to the Hermès edition. All apple did was put a Hermès band on the watch, a fake Hermès face and inscribed Hermès on the bottom of the watch. There is no difference between the Apple Watch and the Hermès edition other than looks. The body is the same body, the OS is the same OS and the internals are all the same. Hermès didn’t design the internals or the software. Apple has an agreement to sell the watch as a Hermès edition. That doesn’t stop me from buying a real Hermès band to put on my watch and calling it a Hermès. If I decide to sell it as a custom Hermès edition, Apple can’t sue Hermès for selling watch bands and Hermès can’t sue Apple, because they allowed 3rd parties to put bands on their watches. It’s my custom watch and I can do what I want with it.

90% of the time I’m the only one that can see the screen on my watch, because it only displays for 15 seconds and soon to be 70 seconds with watchOS 2. I don’t want a watch face that lists a name brand, I just want the ability for third parties to add watch faces to the watch.

You're hilariously missing this beat-to-death point. There are many differences... chief among them being Apple's liability or involvement in such illegal activities. Plain and simple. Whether it's their own doing, or what they allow in their App Store and on their platform, copyright must be adhered to and respected. Using your Rolex band example (good, because Rolex was one company that expressly denounced making their faces available for smartwatches), the key here is that Apple won't nake them available. Can you still go out on your own and buy one? Sure... much like JBing will likely offer opportunities to skirt these digital issues. Either way, it's not Apple in the wrong.

Hermès was onboard and collaborated with Apple for this version - whether you're personally a fan or not.

 

[prezasti]

You're hilariously missing this beat-to-death point. There are many differences... chief among them being Apple's liability or involvement in such illegal activities. Plain and simple. Whether it's their own doing, or what they allow in their App Store and on their platform, copyright must be adhered to and respected. Using your Rolex band example (good, because Rolex was one company that expressly denounced making their faces available for smartwatches), the key here is that Apple won't nake them available. Can you still go out on your own and buy one? Sure... much like JBing will likely offer opportunities to skirt these digital issues. Either way, it's not Apple in the wrong.

Hermès was onboard and collaborated with Apple for this version - whether you're personally a fan or not.

I am a fan of the Hermès, I like how it looks and I've yet to say otherwise. I'm ok with the sport apple watch and my ability to change how it looks with my own bands. I just find it funny that I can customize any part of the watch the way I want, but the part that makes it a watch, the face.

As far as liability goes, Apple wouldn't have involvement in illegal activity just because the app store had a 3rd party make something similar to a name brand. As long as apple pulls the app for violating copyright policies, they are good on their end. If anything Apple is opening themselves up to liability by having too much control over what the end user does with the product after it is purchased. If you by a PC and put a pirated copy of software on your computer, the liability doesn't go back to Microsoft or to the PC manufacturer. So far no one has tried to sue Google or any of the Android Gear Watch Makers, which google still allows those 3rd party apps in their app store. I don't agree with copyright infringement and I'm not saying I think apple should or would support it.

 

[Mac 128]

I am a fan of the Hermès, I like how it looks and I've yet to say otherwise. I'm ok with the sport apple watch and my ability to change how it looks with my own bands. I just find it funny that I can customize any part of the watch the way I want, but the part that makes it a watch, the face.

As far as liability goes, Apple wouldn't have involvement in illegal activity just because the app store had a 3rd party make something similar to a name brand. As long as apple pulls the app for violating copyright policies, they are good on their end. If anything Apple is opening themselves up to liability by having too much control over what the end user does with the product after it is purchased. If you by a PC and put a pirated copy of software on your computer, the liability doesn't go back to Microsoft or to the PC manufacturer. So far no one has tried to sue Google or any of the Android Gear Watch Makers, which google still allows those 3rd party apps in their app store. I don't agree with copyright infringement and I'm not saying I think apple should or would support it.

I agree with you about every part but Apple's liability for allowing a third party to sell pirated goods through their network. You're making the Napster argument, and we all know how that ended. Apple is absolutely responsible for everything sold through their store. Now mistakes happen, and Apple would be given an opportunity to pull the pirated material, presumably without punitive action by a copyright owner, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent them from getting sued, so far better to ensure no laws are broken in the first place.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Why would changing the positions of the complications eat more battery life? The display only stays on for 15 seconds, so I wouldn't expect the complications to move in real time, but simply be in an unobscured position the next time the backlight came on to check the time. Are you saying the extra recalculation to render them between time checks would add a significant extra power drain? Whatever the reason I think I would prefer a transparency over the complications of those two scenarios.

Regardless, the point was there's any number of creative ways to tackle such a problem, and those were two off the top of my head without giving it any forethought.

The watch is still calculating positions of the hands (and in your case the complications via sine/cosine positional data depending on watch hand location) and updating complication data in the background at set intervals. How Apple achieves this calculation and when the software updates, I do not know, but this is why the watch continues to drain the battery at ˜3% per hour, even when in sleep mode.
I happen to use the LUA programming language for making watch faces and while some code is battery inefficient, other code can achieve similar results and use less battery. I'm sure Apple uses the best optimization, but the drawback is that the coding to optimize is more in depth and when a bug occurs, it can be harder to track down.
Inefficient coding has produced between 3 and 7% additional drain on battery life per hour (at least in my watchfaces), while efficient coding limits battery drain to under 5% per hour, depending on complexity of the watchface. These are general data points. Every watch face is unique in how much battery it will drain. It is one reason why Apple Watch faces are pretty benign and don't feature a lot of movement.

 

[prezasti]

I agree with you about every part but Apple's liability for allowing a third party to sell pirated goods through their network. You're making the Napster argument, and we all know how that ended. Apple is absolutely responsible for everything sold through their store. Now mistakes happen, and Apple would be given an opportunity to pull the pirated material, presumably without punitive action by a copyright owner, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent them from getting sued, so far better to ensure no laws are broken in the first place.

I'm not saying Apple would be "Selling Pirated Goods." A third Party Vendor making a watch face, even if it resembled a named face, such as Rolex, wouldn't be pirated goods, because they would be the artist and author of their own app. Apple already has a good review process and denies or removes apps that violate their rules. I don't think anyone will be sneaking copyright material past Apple that easy.

I'm going to say again, I don't want 3rd party vendors to copy known named watch faces and brands. I just want more options than whats currently available for the apple watch. At the very least apple could take some of their designers and implement some square faces, similar to what they just did with Hermès to go with the square watch.

 

[Lloydbm41]

I'm not saying Apple would be "Selling Pirated Goods." A third Party Vendor making a watch face, even if it resembled a named face, such as Rolex, wouldn't be pirated goods, because they would be the artist and author of their own app. Apple already has a good review process and denies or removes apps that violate their rules. I don't think anyone will be sneaking copyright material past Apple that easy.

I'm going to say again, I don't want 3rd party vendors to copy known named watch faces and brands. I just want more options than whats currently available for the apple watch. At the very least apple could take some of their designers and implement some square faces, similar to what they just did with Hermès to go with the square watch.

And this would be easy to do. The Huawei watch came out of the box with 40 watch faces to choose from. Apple could easily pop out 100 unique watch faces if it wanted. They just choose not to. Probably because they want to release new watch faces on the new Apple Watch that won't be available on the old version. That is the typical Apple business model.