Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Third-Party Tesla App Provides Look at Opportunities and Limitations of Apple Watch Development [Updated]

What a novelty. These things can all be done while inside the car. Why would I want to control the air conditioning or heat levels from my watch when it's right there within arm's reach? And if I'm doing this from inside my home or place of work, why not just do it from my iPhone? Silliness.

----------
Soccertess said:
Adjusting the internal temperature is pretty sweet though! Goes to show the awesomeness of Elon Musk!
Click to expand...

I guess..?
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
Which are the future. Safari in iOS 8 has WebGL enabled - as soon as developers start to realize that and take advantage of it, native apps will die swiftly (pun intended.)
Click to expand...

NYTimes had an excellent article about web apps being the future. I'll see if I can find it and link it.
 
Well, I'm sure Apple will expand the capabilities of the Apple Watch significantly with the 2nd generation "glad I waited" edition.:D
 
filmantopia said:
By setting limitations Apple is protecting the integrity and quality of the user experience. Apple is smart for doing this, because anything that causes the Apple watch experience to be less than excellent for what it already promises to do will result in complaints, outrage, media stories, negative reviews, and potentially a failed product.

If you want to continue enjoying quality, "just works" Apple products, don't complain about their temporary limitations. When they figure it all out and technology develops they'll continue to open it up more.
Click to expand...

I like some of Apple's products as much as the next guy but the "just works" meme is just that, a meme. Lately it's even more apparent that their stuff, just like everyone else's, doesn't just work. That's not a knock against Apple. It's just the reality of the "release now, fix later" mentality that seems pervasive these days.

That's why I told my daughter there's no way she's getting a 1st gen :apple: watch. There will be enough early adopters to beta test the watch for her. She can get a 2nd gen.
 
Last edited:
Am I reading that right? The car's 89% charged and still 2 hours 24 minutes left till full charge? Ugh... For $70k+ I'd demand better Elon. :p
 
Mr Fusion said:
Am I reading that right? The car's 89% charged and still 2 hours 24 minutes left till full charge? Ugh... For $70k+ I'd demand better Elon. :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, it should charge in, like, twenty minutes and the battery should last at least a week with heavy usage.

(I say this knowing nothing about Tesla's battery performance, but it's a nice parallel for the unreasonable expectations for the Apple Watch.)

Anyway. Maybe I'm just a country bumpkin who doesn't know what technology is capable of anymore, but THAT looks like a damn cool and damn USEFUL application for a wristwatch. If I could so much as remote start my cheap-ass Chevy Sonic from my wrist, that'd be pretty sweet.

As for the limited abilities of the apps right off the bat ... First, it's classic Apple. Second, it's a smart move on their part. Even if Android Wear-based watches will have more capabilities right out of the gate, I have a feeling the Apple Watch will be a much better overall experience. We're just getting started. This is a product that will expand in functionality at an incredible pace.

Wait and see.
 
MikhailT said:
Apple isn't locking down or crippling anything, they clearly told us last year AppleWatch SDK will come in two phases. The first one will be a serverly limited SDK that will require the iPhone to do the bulk of the operations and will not have access to all hardware features. This simply is because Apple needs more time to build up SDK, just like the original iPhone.


The second phase will come later this year with the full SDK to let devs build more powerful Watch apps with more hardware support and doesn't require iPhone.
Click to expand...

Quiet! Enough with your facts and reasoning :p Next you'll be saying some kind of "worldwide developers conference" is coming up.

I would add another reason: make devs start with limits, so they can't be lazy with power consumption. And they would be: they'd use the watch CPU for things the phone could handle instead--if not forced to learn this hybrid approach.

More complex APIs are announced, and will be coming. Tesla's devs would know that, I'd have thought.

(And do people really think this is a "generation" issue? Or just trolling?)
 
Last edited:
Developing an SDK is a process that takes time. It's fine to throw features and possibilities but you need to look closely at interactions, ecosystem and security.

