Apple says it spent three years trying to bring Apple Watch to Android

https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/21/apple-watch-android-apple-work/

by croes • 2 years ago

53 108 2 years ago

post_break• 2 years ago

I guess I'm confused. Apple says it can't because of a technical issue. Is it bluetooth? I know some android phones have issues with bluetooth devices like GoPros, the Pixel line in particular. That said if Samsung was able to get their Gear watches (which I don't think they support iOS anymore) to work, then I only see this as a big excuse. I have a feeling it was more of a privacy issue?

morbicer• 2 years ago

There are Xiaomi and other low-cost brands that work perfectly fine on Android, of course it's an excuse.

I am a happy user of basic Apple Watch but I am no fanboy to pretend they are something magical.

I understand some vertical integration is only possible with iOS devices but basic pairing for notifications etc should work with Android.

righthand2• 2 years ago

Yes technically it would limit their lock-in monopoly, it’s a business technical limitation. There is no technical hardware or software limitation.

OsrsNeedsf2P• 2 years ago

Whatever the "technical issue" was, it would have to be hardware related givent that AOSP is open source.

baby_souffle• 2 years ago

Whatever the "technical issue" was, it would have to be hardware related givent that AOSP is open source.

And it would have to be an issue that none of the other "works with android" wearables faced / managed to circumvent and an issue that google wasn't going to fix upstream.

I'm sure apple "tried" to bring the watch to android the same way a puppy tries to "drop it" before running away with something it knows it shouldn't have.

paldepind2• 2 years ago

Just because AOSP exist doesn't mean that Apple would be able to get any Apple Watch specific things merged. And if you get something merged into AOSP today it will be quite a while before a significant portion of the Android devices in the wild actually contains those additions.

ch4s3• 2 years ago

They're likely using a non standard protocol like they do with airpods, if I had to guess.

fusslo• 2 years ago

I suspect BT is a major cause. Apple may want to make sure that the apple watch experience is at least as good as it is on iphone. So apple may be unwilling/unable to spend the resources to support every android device out there.

And working in BT consumer products, yes, android bluetooth is still a shitshow and device-dependent. Each radio vendor and android device has its own quirks that take time and resources to account for. Apple has had a very tight leash on what its devices do for bluetooth.

nradov8• 2 years ago

That is obviously not the real reason. Garmin has succeeded in maintaining reliable Bluetooth connectivity between their smartwatches and a wide range of third-party Android phones. And they did it with a small fraction of Apple's resources.

UniverseHacker• 2 years ago

Seems like they should release whatever API is needed to make it possible from their end, and then they can say it's not their choice, android manufacturers don't seem interested in making their devices compatible.

hn_throwaway_99• 2 years ago

Puhleeeese. Yes, I'm sure they "investigated" it. But it's clear they determined their business incentives were not aligned with bringing it to Android. I have no doubt Apple teams would have overcome any nebulous "technical limitations" if they were actually incentivized to do so.

oluwie• 2 years ago

Lots of android watches work great with an iPhone. Maybe you won't get full notifications and all the other bells and whistles, but it's pretty trivial to get the basic stuff working.

jb1991• 2 years ago

But this topic is about the vice-versa.

mrcwinn• 2 years ago

Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie, and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly.

tomComb• 2 years ago

The idea is not to increase watch revenue, but to get people into the whole ecosystem and keep them there

dwallin• 2 years ago

It doesn't have to be a lie to be a poor excuse. The technical limitations could be something along the lines of they couldn't find a way to provide an app that wouldn't allow third parties to bypass apple gatekeeping of apple watches. Technically truthful, but in an antitrust context maybe less of a valid reasoning, but still allows them to redirect the public narrative.

Edit: Sounds like it was about privacy concerns, so probably something like there not being a completely foolproof way of preventing a third party from grabbing health data from the android app.

ghusto2• 2 years ago

Any claim they make can be validated through discovery. I doubt they would lie

The claim would hold up even if it were a lie. "We concluded that Androids API wasn't compatible with the Apple Watch". Not a lie, but obviously still a complete lie.

and I’m sure they’d love to increase Watch revenue by addressing the other half of the duopoly.

What they would love way _more_ is lock-in. You want this new shiny? It's only in the Apple ecosystem.

zitterbewegung• 2 years ago

Apple Watch requires the ability to go over Bluetooth or some other way to load an ipsw or some other means to update. It also needs ultra wideband tech to find the host and who knows how cellular is integrated to the phone.

