Why Apple won’t allow 3rd party watch faces

[Akrapovic]

I think the issue is 2 fold.

1. Custom Watch faces is too insignificant / small market for apple to invest time and money into making a full fledged AppStore on it own.

Totally disagree with this. They once thought the market was too small and insignificant to have third party apps. By Jobs own admission, Apple were surprised at the explosion of the AppStore.

People will spend ungodly amounts of money on terrible apps. The idea of a FaceStore that has thousands of Watch Faces at 99p is a potential goldmine. If they set a minimum price of 99p, they take a third (iirc) of the profit. Man, imagine the potential money there. The Apple Watch is the most popular watch in the world (apparently). That is a market.

The policing of copyrighted content may be an issue, but that exists in the standard AppStore too.

 

[44267547]

They want to monetize watch faces. Its a logical business strategy.

That, and Apple just wants control. That’s how this company has always been. They like having exclusivity over proprietary features both hardware and software, that really has been there moto for years. Although they have a strong relationship/Value their developers, The Apple Watch is the one product they seemingly want most control over currently.

 

[akash.nu]

Apple is running Apple Music not precisely to make money, but to add value to their ecosystem (and undoubtedly also to undermine their competitors.) It was the same way with the app store, in the years before it turned into a booming business.

Nobody's saying watch faces would make Apple billions of dollars. It would be to add value for those who have bought a watch, plus giving hesitant maybe-buyers extra incentive to splurge. Watch face store faces could be more free-form and expressive than Apple's typically rigid design process would otherwise allow.

Apple Music is one of their biggest service based revenue streams - https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/03/05/apple-music-10-billion-usd-business/

The whole idea of appstore was to make money.

 

[akash.nu]

Totally disagree with this. They once thought the market was too small and insignificant to have third party apps. By Jobs own admission, Apple were surprised at the explosion of the AppStore.

People will spend ungodly amounts of money on terrible apps. The idea of a FaceStore that has thousands of Watch Faces at 99p is a potential goldmine. If they set a minimum price of 99p, they take a third (iirc) of the profit. Man, imagine the potential money there. The Apple Watch is the most popular watch in the world (apparently). That is a market.

The policing of copyrighted content may be an issue, but that exists in the standard AppStore too.

The whole point of having thousands of watch faces have a basic issue with people suing apple for brands related issues we discussed earlier.

 

[Akrapovic]

The whole point of having thousands of watch faces have a basic issue with people suing apple for brands related issues we discussed earlier.

The problem of brand issues exists with the standard AppStore as well. And the equivalents on Android. And on Android watches. And Garmins etc. This is not some magical new problem - Apple and others already deal with it in other forms. It is far from insurmountable.

This is like if someone said they were going to design a car and the reply was “well you’ll have to make a gearbox! Do you know how hard that it is?” Well, yes. It’s also a problem that’s been solved.

Of all the issues Apple (and other tech companies) have overcome, this one is barely a blip on the radar.

 

[akash.nu]

The problem of brand issues exists with the standard AppStore as well. And the equivalents on Android. And on Android watches. And Garmins etc. This is not some magical new problem - Apple and others already deal with it in other forms. It is far from insurmountable.

This is like if someone said they were going to design a car and the reply was “well you’ll have to make a gearbox! Do you know how hard that it is?” Well, yes. It’s also a problem that’s been solved.

Of all the issues Apple (and other tech companies) have overcome, this one is barely a blip on the radar.

I think the main issue here is value for money. Clearly apple don’t see enough value for the investment.

 

[Deguello]

Or they just want to maintain control, which has long been their position on many aspects of phones and computers.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

I think the main issue here is value for money. Clearly apple don’t see enough value for the investment.

It's not about value for the investment. They have all the infrastructure and systems needed to set up a store, they already have multiple stores already for just about every media type that exists at the moment. It's about apple's retentive need for control. It's like why Apple mice have only one button when even their own operating system frequently requires a second. And so on.

