I grow tired of my Apple Watch But a Small Tweak to WatchOS Would Help...

[r0k]

I'd love to see Apple put in a feature to lock the touchscreen with a long press no matter what state the watch is in. It could be unlocked by another long press. Let me explain why...

I've posted in other threads about AW not performing well for me during cold weather running. It worked well for me in the warm weather but as soon as I started wearing long sleeves, I found out that sweaty long sleeves caused swipes that put the watch in unexpected states. I usually wear my Garmin and my AW when I run. If I want to see what time it is, I raise, jiggle and sometimes have to tap my AW. If I want to see my pace, elapsed time and distance I glance at my Garmin and as long as it is light out I know all three within half a second. If it's dark out I have to find the button to turn on the light on the Garmin.

Then there's everyday use. I really like having texts come to my AW and I often reply to them either with canned responses (of which I've edited a few) or with voice to Siri. I really like the weather except when it's slow. I really like the watch face most of the time.

Recently I bought a new winter coat. It's a Marmot snowboarding jacket. I had a Patagonia but took it back and got the Marmot. The issue is the Marmot has aggressively small elastic around the sleeves. It hangs on my Garmin and the most it can do is inadvertently start or stop the timer. But my AW finds itself completely clueless when the tight elastic band passes over it. I glance down to see my calendar, or stock report or weather when all I really wanted to see was what time it is.

If only the watch could be put in a mode where it ignored unintentional swipes that might be caused by long sleeves or squeezing by somebody on a crowded subway, I wouldn't grow so tired of it when wearing my winter coat and who knows, I might even consider using it for running again in cold weather.

Of course a more robust touchscreen that didn't mistake so many things for touches and swipes would help but I'm looking for an improvement that doesn't require me to go out and buy a newer watch.

 

[BarracksSi]

I'd dig it, too. I'd be happy simply with a Force Press on the clock face to lock it.

For now, a FP on the clock dial goes straight to selecting other dials (which is really handy, too, for switching to a face with totally different functionality). Maybe have it pop up two buttons, one to change the face and the other to lock the screen (like the Lock Screen button in the Workout app).

At least it's easy to go back to the clock face now, since a press or two of the crown will do it.

 

[BarracksSi]

Hmm. On second thought, the risk of having a universal, works-in-any-app Lock Screen command invoked via Force Press is, it would replace a spot for an app's own FP options.

An app might now have four FP virtual buttons, but because the maximum is already four, the developer would have to remove one of the buttons to make room for a universal Lock Screen button.

Some apps have no FP buttons at all, too; would adding a call for Lock Screen be the developer's responsibility?

Maybe the hardware buttons would have to do the job. My Garmin 410 allows locking and unlocking its touch bezel by simultaneously pressing both of its side buttons. The AW's side button and crown take a screenshot now, but maybe they can be given the option to lock the screen.

As I keep thinking about this, I'm realizing I only have a couple reasons to lock the screen to one function -- during workouts, and displaying the time. Both are intended for quick glances of just one to two seconds, and if another app mistakenly takes over, it's an inconvenience.

Since Workout already allows screen lock, it's not an issue. And, since Clock is reached via one or two presses of the crown, it's not much hassle, either.

I suppose a system-wide Lock command might be useful, but its effect on other apps might be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[r0k]

Hmm. On second thought, the risk of having a universal, works-in-any-app Lock Screen command invoked via Force Press is, it would replace a spot for an app's own FP options.

An app might now have four FP virtual buttons, but because the maximum is already four, the developer would have to remove one of the buttons to make room for a universal Lock Screen button.

Some apps have no FP buttons at all, too; would adding a call for Lock Screen be the developer's responsibility?

Maybe the hardware buttons would have to do the job. My Garmin 410 allows locking and unlocking its touch bezel by simultaneously pressing both of its side buttons. The AW's side button and crown take a screenshot now, but maybe they can be given the option to lock the screen.

As I keep thinking about this, I'm realizing I only have a couple reasons to lock the screen to one function -- during workouts, and displaying the time. Both are intended for quick glances of just one to two seconds, and if another app mistakenly takes over, it's an inconvenience.

Since Workout already allows screen lock, it's not an issue. And, since Clock is reached via one or two presses of the crown, it's not much hassle, either.

I suppose a system-wide Lock command might be useful, but its effect on other apps might be more trouble than it's worth.

Might or might not be more trouble than its worth. If the only way via a future software to existing Apple Watches to prevent unintended swipe input is to use some sort of user action to lock the screen regardless of active app, it's NOT more trouble than it's worth. If it's possible for a future watch OS to become better able to tell between a sleeve and a finger without making me buy a new AW to get this (ie new hardware required), it's not such a requirement for Apple to do a universal lock screen.

