They've done it with MFi and third party cables, Apple have a pretty reliable track record for licensing the ability to make accessories for their devices. If anything, I'm shocked they didn't do it with them first revision.
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.
Haptic Feedback Wrist Band Could Make for Thinner Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They've done it with MFi and third party cables, Apple have a pretty reliable track record for licensing the ability to make accessories for their devices. If anything, I'm shocked they didn't do it with them first revision.
No, it makes zero sense for Apple to require more complicated and more expensive straps because one of the primary selling points of the watch is easy personalization.
Yeah, Apple priced their straps higher than people would've expected -- but Apple's prices leave plenty of room for other strap makers to come in underneath and see good sales. They also give more ambitious strap makers a valid excuse to sell more expensive models, too.
But do any of you honestly believe that, after NOT requiring third parties to buy Apple strap adapters, and publishing detailed specs for anyone wishing to make their own adapters, that Apple wants to demolish the accessory market for the Watch?
Cables and adapters, as we've seen recently with safety failures and counterfeit issues, need extra oversight. Not an equal comparison.
It would be more like Apple suddenly requiring iPhone case makers to add gadgetry inside the cases or else they lose functionality. How stupid would it be to offload the phone's haptic motor into a case? Would every third-party case manufacturer need to use the same motor so that it will respond to the OS properly and make the correct vibrations?
Stupid idea. I don't know why anyone, especially the tech blogs, would think this will come to production.
Yeah, Apple priced their straps higher than people would've expected -- but Apple's prices leave plenty of room for other strap makers to come in underneath and see good sales. They also give more ambitious strap makers a valid excuse to sell more expensive models, too.
But do any of you honestly believe that, after NOT requiring third parties to buy Apple strap adapters, and publishing detailed specs for anyone wishing to make their own adapters, that Apple wants to demolish the accessory market for the Watch?
Cables and adapters, as we've seen recently with safety failures and counterfeit issues, need extra oversight. Not an equal comparison.
It would be more like Apple suddenly requiring iPhone case makers to add gadgetry inside the cases or else they lose functionality. How stupid would it be to offload the phone's haptic motor into a case? Would every third-party case manufacturer need to use the same motor so that it will respond to the OS properly and make the correct vibrations?
Stupid idea. I don't know why anyone, especially the tech blogs, would think this will come to production.
It wouldn't be taken to court if the bands served a purpose beyond anti competition, like a proprietary and exclusive connection but "necessary" for data transfer of heart rate, etc. some excuse. Even then, I don't think it would be anti competitive enough without any benefit besides exclusivity to lose in court. Apple is allowed to do that, just as they're allowed to ban third party lightning cables (this phone is not compatible with this cable).
[doublepost=1482518334][/doublepost]
Not a great comparison, as phones can and are used without a case, but watches are never used without a strap.
:facepalm:
Ok. Go tell Jony and Tim how awesome of an idea it is and asks why they didn't implement it despite being patented three years ago.
Tell how it'll be a win-win-win for everybody. How Apple will win with a more complicated production process, more expensive bands all around, and an even greater strain on suppliers. Tell how great it will be to instantly double (or triple, or quadruple) the demand for making the little haptic motors to install into every strap.
Tell how it benefits accessory makers whose current investments would be rendered completely useless.
Tell how users wouldn't be able to buy any more ten-dollar straps unless they're willing to ditch a key feature of the watch's functionality.
Please, anybody, if you can explain how any of these things are a "win", I'm sure the world would love to know.
What's the email address? feedback@apple.com? cook@apple.com?
Last edited:
That's an ways one. Why didn't you spend a few seconds trying to come up with an answer...? They wanted the watch to be popular, and didn't want the lack of cheap bands to push consumers away. They can and likely will revisit this patent with future generations of watches, juts like they did it's iPhones and iPods... at first, anybody could make any cable and use it. Now, more than half the cables don't work because of software incompatibility.
That's because of sh!tbox cables that aren't made according to safety regs. When your phone's touchscreen acts weird because of a particular cable or charger, it's not software, it's a grounding problem.
Want to make and sell cables? 1. Make it properly, 2. Submit it for testing and licensing, 3. Sell it.
Oh, and this...
... is exactly the reason to NOT require complicated, expensive, electronic straps.
... is exactly the reason to NOT require complicated, expensive, electronic straps.
If there's one thing that this thread -- and the blog post to which it's attached (I'm not going to elevate it to the term "article") -- has reminded me, it's how flat-out idiotic the tech punditry can be.
F this. I need a break from MR (again).
F this. I need a break from MR (again).
Or one side of the band could be a USB-C that plugs into the watch.
The strap band could be the battery. Like a twist-o-flex series of lithium ion ones attached to each other in parallel.
Why not a pocket watch? -Just not in rose gold, FFS.