They want absolute control of every aspect of the watch "experience". When they really should just relax things a little. The first step of the lesson they needed to learn (but haven't yet, not fully) was when they realized that the driving factor for success for the watch is to focus on health, not "personal expression". They dropped the ridiculous gold edition, they dropped the 50 billion watch case and wristband variations they offered. The next step would be to understand that people want to be the ones who're in control.

iPhones have the ability to set your own wallpaper. You can rearrange apps on the home screen, even remove (some) of the default ones you don't want. You can rearrange your control center and notifications screen. And so on. But the watch is mostly locked down. What's it to Jony Ives if my desired watchface doesn't conform to his designer sensibilities? Let me control my own destiny.

And just to stop you from maybe going there, the correct response here from you isn't "so buy an android watch then".

 

[44267547]

Or they just want to maintain control, which has long been their position on many aspects of phones and computers.

Indeed. I literally just said that exact same thing in a post above yours. My first thought is that it’s not about the Apple Watch third-party faces, because I guarantee you Apple has had plenty of feedback from users asking why they don’t have access to this. Apple Being the company that they are and have always been, they don’t like to share, that’s how it’s been for them, even under Steve Jobs it was very similar methodology.

In fairness, we need to give the Apple Watch more time to evolve, as it really is still fairly new product in just over three years to see what other changes they allow or make to the watch to broaden its horizon.

 

[CrownSeven]

In fairness, we need to give the Apple Watch more time to evolve, as it really is still fairly new product in just over three years to see what other changes they allow or make to the watch to broaden its horizon.

We're on the fourth generation. When is it 'enough' time to have evolved?

Enough excuses - the only reason there are no watch faces is control. Period. Do you think all those Hermes owners would be happy if this was allowed?

 

[Rogifan]

Totally disagree with this. They once thought the market was too small and insignificant to have third party apps. By Jobs own admission, Apple were surprised at the explosion of the AppStore.

People will spend ungodly amounts of money on terrible apps. The idea of a FaceStore that has thousands of Watch Faces at 99p is a potential goldmine. If they set a minimum price of 99p, they take a third (iirc) of the profit. Man, imagine the potential money there. The Apple Watch is the most popular watch in the world (apparently). That is a market.

The policing of copyrighted content may be an issue, but that exists in the standard AppStore too.

Wait, why would anyone be advocating this? You’d have a ‘store’ flooded with crap watch faces and who wants to spend 99 cents on a watch face anyway? I remember Winamp skins. For every good one there were 10 crappy ones. Finally, remind me how the iMessage store is doing? Nobody is sending me silly stickers.

Steve Troughton-Smith mocked up the faces below as an argument for why Apple should allow 3rd party watch faces. One, these are basically a ripoff of the Hermès face. Two, where would you add a complication to this face? The minute you added any into the corners the Marco Arments of the world would be complaining about how ugly they are and how hard they are to read. Honestly if all someone wants is an analog watch face Apple already has options. Or maybe you don’t really want a smart watch but a nice mechanical watch.

[doublepost=1539266819][/doublepost]

iPhones have the ability to set your own wallpaper. You can rearrange apps on the home screen, even remove (some) of the default ones you don't want. You can rearrange your control center and notifications screen. And so on. But the watch is mostly locked down. What's it to Jony Ives if my desired watchface doesn't conform to his designer sensibilities? Let me control my own destiny.

And just to stop you from maybe going there, the correct response here from you isn't "so buy an android watch then".

I would equate watch faces to allowing themes on iOS. Yes you can add your own background wallpaper and put apps in folders but outside of that there is no customization. I don’t think it’s about Apple knows best but rather not wanting to spend resources managing a theme or watch face store for what is probably a small number of people who would use it. And then also not wanting to deal with customizations that get abandoned or break when a software update comes out. Surely Apple has the data on how many people are asking for 3rd party watch faces. It might look like a lot of people want it on Twitter tech world but I’ll bet it’s very small compared to other features people want.

 

[akash.nu]

Wait, why would anyone be advocating this? You’d have a ‘store’ flooded with crap watch faces and who wants to spend 99 cents on a watch face anyway? I remember Winamp skins. For every good one there were 10 crappy ones. Finally, remind me how the iMessage store is doing? Nobody is sending me silly stickers.

Steve Troughton-Smith mocked up the faces below as an argument for why Apple should allow 3rd party watch faces. One, these are basically a ripoff of the Hermès face. Two, where would you add a complication to this face? The minute you added any into the corners the Marco Arments of the world would be complaining about how ugly they are and how hard they are to read. Honestly if all someone wants is an analog watch face Apple already has options. Or maybe you don’t really want a smart watch but a nice mechanical watch.