I prefer the method of gradual roll out and update to throw everything in at once then regret it later.

This app looks more than sufficient for what it is. Only thing you are lacking is the ability to drive it by remote, so you are not doing too bad. Frankly all I want is the ability to operate heaters without starting the car to defrost the screen in the morning. That would have been forward thinking... Not a horn button. What is this, a fart app for your car ?

The only true limitation of the Apple Watch despite it's UI is the fact you still need to be tethered to your iPhone and so if you need to have it with you then ehy not just use that instead, I know I would. The day this no longer needs the phone then t is a viable product.
 
Is this guy really that clueless, or just fishing for press?

I'd like to point out that what this company is creating is not technically an "app" for the Watch, and MacRumors should be more clear about this distinction. All that developers can currently do is create an "extension" of an iPhone app that shows content on an Apple Watch. So this guy is complaining about missing functionality that was never supposed to be allowed for extensions, and Apple was always clear about that.

Surely Apple will eventually give us an SDK to create native Watch apps, probably at this year's WWDC, but I imagine they wanted devs to have actual watches before designing them using all the hardware features. For now, just think of what developers can do is give the iPhone a second screen. And please MacRumors, stop confusing the two.
 
MikhailT said:
Apple isn't locking down or crippling anything, they clearly told us last year AppleWatch SDK will come in two phases. The first one will be a serverly limited SDK that will require the iPhone to do the bulk of the operations and will not have access to all hardware features. This simply is because Apple needs more time to build up SDK, just like the original iPhone.


The second phase will come later this year with the full SDK to let devs build more powerful Watch apps with more hardware support and doesn't require iPhone.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. This first version of the SDK they actually shipped has pretty much all the functionality which could reasonably have been expected given that which Apple said they were going to include.

When you look at it, it's obvious why as well, battery life, battery life and battery life. The current SDK does little more than allow the phone to display information on the watch as if it were a remote display, and get a very small amount of user feedback back from the watch. No code runs on the watch, it all runs on the phone, where the big battery is, and that's key to using as little power on the watch as possible.

Before the SDK allows apps to run on the watch itself either Apple is going to have to add power reserves, optimise the power usage of the watch kernel itself yet more, or find ways to discourage 3rd party apps using too much power.
 
First people ask for huge 5.5 smartphones, now they want a tiny screen so they don't have to use said phone. Schizophrenic. I do not get it
 
Wambulances

So...here's the thing:

The :apple:Watch is not a standalone device. Regardless of Dev Pissing and Moaning (I read it everyday on the apple dev forums) there is literally NOTHING stopping a developer from writing an app that controls a device or thing via an api over the web or whatever.

People are complaining about "crippled" apps and whatnot simply because coders are *notoriously lazy* and unimaginative. I do it for a living and run into it constantly.

Since the watch requires an iPhone...which has a bigger battery, faster processor, etc, and is *by design* a companion device *not in any way* meant to replace an iPhone (such a notion would be absurd) it would be a waste *not* to pawn the heavy lifting off to the pocket-sized 64bit computer people are carrying around.

And believe me, many of the ideas people have been kicking around that 'can't be made' are so...lame...so...predictable that Apple is to be congratulated for culling this stuff by not making it possible to do.

Apple has stated (repeatedly) that they expect most interactions to be short, concise, uncluttered and to the point.

Know this: when the :apple:Watch launches, there will be far more stuff, good stuff ready and shipping for it than the 200-ish or so Wear Apps on the Play Store.

There are some folks doing things to extend their iPhone apps onto the Watch that will make their customers/users happy and more productive.

There are also people that want to make me-too pedometers, "heart rate monitors"..."gps trackers" and other clones of the bundled apps that are going to be left by the wayside.

Don't listen to them. The people that aren't complaining are the ones you need to keep an eye on.
 
rols said:
The current SDK does little more than allow the phone to display information on the watch as if it were a remote display, and get a very small amount of user feedback back from the watch. No code runs on the watch, it all runs on the phone, where the big battery is, and that's key to using as little power on the watch as possible.
Click to expand...

