Brian X. Chen and Vindu Goel, writing for the New York Times:
In the months surrounding the much-ballyhooed release of the Apple Watch, Apple managers courted Facebook in the hopes that the social networking giant would make a software application for the new gadget.
Facebook was not persuaded. Three months after the watch’s release, there is no Facebook app tailored for it. Adam Mosseri, who oversees Facebook’s news feed, said the social network had been studying the Apple Watch but had not figured out how to deliver a good Facebook experience — including the news feed’s stream of posts, photos and videos — on such a small screen.
Apple managers courted Facebook? How about a link, or even the most anecdotal proof behind that statement? It reads like a bit of an expose, but without the proof.
OK, moving on.
The lack of support from Facebook — and from other popular app makers like Snapchat and Google, which also do not have apps for Apple Watch — underscores the skepticism that remains in the technology community about the wearable device.
Skepticism? I don’t see it as skepticism at all. I see it as the tech community trying to get their head around what can and can’t be done on the Apple Watch. If anything, I see it as waiting for higher adoption rates and for watchOS 2 to hit the mainstream.
I believe the potential for Apple Watch is huge. Apple is very slowly tweaking the model to make sure the user experience is controllable and positive. As an example, consider the customization of watch faces.
watchOS 2 opened the customization gates a tiny bit, allowing third party developers to build custom complications (a complication is a little add-on to the watch face, like those that show day, date, next calendar event, or even phases of the moon) that will, potentially, appear on each of Apple’s existing watch faces.
The addition of complications is just a single step in the evolution of the Apple Watch experience. But Apple has to step carefully here. The Apple Watch screen is small, and the communication between the watch and the iPhone is slow enough to make controlling the back and forth critical. As Apple learns from these early experiences, R&D spending will find ways to improve the tech, and the Apple Watch will continue to evolve.
And at every step along the evolutionary path, more and more developers will find the right moment for their app to make the leap.
I could not agree with you more Jim. This is so typical of a new Apple category product launch. Very careful to limit all the bells and whistles to ensure optimum user experience. Think iPhone 1, revolutionary at the time yet limited in many respects by Apple. I could not even move my apps around let alone download any, no copy/paste ect. All of this came when the technology was right.
I’d love my Watch apps to load much quicker, Apple knows this. They also know that throwing every feature out there, the Samsung model, simply produces a poor end user experience. I think they are basically ‘field testing’ millions of Watches right now with a great product while making good profits and then bringing more refinements as the hardware/software allow. Can’t wait for Watch OS2 and for next years Apple Watch. Even better things to come.
Most of the people the article quotes seem more skeptical about their apps than the watch. Adam Mosseri, who oversees Facebook’s news feed, said, “I don’t know if we could get it all in there in a way that feels good and works well.” That’s a comment on his team’s abilities and Facebook’s vision. They (Facebook) want to get it all in there (the news feed). They need to figure out what Palm figured out when they became a hit, that you don’t need it all in there. Just the basics. Figure out what the number one reason is for people to use your app. Now put that on the watch.
I’m not sure if people look to app support as the primary reason to buy a totally new product, a product they’ve never used before. At the basic level they’d love to have their own custom watch faces. Apple denied them that. The next thing a customer would look forward to is a sturdy watch, not something with a rubber band. $350 isn’t that small of an amount. Again apple, failed at that by vastly inflating the price of an entry level all metal watch.
All in all the product is reminiscent of the first iphone. Clunky, heavily restricted on what it can and cannot do. But it will stand the test of time and emerge as a much better watch in the next iteration. However apple needs to allow the user to theme the watch, as a watch is a fashion accessory as well.
Agree that future is bright. I love my Apple Watch. But please, please, please stop talking about watch face customization. Lest we forget, we used to mock Android for touting UI customization as an important innovation.
Jim didn’t post this story. Check the byline: “Written by Dave Mark”.