[doublepost=1539266819][/doublepost]
I would equate watch faces to allowing themes on iOS. Yes you can add your own background wallpaper and put apps in folders but outside of that there is no customization. I don’t think it’s about Apple knows best but rather not wanting to spend resources managing a theme or watch face store for what is probably a small number of people who would use it. And then also not wanting to deal with customizations that get abandoned or break when a software update comes out. Surely Apple has the data on how many people are asking for 3rd party watch faces. It might look like a lot of people want it on Twitter tech world but I’ll bet it’s very small compared to other features people want.

Nailed it!

 

[Akrapovic]

Wait, why would anyone be advocating this? You’d have a ‘store’ flooded with crap watch faces and who wants to spend 99 cents on a watch face anyway? I remember Winamp skins. For every good one there were 10 crappy ones. Finally, remind me how the iMessage store is doing? Nobody is sending me silly stickers.

This isn't wrong, however I don't feel it's relevant. Firstly, using this argument, I can make a good argument for getting rid of the standard AppStore. For every 1 good app theres 10 crap ones (there's actually closer to a thousand crap ones for 1 good one). How did Apple sort this? The same way every other store has solved it for about 2 decades - by using trending and top sales charts.

You can use the "there will be too much crap" argument for literally every product in the world. Why make iTunes? Most songs are crap! There'd be too many rubbish ones! You'd need some sort of "chart" system for that to work, and that way madness lies.

Yes. There will be lots of crap. But that's the same as the AppStore. How do we solve that? The same way the AppStore solves it. Who wants to spend 99p on a watch face? Me. And given that people will spend £10 on microtransactions to make their fictional farm grow crops faster, questioning if people will be cheap watch faces seems to be kinda daft. People also spend a LOT more money than 99p on cosmetic upgrades in games that add nothing but a purple hat to your character. These things sell like hot cakes, to the point where EA builds entire games around the transaction system. And you're questioning if anyone will cosmetically upgrade their watch face?

I like ATP, but, no offence to Macro, I don't care what he or anyone else wants. I like hearing everyones opinion, and this one is my own fully formed opinion. Build a Watch Face Store, and let the cream rise to the top just like every other store.

The reason Apple don't allow it now is so it can be a major feature in a future release. You watch (ha, see that pun?), it'll be in WatchOS6 or 7 and it'll be THE big feature of whatever OS it goes into.

 

[JT2002TJ]

The reason Apple don't allow it now is so it can be a major feature in a future release. You watch (ha, see that pun?), it'll be in WatchOS6 or 7 and it'll be THE big feature of whatever OS it goes into.

This is the truth. Then all the doubter will say how great it is to have a choice of 3rd party watch faces. Just like the same people saying why do we need a bigger phone, or why do we need multiple signatures in emails, why do you need a stylus/pencil, FILL IN WITH ANY GENIUS FEATURE APPLE OFFERED YEARS AFTER.

It has been enough time, they should have it working by now. If Apple wants to still have control, they can develop a few 3rd party templates, that if you want to have you product on their store you must comply with. This will make it smooth.

Design 1: One complication is a preset location
Design 2: 1-3 complications in preset locations
Design 3: Infograph style complications in preset locations

It would also be helpful to be able to develop your own by doing a background image with all 3 design choices. Not just the current setup which really hinders the use for me (I need more complications then available with that watch face).

 

[Rogifan]

This isn't wrong, however I don't feel it's relevant. Firstly, using this argument, I can make a good argument for getting rid of the standard AppStore. For every 1 good app theres 10 crap ones (there's actually closer to a thousand crap ones for 1 good one). How did Apple sort this? The same way every other store has solved it for about 2 decades - by using trending and top sales charts.

You can use the "there will be too much crap" argument for literally every product in the world. Why make iTunes? Most songs are crap! There'd be too many rubbish ones! You'd need some sort of "chart" system for that to work, and that way madness lies.