I do like your suggestion of some kind of long press of both buttons, perhaps hold them longer than for a screenshot. How about using Siri? Don't add any new forcepress features, just hold the crown, then tell Siri to lock the screen until you call her and tell her to unlock it. Perhaps a FP after calling Siri can handle the screen lock/unlock so you don't have to talk out loud to control this feature and developers aren't expected to put this feature in their code.

 

[ZEEN0j]

To add to this. I would like for there to be a way to keep an app open until I close it. I know there is a setting on the phone but that's inconvenient. I want my watch to show the watch face as default. But let's say I'm at the store going through my grocery list. I want it to stay in that app until I'm done. Right now I have to double click the crown a lot to keep on opening the app.

They could add a slider for both options after holding the side button.

 

[nicho]

To add to this. I would like for there to be a way to keep an app open until I close it. I know there is a setting on the phone but that's inconvenient. I want my watch to show the watch face as default. But let's say I'm at the store going through my grocery list. I want it to stay in that app until I'm done. Right now I have to double click the crown a lot to keep on opening the app.

They could add a slider for both options after holding the side button.

it's already also on the settings on the watch.

 

[ZEEN0j]

it's already also on the settings on the watch.

You are right. But still inconvenient. I would be happy with a way to set each app individually even. Open watch settings on your phone and in each app you have a toggle "keep open".

 

[nicho]

You are right. But still inconvenient. I would be happy with a way to set each app individually even. Open watch settings on your phone and in each app you have a toggle "keep open".

perhaps keeping "lock device" on holding down the side button reserved to the watch face and using that space in any other app for "keep until closed"? hmmm

 

[ZEEN0j]

perhaps keeping "lock device" on holding down the side button reserved to the watch face and using that space in any other app for "keep until closed"? hmmm

That would be great. But just add it to the list and scroll to get to it.

 

[ftlum]

it's already also on the settings on the watch.

Where is this setting ? The closest one I'm aware of just chooses between the last app used vs the watch face after the watch screen shuts off.

-----

http://www.apple.com/feedback/watch.html

Adding to the list of annoyances, I've found that I can't wear the watch with the crown facing up my arm (i.e. Reversed)-- my elastic coat sleeves always activate time travel when I move my wrist around. I wish we could toggle time travel off and on. Having the microphone and speaker pointing towards the hand would be nice.

 

[nicho]

Where is this setting ? The closest one I'm aware of just chooses between the last app used vs the watch face after the watch screen shuts off.

which is exactly what he was talking about.

 

[SilentDoom]

While I understand the problem, I haven't once had any of these problems in almost a year. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but it ends there. Wear different clothes I guess haha

 

[BarracksSi]

I do like your suggestion of some kind of long press of both buttons, perhaps hold them longer than for a screenshot.

I forgot about how long-pressing both buttons restarts the Watch, though.

How about using Siri? Don't add any new forcepress features, just hold the crown, then tell Siri to lock the screen until you call her and tell her to unlock it. Perhaps a FP after calling Siri can handle the screen lock/unlock so you don't have to talk out loud to control this feature and developers aren't expected to put this feature in their code.

Siri needs the phone to work, so you couldn't do this without the phone nearby. When I go for a jog or to the corner store, as a couple examples, I wouldn't have this option.

Ah! What about putting Lock Screen as one more slider on the Off/Restart/Power Reserve screen?

Separately, on the tangent of making it easier to set Clock Face/Last App Used -- maybe replace one of the Control Center-type buttons. I toggle the Clock/Last App setting way more often* than the AirPlay mode switch, and would swap the two functions if I could.

*By "often," I mean "Sometimes when we go grocery shopping and I want my shopping list to be easier to get." I haven't used it otherwise.

 

[jasie02]

Siri needs the phone to work, so you couldn't do this without the phone nearby. When I go for a jog or to the corner store, as a couple examples, I wouldn't have this option.

Unless you are running more than 1-2 hours a day, why let less than 2 hours a days, or less than 9% of your life time dictate how you live for the remaining 91% of your life?

There will be more integration through Siri for AW in the future, and direct Siri connection through wifi with iPhone turn off, and once cellular connection is added to AW in future gen, direct Siri connection through wifi/cell will be the best way to use AW in the future.

 

[r0k]

Unless you are running more than 1-2 hours a day, why let less than 2 hours a days, or less than 9% of your life time dictate how you live for the remaining 91% of your life?

...

I'm not sure I understand your point here but for me running is an important pastime so I require AW to work for that mere 9% of my life or it isn't worth thinking about using it as a fitness device. BTW 1-2 hours a day is more like 16% of my waking life. I happen to always carry my phone with me, even on marathons though perhaps I should allocate that weight for an extra pack of endurance Gu.

There will be more integration through Siri for AW in the future, and direct Siri connection through wifi with iPhone turn off, and once cellular connection is added to AW in future gen, direct Siri connection through wifi/cell will be the best way to use AW in the future.