I think it looks like a lot of app developers have a lot of trouble shoehorning their apps in the watch form factor. I think that is the wrong way to approach the Apple Watch really. We already see that apps are different between the phone form factor and the tablet form factor. Have a look at Things, Easy Books, Evernote, Paprika or Pixelmator for example. Functionally they are the same but they leverage the bigger size of the iPad to display more information or by offering a different workflow that is made possible by the bigger size of the iPad.
So far we know that monitoring, time telling and notification are good functional areas for the Apple Watch. There probably are a lot of others here. Developers need to depart from those functional areas and then seek a connection to the apps that run on the other platforms. From that standpoint is is quite logical that a lot of phone apps will not be squeezed into a watch app for the simple fact that those apps will be unusable which will reflect badly on those developers that try.
Let’s wait and see what happens if a number of functional areas are researched where a phone size addition to your mobile phone adds to the user experience overall. It is way too early to write off the Apple Watch at this stage.
Why be such a jerk? It’s completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation.
Sorry? How is correcting someone and giving credit where it is due being a jerk?
” At the basic level they’d love to have their own custom watch faces.”
Not really. Most people don’t like to tweak their gear. SOME do… but just like for the hobbyist that wants to endlessly play with their watch fact, there’s Android Wear just as there’s Android for people who don’t like the iPhone (which you also can’t really tweak).
“… apple needs to allow the user to theme the watch, as a watch is a fashion accessory as well.”
Do people theme Rolexes? Omega? Patek Philippe? Of course not. And have you SEEN what most people do as ‘design’?
Most people don’t like to tweak their gear. SOME do… but just like for the hobbyist that wants to endlessly play with their watch fact, there’s Android Wear just as there’s Android for people who don’t like the iPhone (which you also can’t really tweak)..
By that defintion, Im not supposed to change the wallpaper on my phone. Are you being serious when you say that only hobbyists would like a custom watchface. Last I checked, a watch was a fashion expression?
Do people theme Rolexes? Omega? Patek Philippe? Of course not. And have you SEEN what most people do as ‘design’?
So wait, people who buy $10,000 watches buy them to customize? And how exactly do you ‘customize’ a Rolex? Custom velcro strap?
Seems you have no idea of the apple watch’s demographic.
Let me guess, you still have the default iOS wallpaper on your phone?
We might be talking past one another a bit. If you mean people would like a wider selection of professionally design faces, then yeah. But if you mean people want to create their own themes, no, I don’t think most people want to fiddle with their watch like that. SOME will… just like some jailbreak the iPhone so they can tweak. It’s a minority pursuit.
As to the second point… you were the one who called the Watch a fashion accessory. My point is that people buy fashion accessories for the look and feel of the thing, not so they can paint all over it themselves.
And I’m well aware of the demo, being part of it (I have a Sport). Do you even own a Watch? Or are you just blowing hot air to feel important?
Indeed I was talking of a much wider selection of watch faces, considering how crisp the display is. Im not 12 to use the Mickey Mouse face. There are tons of ways the watch face can be customised to make it stand out. Thats the point of getting a smart watch in the first place. It is not a minority pursuit to ask for importing or even purchasing a different watch face. This lockdown culture is really getting in the way of the utility of the product.
The ‘look and feel’ of the watch doesn’t end with just the exterior design. You were the one who gave examples of Rolex and Patek Philippe, their demographic don’t buy watches for either look or feel.
And to answer your question, I don’t own a smart watch. You’re the owner of a smart watch who doesn’t really understand why you got one in the first place. I am a potential customer seeking a better experience from a smartwatch.
I know Shawn! No big deal and he’s right! I mean ‘great points…..Mark.’ Ooopsy. 😉
I’m late to this discussion but Facebook isn’t interested in implementing the number one reason people use their app. When they say “get it all in there” they’re talking about the ads next to the newsfeed. That’s the number one reason for them to make an app and they can’t figure out how to do it in the real estate available on the Watch screen.
Fair enough. Again, a comment on Facebook’s vision.