Yes. There will be lots of crap. But that's the same as the AppStore. How do we solve that? The same way the AppStore solves it. Who wants to spend 99p on a watch face? Me. And given that people will spend £10 on microtransactions to make their fictional farm grow crops faster, questioning if people will be cheap watch faces seems to be kinda daft. People also spend a LOT more money than 99p on cosmetic upgrades in games that add nothing but a purple hat to your character. These things sell like hot cakes, to the point where EA builds entire games around the transaction system. And you're questioning if anyone will cosmetically upgrade their watch face?

I like ATP, but, no offence to Macro, I don't care what he or anyone else wants. I like hearing everyones opinion, and this one is my own fully formed opinion. Build a Watch Face Store, and let the cream rise to the top just like every other store.

The reason Apple don't allow it now is so it can be a major feature in a future release. You watch (ha, see that pun?), it'll be in WatchOS6 or 7 and it'll be THE big feature of whatever OS it goes into.

That’s all true but I think 3rd party apps are way more important to iPhone than 3rd party watch faces would be to Apple Watch. Maybe Apple will do it someday but I won’t be surprised if they don’t either. As far as Marco goes I think he needs to stick to mechanical watches. He’ll be much happier.

 

[JT2002TJ]

That’s all true but I think 3rd party apps are way more important to iPhone than 3rd party watch faces would be to Apple Watch. Maybe Apple will do it someday but I won’t be surprised if they don’t either. As far as Marco goes I think he needs to stick to mechanical watches. He’ll be much happier.

To me, the watch face is EVERYTHING to the apple watch. I own mechanical watches, the dial is what makes a watch to me. Apple did a great job designing the platform, I think they should open up 3rd party watch faces to improve the icing on the cake.

I think people would be surprised how much things would sell. I can think of 3-4 I would buy right now, not to mention designing faces base off of current world topics/current events.

 

[Akrapovic]

That’s all true but I think 3rd party apps are way more important to iPhone than 3rd party watch faces would be to Apple Watch. Maybe Apple will do it someday but I won’t be surprised if they don’t either. As far as Marco goes I think he needs to stick to mechanical watches. He’ll be much happier.

I agree that apps are much more important than Watch faces. But we're sitting here in 2018 saying that. When the AppStore first launched, Jobs was the first to say he was surprised at how popular it was. At one point, Apps were seen as unimportant. Now apps make or break a phone.

I think people would be surprised how much things would sell. I can think of 3-4 I would buy right now, not to mention designing faces base off of current world topics/current events.

Totally. Anyone who doesn't think you could sell cheap Watch faces needs to actually take a look at the AppStore, the In-App purchases, gaming micro-transactions and gaming cosmetic DLC.

Also, why are we debating whether or not a 99p cosmetic item will be popular, whilst we also have no problem justifying a $50 cosmetic Watch band? It's not like the Watch band is going to sync your emails and turn on your smart Alexa controlled Twitter connected toaster when you get home. It's a cosmetic Watch band. So why are $50 cosmetic watch bands ok, but $1 cosmetic faces are silly?

 

[JT2002TJ]

Also, why are we debating whether or not a 99p cosmetic item will be popular, whilst we also have no problem justifying a $50 cosmetic Watch band? It's not like the Watch band is going to sync your emails and turn on your smart Alexa controlled Twitter connected toaster when you get home. It's a cosmetic Watch band. So why are $50 cosmetic watch bands ok, but $1 cosmetic faces are silly?

Because there are a group of people who believe that Apple does everything right. If Apple doesn't offer it, it is because it isn't possible or no one wants it. Until... Until Apple then offers it, and then Apple is the greatest company because they are innovative because they offer it.

 

[tromboneaholic]

iPhones have the ability to set your own wallpaper. You can rearrange apps on the home screen, even remove (some) of the default ones you don't want. You can rearrange your control center and notifications screen. And so on. But the watch is mostly locked down. What's it to Jony Ives if my desired watchface doesn't conform to his designer sensibilities? Let me control my own destiny.

You can set a photo as the background of the watch face, just like an iPhone wallpaper.
You can rearrange apps on the watch, just like on the iPhone.
You can rearrange the control center on the watch, just like on the iPhone.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is (as I've already explained), that the watch is very locked down and there's really no genuine reason it should be. Btw, the photo background is its own watchface and not an option open for any, most or even a few watchfaces, and it also has serious limitations attached to it - which is why I say the watch is too locked down.