I'm all on board with more functionality but not if it shortens battery life which is already marginal. AW died on me in one marathon which was a mere 4 hours despite its stated battery life of about 4 times that long. Marathon courses are infamous for lack of wifi and sometimes even cellular coverage. The Detroit marathon went through a mile-long tunnel with no cellular and no GPS. The Disney marathon went on back roads at Disney which had spotty cellular and nothing even resembling wifi. The Seoul marathon goes through excellent high speed Korean LGE coverage but there is no wifi that is going to cover even 13 miles of an out and back course like the one I ran this past Sunday along the Han river. Then there are training runs which are typically along dirt roads with spotty cell coverage and no wifi to be easier on the joints. I'll wager that there "sure as shootin' ain't no wifi (or even consistent cell coverage) along all those dirt roads!"

 

[jasie02]

I'm not sure I understand your point here but for me running is an important pastime so I require AW to work for that mere 9% of my life or it isn't worth thinking about using it as a fitness device. BTW 1-2 hours a day is more like 16% of my waking life. I happen to always carry my phone with me, even on marathons though perhaps I should allocate that weight for an extra pack of endurance Gu.



I'm all on board with more functionality but not if it shortens battery life which is already marginal. AW died on me in one marathon which was a mere 4 hours despite its stated battery life of about 4 times that long. Marathon courses are infamous for lack of wifi and sometimes even cellular coverage. The Detroit marathon went through a mile-long tunnel with no cellular and no GPS. The Disney marathon went on back roads at Disney which had spotty cellular and nothing even resembling wifi. The Seoul marathon goes through excellent high speed Korean LGE coverage but there is no wifi that is going to cover even 13 miles of an out and back course like the one I ran this past Sunday along the Han river. Then there are training runs which are typically along dirt roads with spotty cell coverage and no wifi to be easier on the joints. I'll wager that there "sure as shootin' ain't no wifi (or even consistent cell coverage) along all those dirt roads!"

Can't wait for Siri in wifi without iPhone tomorrow. For me, they are more important than NOT having it because not useful for only 1-2 hrs a days.

I want to maximum my enjoyment for majority of my live, like 80%, and not allow small minority of 20% of my live dictate how I could enjoy remaining 80% of my life.

 

[r0k]

Can't wait for Siri in wifi without iPhone tomorrow. For me, they are more important than NOT having it because not useful for only 1-2 hrs a days.

I want to maximum my enjoyment for majority of my live, like 80%, and not allow small minority of 20% of my live dictate how I could enjoy remaining 80% of my life.

OK I think I understand your concern. This isn't an issue for me because I have iPhone along all the time unless I'm sleeping and it's recharging. AW is a small low-power device so I doubt it will get Siri even if it has its own network. Current AW has A7 based chipset running at peak 520 Mhz while iPhone 4 (introduction of Siri) had A8 chipset at 800 mhz. AW needs more oomph to handle Siri. Oomph and battery life are bitter enemies. While I agree with your desire to have Siri along all the time, iPhone in your pocket or not, for my usage pattern Siri is an every now and then kind of thing and I wouldn't want my watch battery dying frequently so I could use Siri every now and then.

 

[jasie02]

OK I think I understand your concern. This isn't an issue for me because I have iPhone along all the time unless I'm sleeping and it's recharging. AW is a small low-power device so I doubt it will get Siri even if it has its own network. Current AW has A7 based chipset running at peak 520 Mhz while iPhone 4 (introduction of Siri) had A8 chipset at 800 mhz. AW needs more oomph to handle Siri. Oomph and battery life are bitter enemies. While I agree with your desire to have Siri along all the time, iPhone in your pocket or not, for my usage pattern Siri is an every now and then kind of thing and I wouldn't want my watch battery dying frequently so I could use Siri every now and then.

I don't understand why you keep thinking CPU or battery is an issue for Siri direct connect with Wifi. We already have it when iPhone is available, what is different between Siri through iPhone vs direct Siri through wifi. I would argue it will take less power to talk to Siri directly through Wifi.

It is SW, not HW restriction prevent Siri direct connection, and it will come in next major SW release. I will bet on it, just name the bet.

Siri introduced with iPhone has nothing to do with CPU power, technology and infrastructure was just not available before that time, and Apple had not bought the company invent Siri yet.

 

[Recognition]

Sorry to interject but Siri works for me on wifi without my iPhone switched on.
I have some HomeKit devices setup in my house and was able to control them through Siri on my watch with my iPhone switched off.
Granted it was slow to process the request and action it but nonetheless it worked.
I was pleasantly surprised!

 

[jasie02]

Sorry to interject but Siri works for me on wifi without my iPhone switched on.
I have some HomeKit devices setup in my house and was able to control them through Siri on my watch with my iPhone switched off.
Granted it was slow to process the request and action it but nonetheless it worked.
I was pleasantly surprised!

You are right, most function does work other than something like "where am I", after I turn on airplane mode on my iPhone. I could even get NBA score.
Actually work very fast for me.