Apple Restricts Pebble From Being Awesome With iPhones

> but is that because no one has been able to make a good alternative or hasn’t because the disadvantages third-party wearables face are too great

(honest question) How much friction is there to a developer setting up integration of their watch with an Android phone? I'm asking because my gut feeling is there is a lot less friction. If that's the case and there was a much better watch out there, surely it would have shown up as something you could use with Android by now.

> the idea of a 30 day battery life sure is tempting as daily charging is a pain

Is it, though? This is about the lamest first-world problem I have ever heard. People have been complaining about this forever and I have never understood it, at least since the Watch got to the point of being able to last for a day on a charge.

Do you never need to remove your watch for any reason? Do you shower with it on? Do you do... ahem... bedroom activities with it on? Is it really so much of a chore to take it off for 30 minutes to get it to 80% or 60 minutes to get it to 100%? (source; specifically for Series 10)

@Kevin Well, I don’t have a Series 10, but my experience is that it lasts all day (not counting sleeping) under favorable conditions. Sometimes something goes wrong and it’s unexpectedly dead 2/3 of the way through the day. This is usually not a big deal, but at the same time I know I can’t really rely on it. Everyone seems to get that the current (great) MacBook battery life is a big deal, and it’s not because they all want to work for 15 hours straight. It’s because it’s transformative when (as with Kindles) you don’t really have to think about battery life anymore.

I have never had a problem where my Apple Watch has run out of charge. I guess it could be nice if I didn't have to charge it every day, but it's not a hardship to do so. And I'm sure there are people who need to be away from "charging ability" for long periods where that might be an issue.

I've said this before: Apple should tell the EU to pound sand. Why should they have to do all the work to set up all of these system integrations so that third parties can use them? If you want to use a watch that integrates with your iPhone, BUY AN APPLE WATCH.

Apple Watch is a very poor substitute for a Coros or Garmin when it comes to deep, athletic metrics. I use a Garmin despite the poor integration/restrictions of Apple's platform because their offering is wide as an ocean and shallow as a thimble.

@DJ I get that “EU tells Apple to do all this work” is not great. Is there a better solution? Or we just accept that if you want a mail client that can check for new messages in the background, it has to be Apple Mail? All Web browsers must be WebKit? Only Apple hardware (headphones, device trackers, watches, headset) can ever have good integration? If you ever want anything different you have to go to Android and hope that Google keeps that relatively open?

I'm not sure what a better solution would be. I don't think it's fair to ask Apple to do all the work and be required to make the whole system open. There's value in having Apple control the whole stack, but I can see where some third party offerings (Coros/Garmin) might have highly desirable features for some subset of the population. Maybe open it up to third parties, but have some kind of licensing fee?

I don't understand the "argument" that the EU telling Apple to do what it should already be doing—that is, documenting its interfaces—is somehow burdensome. If Apple were competent this simply wouldn't represent a problem. It does because Apple's motives are malicious.

The apple watch, my goodness, from previously (any now back again) using wrist trackers with batteries that last weeks to something that needs charging everyday is immoral - Any of the tech giants portraying itself as 'green' is deplorable.

"I don't think it's fair to ask Apple to do all the work and be required to make the whole system open."

Why do you care about what's fair to Apple? Apple is not a human being. Apple doesn't feel slighted or sad if you say mean things about it. Apple doesn't cry at night when you treat it "unfairly."

So, what's the actual argument that you're making? What's the downside of being "unfair" to Apple?

"Apple closed off the ability of smartwatches after Pebble to negotiate with carriers to provide messaging services, and now requires users to turn off iMessage (disabling iOS’s core messaging platform) if they want to take advantage of such contracts between a third-party smartwatch maker and cellular carriers."

That kind of anti-competitive behavior should be straight up illegal

Also, Apple whining that the EU is making them do a lot of extra work is rich because I'm sure 3rd parties would *love* it if Apple allowed them to write drivers and stuff. Oh but that's a security risk.

So I guess Apple can get over it. They're one of the richest companies in the world. I don't feel bad for them having to do some extra work

"Why should they have to do all the work to set up all of these system integrations so that third parties can use them? If you want to use a watch that integrates with your iPhone, BUY AN APPLE WATCH."

You answered your own question. The trade union that is EU want's to increase fair competition. One important aspect of that is to fight monopolies. (Like the one where you HAVE to buy an apple watch if you want a smart watch that integrates well with your iPhone.