 

[44267547]

Enough excuses - the only reason there are no watch faces is control. Period.

Please follow along in the thread. I already reiterated this point. See below:

That, and Apple just wants control. That’s how this company has always been. They like having exclusivity over proprietary features both hardware and software .

And....

Do you think all those Hermes owners would be happy if this was allowed?

Hermes has no contribution to third party watch Faces, this was an exclusive feature. As I mentioned, The Apple Watch is one of the newest products in Apples line up, its just over three years old, Apple does not conform to what the consumer wants on there timeline, Thats how this Company is. Plus, its possible third party watch faces may not be a reality, but as I mentioned, let’s see where and how this evolves. Look how the watch has changed in just three years, we don’t know Apples next move, nor do they want to predictable.

 

[ActionableMango]

Wait, why would anyone be advocating this?

The answer to that seems obvious. People would like a larger selection of watch faces.

A far better question is, Why would anyone be advocating against this?

It seems really selfish to argue against this. If you get what you want, the rest of us miss out.

On the other hand, if we get what we want, you don't lose anything. Feel free to stick with whatever default face you have, and never look at third party watch faces.

 

[PatrickNSF]

Frankly, none of the Apple Watch faces are all that great. I'd pay for a few decent ones.

I've been switching between an AW and Garmin for the past few years and currently have a fenix 5 Plus. I'd settle for a direct copy of a couple of those that are available...and they're free.

 

[Rogifan]

The answer to that seems obvious. People would like a larger selection of watch faces.

A far better question is, Why would anyone be advocating against this?

It seems really selfish to argue against this. If you get what you want, the rest of us miss out.

On the other hand, if we get what we want, you don't lose anything. Feel free to stick with whatever default face you have, and never look at third party watch faces.

I see a very small number of people paying for 3rd party watch faces. Not worth Apple’s time. That’s my argument. I think Apple and 3rd party devs should focus their energy on complications/widgets.
[doublepost=1539314863][/doublepost]

I agree that apps are much more important than Watch faces. But we're sitting here in 2018 saying that. When the AppStore first launched, Jobs was the first to say he was surprised at how popular it was. At one point, Apps were seen as unimportant. Now apps make or break a phone.



Totally. Anyone who doesn't think you could sell cheap Watch faces needs to actually take a look at the AppStore, the In-App purchases, gaming micro-transactions and gaming cosmetic DLC.

Also, why are we debating whether or not a 99p cosmetic item will be popular, whilst we also have no problem justifying a $50 cosmetic Watch band? It's not like the Watch band is going to sync your emails and turn on your smart Alexa controlled Twitter connected toaster when you get home. It's a cosmetic Watch band. So why are $50 cosmetic watch bands ok, but $1 cosmetic faces are silly?

I’m not sure what you mean by justifying $50 cosmetic watch bands. Obviously you can’t wear the watch without a band. But I doubt Apple spends much time or resources supporting 3rd party watch bands. Not at all comparable to a watch face App Store that would need to be curated/maintained by Apple.

 

[tromboneaholic]

My point is (as I've already explained), that the watch is very locked down and there's really no genuine reason it should be. Btw, the photo background is its own watchface and not an option open for any, most or even a few watchfaces, and it also has serious limitations attached to it - which is why I say the watch is too locked down.

You didn't explain it well. All of your examples of the watch being locked down were wrong.

Every single example you gave was incorrect.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if you can't justify it.

Now you are saying the photo background watch face is only one watch face.

The iPhone lock screen is only one lock screen that can't be changed – Unlike the watch were you CAN change the watch face. The watch face = lock screen because it's what you see when you raise to wake, or tap to wake, when you want to see the time. They are inarguably analogous to each other. They are both the first screen you interact with before interacting with the grid of icons.

In a way, the flashlight and camera buttons on the iPhone lock screen are complications you cannot customize, making an intelligent observer see the iPhone as more locked down than the watch in some respects.

You stated the app icons couldn't be rearranged, and you were wrong.

You stated the control center icons couldn't be rearranged and you were wrong.

I have a hard time believing you've ever actually used an Apple Watch.