A phone doesn't require a case, would be against pretty strict and historical design principles to build in electronics to a case aswell.
A strap however.... is required for an Apple Watch. So you've essentially got some space you can shove some more components into, as such they'll want to maintain control on that.
You try and rationalise why they wouldn't do X or Y but the reality is their behaviour suggests the polar opposite, they try to control almost every aspect they can. Why do they care about a third party market they don't get a slice from? They didn't care when it came to their iPhone connectors and docks. They actually flat out resisted all pushes from the EU to standardise.
They love proprietary connections and especially with their iOS devices, licensing it out to third parties. That has little to do with safety and everything to do with taking a small slice of the insanely lucrative and high volume accessories market. Just look at their move into wireless audio, I can't even see them licensing out the W1 chip to third parties as they own Beats.
I'm not entirely sure what, if any part of that answers what I'm saying... That despite what you're saying, the way Apple behaves in terms of third parties is to ensure they maintain control and a slice of the profit completely contradicts it... Either you aren't aware of Apples pretty consistent approach in this regard, or you' expect them to change all of a sudden...
You just have to look at the sheer gigantic selection of iPhone docks and audio docks we had, Apple recognised the potential to capitalise and restricted it with MFi thus massively limiting consumer choice and putting several third parties out in the cold... Did they care? Course not. Because now they can control quality but more importantly, realise more revenue.
Apple and pretty much every corporation file patents years ahead of actual implementation to protect their idea, or even reserve a potential development route that initially they couldn't achieve due to it being cost prohibitive and awaiting tech to mature or overly complex from a mass manufacture perspective without a long lead time to refit...
Last edited:
Do you have proof Apple uses software to prevent many unsafe third-party cables from working out of the goodness of their heart? Exactly. That's not why. It's to sell more of their cables. If they can, they will. No law against that (see proprietary connectors as another example).
[doublepost=1482538292][/doublepost]
Wrong again. The watch is such a niche product, allowing it to gain popularity before adding exclusivity to attachments is smart to maximize profit. This reflects that Apple understands the smart watch market and how a watch isn't the same necessity as a phone or laptop.
[doublepost=1482538380][/doublepost]Also nice job editing your post later, adding unnecessary and ridiculous (and completely wrong) information.
Last edited:
Tell me how it's wrong.
Put yourself in the shoes of a parts supplier or accessory manufacturer and tell us all how I'm wrong.
Tell us how electronic straps make things better for Apple, accessory makers, production lines, and users.
[doublepost=1482540599][/doublepost]
This is what I said in my first post in this thread, except that I believe Apple did it to protect the idea before realizing themselves that it would have been awfully daft to implement it in full production.
And you guys are talking about "control" --
Which is easier to control? A sprawling market of third-party straps that have access to the OS for various data calls? Or the watch head containing all the tech within itself?
Again you choose to ignore the primary point... Why, when Apple have shown they care little about a "sprawling market" of third party accessories and purposefully make changes which control, constrain, reduce and profit from it, do you feel all of a sudden they'll no longer follow this trend...
Apple have done "X" consistently over the years. You're suggesting they'll now begin doing "Y". You're welcome to that "opinion" - but an opinion is all it is and one substantiated by thin air.. It's not based on the actual behaviour of the organisation.
P.S: I think Microsoft are going to start selling sausages instead of operating systems
Apple have done "X" consistently over the years. You're suggesting they'll now begin doing "Y". You're welcome to that "opinion" - but an opinion is all it is and one substantiated by thin air.. It's not based on the actual behaviour of the organisation.
P.S: I think Microsoft are going to start selling sausages instead of operating systems
We're obviously looking at Apple's treatment of the accessory market differently.
No, Apple hasn't done anything to stem the tide of ****** iPhone cases, AW straps n' bracelets, laptop keyboard covers, or anything else.
Yes, they have tried to inject some amount of quality control into peripherals that send power to devices, largely to try to keep people from getting hurt (you know that unsafe power adapters have hurt people before, right?).
Apple has no reason at all to make straps like these. None. The fact that they did not make it part of the AW at launch demonstrates as much.
I don't know why the original MacRumors post says the patent was from 2016. It has a filing date of 2013. It was filed sometime during the original development period, of course. Somebody at MR isn't paying attention -- or, more likely, they're looking for page views.
No, Apple hasn't done anything to stem the tide of ****** iPhone cases, AW straps n' bracelets, laptop keyboard covers, or anything else.
Yes, they have tried to inject some amount of quality control into peripherals that send power to devices, largely to try to keep people from getting hurt (you know that unsafe power adapters have hurt people before, right?).
Apple has no reason at all to make straps like these. None. The fact that they did not make it part of the AW at launch demonstrates as much.
