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.
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.
'Reserve Strap' Suspends Shipments of All Orders Due to Apple Watch Accessory Port Policy Change
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If it's not documented, it isn't available for general use.
When did they make it available? If it's not documented you can't really say it's available for 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:
I guess the only approved charging method is inductive, rather than conductive through the port.
Not the first time Apple's reserved hardware ports for internal diagnostics of course:
http://www.applefritter.com/node/4363
Didn't stop hardware makers from reverse engineering them back then either.
But yeah, there will obviously be an MFi program for the watch down the road.
http://www.applefritter.com/node/4363
Didn't stop hardware makers from reverse engineering them back then either.
But yeah, there will obviously be an MFi program for the watch down the road.
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".
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".
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.
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.