See...the problem with what you typed above is that it simply isn't right :) "Very small amount of user feedback"? An app can have myriad interactive elements...your description makes it sound like you get Notifications and that's it.

The fact that the code runs on the phone is a huge boon. It is a powerful, always connected device with an always-on internet connection, gps, etc.

The app we've worked on takes advantage of everything WatchKit has to offer and is a logical, just-in-time extension to our app...as Apple intended.

rols said:
Before the SDK allows apps to run on the watch itself either Apple is going to have to add power reserves, optimise the power usage of the watch kernel itself yet more, or find ways to discourage 3rd party apps using too much power.
Click to expand...

You know, this is to me essentially "iOS vs Mac OS X" all over again...the :apple:Watch is "crippled" and "limited" in exactly the same manner - it is a different *platform* than the iPhone and iPad. It just happens to use the same set of Dev Tools.

Think about it :)

-K
 
Col4bin said:
What a novelty. These things can all be done while inside the car. Why would I want to control the air conditioning or heat levels from my watch when it's right there within arm's reach?

Did it occur to you that it might be nice to have the car's temperature already set at a comfortable level when you get in on a particularly hot or cold day?
Click to expand...
 
petsounds said:
Surely Apple will eventually give us an SDK to create native Watch apps, probably at this year's WWDC, but I imagine they wanted devs to have actual watches before designing them using all the hardware features. For now, just think of what developers can do is give the iPhone a second screen. And please MacRumors, stop confusing the two.
Click to expand...

I believe devs will be even more "disappointed" with 'native' Watch apps due to unrealized expectations but I am not at liberty to say why I think this.

The solutions will work and allow for creating great experiences for end users, but the complaining devs collective will be...unhappy because the access will not be 'unfettered' and the requirements will reflect this.

Regardless, :apple:Watch apps that can be created *today* are capable of offering far deeper User Experiences than what's on Wear right now.

You'll see.

----------

So, looking at the app that accompanied this article: did anyone see a need for it to do more than it is designed to do? On a wrist?
 
bdkennedy1 said:
Would people be too lazy to pull their phone out of their pockets and use that?
Click to expand...

It's not really laziness as much as convinence.

I'm a cold, below 0 weather college student and I keep my phone in my pocket that's 2 layers under my jacket(s). So in class I dont want to dig around if something comes up. I just want to take a peek and get back to doing what I was doing. Plus, if it can disconnect from your phone altogether or have in class abilities like Livescribe support then there you go. These kinds of things will probably happen in the future iterations (won't be getting 1st gen).

Not to mention that I have a 5s so if I wanted to use Apple Pay this could get the job done. Finally, I'm trying to excercise. If you have this on your wrist guiding you along with your workouts it can certianly help.

It's just a tool I really see benefits to in the future. The key here is that I've recently started eating a watch because I like to accurately keep track of time so I stay on task. After not wearing one regularly for over 18 years (even with my dad suggesting I should) it's become a habit and something where I say, "now I get why these features would come in handy on my wrist." Though like I said earlier this gen. misses things that turn me away. It's like a beta.

Aluminum213 said:
Wouldn't you rather read texts and notifications on a very small screen with severely limited controls?
Click to expand...

Let's not forget this is a Retina display here :)
 
DC Wallaby said:
Anyway. Maybe I'm just a country bumpkin who doesn't know what technology is capable of anymore, but THAT looks like a damn cool and damn USEFUL application for a wristwatch. If I could so much as remote start my cheap-ass Chevy Sonic from my wrist, that'd be pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

It's definitely very James Bond-esque. There is a "cool" element to it.

However I'm afraid the coolness could wear off somewhat quickly, because again, this functionality is no different than what can be offered on the phone. Sure, you can access it from your wrist. But is that slight convenience worth shelling out $350?

I definitely have my eye on that Tesla though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back