I don't know why the original MacRumors post says the patent was from 2016. It has a filing date of 2013. It was filed sometime during the original development period, of course. Somebody at MR isn't paying attention -- or, more likely, they're looking for page views.
So you think Apple does things for the consumers out of the goodness of its heart... and has no reason to capitalize on a legally-permissible temporarily-monopoly on watch straps...
I'm done. You don't know anything about business.
And you think it makes any sense at all for manufacturing, consumer relations, and third party support?
How?
Again, I ask, tell us how it makes sense to require more complicated hardware?
You really don't understand how a business operates do you? Again, iPhone cases aren't a required part of a phone. The port or a Watch strap is.
So Apple are licensing and charging third party manufacturers purely out of safety, that makes no sense. Whenever an industry want to standardise or maintain quality they just create a free certification program, a way to separate counterfeiters from genuine and unsafe product. For example, you have the USB compliance program.
This is not what Apple is doing.... You do know they've stripped other companies of their ability to make MFi products before, not due to safety concerns for purely commercial reasons? They've done it to Monster due to the beats law suit and other accessories makers.... Doesn't exactly align with your theory does it.
Anyway it seems you don't understand Apple, their history or how they've reacted within the marketplace so this isn't really a conversation where you can add anything insightful. It shows when you can't understand why they wouldn't of done this with straps initially, it's called iterative development / agile. Massively reduces risk and allows them to get to market faster, also aligns very much to Apples manufacturing approach in general (Read up on Just In Time).
Last edited:
Logic on this thread. Found someone else who can actually think like a business.
Amen brother. Logic left the internet long ago didn't it, sad day. Internet forums back in 2000 while a bit more aggressive, were more a war of facts and backing up their facts with some evidence than hyperbole.
I don't really mind Apples approach to locking down product to be honest, mainly as they're completely transparent about it. They don't pretend to be an "open" company, they want control and they take it. So what i'm saying isnt really a criticism of them but more a statement of what they're like.
Both myself and wife have iPhone 7s and Apple Watch Series 1s, i have Powerbeats 3s and she has Beats Solo 3s for the W1. My 7 year old son has an iPad Air 2 (Wife an iPad Mini 3). On top of that, i have a Macbook Pro Retina 2015 (16GB/256GB/2.9ghz). We're about as invested in Apple gear as somebody can be
Ok: "Because you can't operate a watch without a wrist band."
You can't operate a laptop without a power adapter, either. But MagSafe is gone now, and any old USB socket can power a MacBook or MB Pro as long as it puts out enough juice.
Next?
[doublepost=1482593239][/doublepost]
If I wanted to hack an AW, I would love to have such access. I wouldn't need to sell an Officially Certified™ accessory, and instead just put plans for a little black box out on the interwebs.
No, it makes no sense for Apple to give anything close to this kind of control and power to watch straps. It's why they didn't make it part of the AW despite attempting it at least a year before the announcement. My bet is that they gave it a shot, patented it just in case they were forced to do it, but, instead, were able to shove all the necessary tech into the watch chassis and avoid the whole mess of powered and Watch-connected "smart" straps.
"Think like a business." No. Think like a computer maker. Besides, Apple tried to "think like a business" under Scully.
You can't operate a laptop without a power adapter, either. But MagSafe is gone now, and any old USB socket can power a MacBook or MB Pro as long as it puts out enough juice.
Next?
[doublepost=1482593239][/doublepost]
It's illogical to think that it'll be easier for Apple to lock down the AW if they offload electronics onto the straps. Third-party strap makers would need to gain the ability to communicate with the OS, and according to the old patent in question (from 2013), they might even get to use a wired connection.
If I wanted to hack an AW, I would love to have such access. I wouldn't need to sell an Officially Certified™ accessory, and instead just put plans for a little black box out on the interwebs.
No, it makes no sense for Apple to give anything close to this kind of control and power to watch straps. It's why they didn't make it part of the AW despite attempting it at least a year before the announcement. My bet is that they gave it a shot, patented it just in case they were forced to do it, but, instead, were able to shove all the necessary tech into the watch chassis and avoid the whole mess of powered and Watch-connected "smart" straps.
"Think like a business." No. Think like a computer maker. Besides, Apple tried to "think like a business" under Scully.
Last edited:
Apple helped design and push USB-C. Your point is wrong.
I think the entire issue with your points is maybe you work for a third party watch strap maker... because third party watch strap makers mean nothing to Apple, and to think they do is stupidity at its finest. If Apple can enhance the user experience of the watch and straps while profiting, they will, and adding components to Apple Watch straps very likely does that. We don't know if the profit is there because we don't know apples numbers, but to claim anything as a deterrent to strap use, such as "Apple cares about third party strap makers/manufacturers and too tight of schedules/blah blah blah" again, is stupidity.