Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I believe Apple is right on this one..there are health and safety issues involved here. These things could explode while wearing them.
Just like anything else connected to a power source (or not in fact). Like your phone, watch, computer or anything badly designed. It doesn't need a port.
 
They made a port available and functional, then told people they can't use it.

The right thing for Apple to do would have been to document the port and continue to allow its use.
When did they make it available? If it's not documented you can't really say it's available for use.
 
They made a port available and functional, then told people they can't use it.

The right thing for Apple to do would have been to document the port and continue to allow its use.

Apple has hundreds of private API's in their software. They're undocumented and while they do work if you try to mess with them, the results can be unpredictable... because it's undocumented and the groundwork for usage hasn't been laid out.
When Apple decides to make a change to one of those because no one should be using it, and it results in the break of all of the apps created by developers who weren't supposed to use it or even know of its existence - whose fault is that?
 
Doesn't Apple allow third party chargers for the Apple Watch? Isn't this just a battery powered charger that happens to be in the form of a watch band? Does it actually use the port to communicate with the watch, rather than just charging it?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't Apple allow third party chargers for the Apple Watch? Isn't this just a battery powered charger that happens to be in the form of a watch band? Does it actually use the port to communicate with the watch, rather than just charging it?

That's what I thought too, but evidently not, or this would not be an article.
 
MFi makes no sense for the watch, surely? They didn't call it the iWatch. MFw FTW! (IMHO, FWIW).
 
Everyone knew this would happen. But it almost didn't! Just a tiny little update like that made it incompatible.
 
I for one have no horse in this race. I think my apple watch has plenty of battery power. I wear it almost around the clock, including when I sleep. I find just charging it while I'm in the shower and getting ready to work gives it enough charge for otherwise continually use.

With that being said, I don't believe one second Apple closed this "loophole" as a safety feature or as a security measure. They closed it because they want to sell third party the "rights" to take advantage of this port. It was a "oh crap" moment, "we're missing out on revenue".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apples n' Stone
I'm surprised Apple hasn't made use of the accessory port. It's been there since day 1 and they haven't had any developments with it. Maybe WWDC will shed some light on the topic?
 
I'm surprised Apple hasn't made use of the accessory port. It's been there since day 1 and they haven't had any developments with it. Maybe WWDC will shed some light on the topic?

I can. It's a very poor an inelegant implementation for a consumer level product. If Apple turns to this in the next model, I expect some modifications. Who knows why Apple put it there, but I would wager it's not for average customer use. Maybe some kind of planned custom business applications, or they would have made use of it by now.
 
I guess I didn't really read how this thing was going to work. I thought it used a magnetic coil that merely passed the power through the inductive method already approved for the watch. I mean why else does it have that stupid back plate?
That was their first design. Then they found out that putting a layer between the watch and the user's wrists, even with openings for the sensors, would interfere with its function. So they switched to using the undocumented, deliberately covered diagnostic port.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.