What Apple could do instead to get around this would be to make the watch be 100% standalone. I don’t think that’s as easy as it sounds though.

zer00eyz4• 2 years ago

You're crossing a platform boundary.

Look at something like Active Directory that is in theory ldap.

Do you really want to mix AD and open LDAP? You can, and it's a massive pain in the ass. Now you have apple iWatch apps talking to android. Where does apple maintain the translation layer? Does google/samsung take a "fuck off" stance and lock them out? What does the user experience look like when the "bug" in the app is on android and your CALLING apple for support...

I think that last bit is the limit that folks dont really think about. You can call apple, show up at store and they are going to try to fix your issue... when your random android device breaks who do you call?

"the technical limitations" are "we cant control android" and "does not fit our customer support philosophy"

nradov8• 2 years ago

Nah. Garmin smartwatches work fine with Android phones. Apple could have just done the same, regardless of what Samsung or Google wants. Platform boundaries aren't a legitimate concern in this space.

gumby• 2 years ago

Though initially resistant, they were incentivized to do so with the ipod which acted as a "gateway drug" for people to switch to macs.

it's hard to believe anyone buys an iphone to get access to the watch, but if your watch is easier to use than your phone the incentive could run the other way

gpm2• 2 years ago

I don't find it hard to believe at all. If you want a good smart watch, the apple watch is the only game in town. If you just want a phone, androids are competitive (superior based on what I want out of a phone).

I've personally considered making my next phone an iphone just to get a watch (though I've so far avoided doing so out of distaste for the iphone). I've seen other people on the internet claim that they have.

shalmanese2• 2 years ago

I mean, the technical limitations are pretty obvious if you are even remotely familiar with the architecture. The watch offloads significant computation and communication to the phone in an extremely tightly integrated manner to have an acceptable computational and power consumption envelope.

I don't see how they could have done it without significant co-operation from the Android OS team far deeper than even two allied companies are typically able to communicate. The other alternative would have been to design a totally different piece of hardware that operates according to the Android OS expectations but that's hardly "bringing Apple Watch to Android".

nradov8• 2 years ago

Nah. The existence of fully functional smartwatches from other vendors including Garmin and Suunto prove that isn't a legitimate reason. If they want to offload some processing to an Android smartphone then all they need to do is write an Android app like the other vendors did. Simple. No Android OS changes or deep integration are needed.

zer00eyz4• 2 years ago

> 9to5Mac’s Take... It’s not Apple’s fault that there’s no Apple Watch equivalent on Android. Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch.

The DOJ is going to argue about the Apple Watch being a lock-in? Isn't that like telling Toyota, you need to make engines for Ford cause theirs suck... Hey Tesla you need to make batteries For ford cause theirs suck.

I dont think there is a real case here. I think this is going to be a big fat L for the DOJ. I think at that point in time the US will have the ability to say other countries actions around apple are anti free market/trade.

This is political theater at its finest.

DustinBrett• 2 years ago

I think it's a bit easier to swap watches than engines or electric car batteries.

shuckles6• 2 years ago

Very excited for the DOJ to finally require HP to support Brother toner.

miguelazo• 2 years ago

Exactly-- they're all built around standard protocols and technologies that should be mostly interoperable.

goosedragons• 2 years ago

The Apple Watch has it's own CPU, RAM, display, potentially even cell signal. Why should it need an iPhone to work? Should your Honda motorcycle stop working if you get rid of your Civic?

bredren5• 2 years ago

This is a fair point. It should not need an iPhone. I think it did in the first several generations but not today.

I suspect forcing Apple to allow this device to operate without an iPhone (even lacking features that might reasonably require an iPhone) could come out of this.

dgfitz• 2 years ago

Pretty sure my PlayStation 5 controller has its own CPU, RAM, wireless radio, speaker, microphone. Needs a PlayStation 5 in order to function.

Does Sony have a monopoly?

paulmd• 2 years ago

Apple Watch doesn’t stop working if you get rid of your iPhone either, they sell models with an internal cell connection for exactly this reason, so what exactly is the problem?

again, seems like half these threads are ideologue android fanboys who think there’s not a file browser or think you can’t sideload an app but are hellbent on banning the thing they don’t understand anyway.

bredren5• 2 years ago

Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch.

Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?

Urgo• 2 years ago

Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?

I was a Fitbit user from the day the initial fitbit went on sale for preorder. I used pretty much every 'flagship' fitbit since then until Google bought them. Ever since Google took over the Fitbit product got worse and worse. I decided a year ago I needed out when they got rid of the communities favorite feature, challenges. I'm pretty sure when I finally packed my fitbit away I had logged more days of usage then anyone else.

I started exploring what the other options were but was not able to even consider the apple watch because I do prefer android to ios. If it had supported android I'd have potentially gotten one though. Anyway as apple placed themselves out of the running I explored other options and decided Garmin had the best offerings. The biggest issue there though was they had way too many models and way too many versions of each model and little help to figure out which one is the best for you beyond super high level titles like "runner". That said I ended up settling on the Fenix series and after a year of use I can say I'm quite happy with it!

When I upgraded my phone this past fall to the latest Pixel Google actually was giving away free Pixel watch 2's with every purchase so I did wear a pixel watch for a couple of weeks to test it out. It was.. not great... especially the battery which was supposedly improved from the pixel watch 1.

Anyway, yes, I do agree with the statement that Google hasn't created something good enough, but I don't think they've actually tried. Like other hardware they've bought (nest) they just let it die. Garmin needs some major marketing help, but I do feel like they got a great thing going over there.

larntz• 2 years ago

I've had a Pixel 2XL, Pixel 6Pro or XL (worst phone I've ever owned), and now a Pixel 8 Pro. I strongly considered moving to iPhone after my Pixel 6 experience, but decided to give it one last chance since I really prefer Android over iOS.

When I bought the 8 I got a "free" Pixel Watch 2 with the purchase. I have not owned an Apple Watch, but my wife has an older model.

They do have Fitbit integration and it works pretty well for tracking walks, jogs, and cycling. I don't use it religiously and I'm not an exercise maniac.

The watch is nice and very functional. My biggest complaint is the battery life is really bad. I have to charge it daily -- I usually only wear it during the day and charge overnight. It'll charge pretty quickly 1-2hr but I don't care enough to do it.

It looks decent and works well enough to manage notifications and take calls when I can't grab my phone. The normal functions are on par with my wife's (older model) Apple watch.

I think if I was a serious fitness and outdoor activity kind of person I would buy a Garmin. I didn't do an in-depth comparison of the watches because I only use the base functionality of fitness tracking watches (my previous smart watch was a Withings) so it's entirely possible a new Apple watch offers some great feature I'm not aware of or wouldn't personally use.

That's my personal experience with the Pixel Watch 2. It's fine for my use case, but the battery life truly is bad.

busymom04• 2 years ago

Agreed. Government doesn't get to force a company to make their product compatible with another platform. Unless I am missing it, did the DOJ plead that Apple actively prevented Google from making Android work with Apple Watch? If so, then it would be a different story.

Couldn't Apple also make a 1st amendment argument that the government can't force them to "speak" something (make iPhone work with Android)?

shuckles6• 2 years ago

The government argued that Apple does not support Apple Watch on Android, which makes it cost prohibitive for Apple Watch users to switch to Android, since they'd have to buy a new smart watch. I wish this was made up, but it's 20% of their arguments for Apple violating anti-trust law.

nradov8• 2 years ago

Government literally forced Microsoft to make their products interoperable in a previous antitrust case from 2001. The defendant didn't attempt a 1st Amendment argument.

bhelkey2• 2 years ago

From the Department of Justice:

Apple’s smartwatch—Apple Watch—is only compatible with the iPhone. So, if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone
Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs, to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches

zer00eyz4• 2 years ago

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/fossil-smartwatches-...

Apple makes the only functional smart watch.

Fossil got fucked over and left. Google did nothing with Fitbit (dead). Samsung as a product excites no one (I own a Samsung phone, I dont want a Samsung watch).

matwood2• 2 years ago

Claiming CarPlay is anticompetitive along with blaming Apple for Windows and Amazon phones failures really makes the DOJ look clueless.

MilaM• 2 years ago

It's not too far-fetched, I think. Apple could have collaborated with Google and car OEMs to standardize an open interface for smartphone-car communication. Instead, we have two APIs that essentially do the same thing in every car OS.

asdajksah21233• 2 years ago

This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said.

Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch:

Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone. So, ifApple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new , Android -compatible smartwatch
By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth.
Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly

I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.

LinAGKar• 2 years ago

Where do you live where you buy the engine separately from the car?

bredren5• 2 years ago

This may be a strawman, "9to5Mac's Take" points out Google's acquisition of Fitbit has not resulted in a competitive product to Apple Watch.

Fitbits were very popular, is this a fair characterization that lack of comparative first party hardware in the Android ecosystem demonstrates Apple Watch's limitation to Apple is not an anti-competitive play?

gpm2• 2 years ago

Anyone have a link to "Apple's response" that they're talking about? There's nothing on the docket [1] so I assume it's a press release or something?

[1] (updated well after the date on the article): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68362334/united-states-...

Kon-Peki• 2 years ago

Some of the links in the article go nowhere, and others seem to contradict what they claim to say. But follow the links in the links and you end up with contradictions on the contradictions.

Very confusing. Maybe wait for a better source or for them to fix this article.

hex4def6• 2 years ago

I'm not sure I buy "three years" of concerted, Apple-class effort.

It's probably something that got brought up occasionally, maybe even some exploration was done to see what it would take to port stuff across.

My feeling is that the business case just wasn't there. Their customer base is people that buy into the complete Apple Experience. Not being able to control the OS-level removes a lot of that control, and the inevitable friction issues that result may tarnish the experience.

It's like: Could the French Laundry offer takeout / to-go? Sure. Do they want to? Ehh..

The goal is to welcome people into the Fold, not just sell them a watch. They want them to have an iPhone, so that they then use iCloud and buy apps / videos / subscriptions in the Apple universe.

ryandrake• 2 years ago

This seems to align reasonably well with Mark Gurman's reporting[1] from last year.

1: https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1770870612690358367

mal10c• 2 years ago

I agree with the comments, that's a pretty lame excuse. But I've gotta understand where others are coming from here. I just don't see why Apple is in such hot water here - they created a gadget (well multiple) that people like. We're not forced to buy those gadgets and we have alternatives. Sure Apple has made a butt load of money on this, but it's not like other players are prevented from making similar gadgets. I guess if I made a thing, say a new type of keyboard and I also make a motherboard and ultimately some new type of computer - then isn't it my prerogative to decide that I'm only going to support that keyboard with that computer? Or is that thinking too simple: instead is the problem that Apple isn't allowing others to take the device they bought (keyboard in this example) and on their own make it work with their Asus computer? eh, maybe a lame example but happy to hear thoughts and feedback.

bhelkey2• 2 years ago

The lawsuit alleges Apple uses their control over iOS to push users away from Android compatible watches to Apple Watches. Specifically, by adding restrictions to third party watches that don't apply to Apple Watches.

The DOJ views this as a way to deter iPhone users from switching phones. To do so they would need to buy a new watch.

They reference an Apple VP who wrote Apple Watches, "may prevent iPhone customers from switching.”

tolmasky• 2 years ago

"We couldn't figure out how to make a bunch of people buy this ugly thing unless they were already neck-deep in the ecosystem. For three years we tried to make it legitimately useful in its own right! Or at least somewhat attractive. You know, so that if you wear it in a photo it doesn't immediately date the photo. Then when you look at a nice photo where everyone is dressed up there isn't this ugly thing on your wrist that screams "2015!" or whatever. But yeah, this is a tough nut to crack. I'd go so far as to say it's an AirPower-level problem in terms of difficulty."

nokeya• 2 years ago

Knowing Apple’s love to introduce artificial limitations this news are not surprising. Even on their native platform, Apple Watche is half usable in terms of notifications - there is no way to get call notifications from apps other than gsm caller and iMessage. All you get is missed call notification. Why? Because of Apple said so

connorgutman• 2 years ago

They won't even bring it to iPadOS!

drcongo• 2 years ago

This entire DOJ thing seems to boil down to "other companies can't make things as good as Apple does, therefore Apple is the bad guy". It's laughable.

maxcoder42• 2 years ago

I think the argument is more like "the Apple abuses its illegal monopoly to further lock in their users".

orev2• 2 years ago

Having a monopoly is not illegal, only abusing it to prevent competition is.

exabrial• 2 years ago

This is going to be a hilarious lawsuit. Reminds me of LOTR and the dragon hoard his gold. It'd be much cheaper for Apple to just comply in a few really simple areas:

* Send high-def photos to other phones

* Allow full access to NFC

* Give same API access that Apple Watch uses to it's competitors

* Reverse course on the malicious compliance for EU, instead implement faithfully in the spirit of the law, and make those changes global

Instead they'll choose suicide; since Apple is unlikely to do any of that, it's time to break Apple up: Desktop Computers, Mobile Phones, Mobile Payments, Wearables, and software applications division (like iMessage and other things).

oslem• 2 years ago

I have a hard time believing that Apple is incapable of providing at least a limited API for the Apple Watch. I wouldn’t expect full feature parity when using an Apple Watch with an Android phone, but even some basic functionality like texting and simpler notifications could have helped avoid this legal trouble.

1attice• 2 years ago

Two things are true at once:

1. Apple products work very well with one another

2. Apple products don't work very well (or at all) with non-Apple products

I would propose that these are both necessary entailments of the same principle, whose articulation we owe to, of all people, Martin Heidegger, the early-twentieth-century German phenomenologist. In _The Question Concerning Technology_ he called this 'referral', and it's present in all forms of tech, and the degree of referral increases with the complexity of the tech. For example, a fountain pen 'refers' to an inkwell. The more efficiently the fountain pen fits the inkwell -- the less _waste_ there is in the design of the inkwell and the pen -- the _less likely_ it is that another pen can use the same inkwell. (This is my example, not Heidegger's; also, I'm not sure if he noticed that referral increases with complexity -- it's been a couple decades since I read the QCT.)

Designs that optimize for interchangeability and multi-part sourcing are _intrinsically wasteful_ -- for example, your Electron app runs slowly because it uses several elaborate engines (Blink, V8) that in turn rely on protocols that are also in some sense wasteful (they aren't binary; they aren't protobufs, etc.).

Now, wasteful doesn't mean _bad_, but I propose that in some high-complexity fields where the envelope is being aggressively pushed (e.g. creating new market categories, like 'biometric, account-interlinked, phone-finding, app-running smartwatch'[^1]) it may be a tradeoff that is rejected by the market.

Further thinking:

Suppose that complexity necessarily increases over time (the Complexity Ratchet -- a persuasive theory I tend to endorse.) If this implies that Referral is always increasing, and does this imply that we are moving asymptotically towards a point where the amount of 'waste' necessary for competition is simply incompatible with the requirements of what is being engineered? This would imply that there is a level of technological complexity after which we lose the substantial benefits of free markets, as competition becomes impossible. I need to think about this more.

[^1] Yes, I know Fitbit got to 'smartwatch' first, but I'd argue that the Apple Watch is a tremendous advance over Fitbit, which is why they are preferred.

its_ethan• 2 years ago

This is a really cool idea you're sharing from Martin Heidegger, I feel like it puts to words part of why I tend to side a bit more with Apple on this.

It seems adjacent to my thinking of who (and under what authority) can tell a company that they need to dedicate their resources to work on something they don't want to? In this case, the outcome would be the DOJ basically forcing Apple to use it's resources to help Samsung/Google. Apple certainly has the resources to do this, but it feels like there's a missing logical bridge here and that it sets a precedent that is based somewhat just on the current zeitgeist.

I acknowledge this could just be my interpretation of everything, and that if there's political will and support for action to be taken, then so it goes.

booleandilemma• 2 years ago

The only problem Apple can't solve is compatibility.

whatindaheck• 2 years ago

Lame excuse from Apple but the DoJ is also picking the lamest argument to prosecute Apple over. Feels very performative, especially in an election year.

The DoJ could choose something with teeth but that would require actually wanting to regulate monopolies.

joneholland• 2 years ago

I spent 3 years trying to run a marathon but I mostly stick to 5ks.

orev2• 2 years ago

I don’t see how the government could force any company to make a product that works on a competitor’s product (e.g. forcing Apple to make the Watch work on Android).

What I can see them doing is forcing Apple to allow the same level of access to APIs, sensors, etc. for competitors to be able to make their own integrations (e.g. publish the Watch protocols and allow third party apps to use them). Or to allow apps on the phone access to the same APIs, like allowing Tile to use the same APIs available to AirTags. There’s already precedent for that where Microsoft had to publish the SMB protocol so Samba could use it.

Apple says it spent three years trying to bring Apple Watch to Android

Related Stories