Apple worked on Android compatibility for the Apple Watch for three years before abandoning...

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,181   +1,427
Staff member
In context: The US government's antitrust lawsuit against Apple prompted the company to confirm that it had once considered making the Apple Watch compatible with Android phones. It claims that after investigating the consideration, it determined it was too complicated and would result in an inferior product.

On Thursday, Apple responded to the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit, saying it "threatens" the company's customer base. The suit targets the iPhone and Apple Watch while roping in other aspects of the tech giant's business, including advertising, browsers, FaceTime, and News services. Apple promises to defend itself against a legal action that it calls "wrong on the facts and the law."

"This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets," an Apple spokesperson said. "It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it."

One example of a meritless complaint that Cupertino points to is the DoJ's notion that Apple intentionally designed its watches to be incompatible with Android devices. Apple remarks that it had actually worked on making the Apple Watch compatible with Android for three years but ultimately gave up because of technical limitations.

While it may seem logical for Apple to strive for compatibility with as many devices as possible to boost sales, the claim of 'technical limitations' might not hold up under scrutiny. A report from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman in 2023, citing anonymous sources, revealed that an effort to make the Apple Watch compatible with Android, known as Project Fennel, was nearly complete but was allegedly abandoned due to concerns it would dilute iPhone sales.

However, this potential contradiction in Apple's argument has little bearing on whether providing watch compatibility to Android constitutes a monopoly. Even if the insider claims were valid, arguing that Apple must make products compatible a competitor's is relatively weak. Compare it with any other similar device. Was Sega ever sued because the Sega CD didn't work on Nintendo consoles? Is Samsung getting sued because its Android-based Galaxy Watch is incompatible with iOS?

It's quite a stretch to say that a company has a monopoly simply by making devices that work well within its bailiwick with little or no consideration to others in the market. Most businesses do this. There is no explicit responsibility requiring a firm to ensure its product function with its competitors. In fact, this would erode quality for the lack of a competitive standard. The fact that Apple has lines of devices distinct from Samsung or Google ensures that consumers are getting the best quality possible from all of them.

Image credit: Simon Waldherr, Ryan Kawailani Ozawa

Permalink to story.

 
Yeahhh, I very much doubt it was 3 years full time either. At least half of the app would've already been made because of iOS.
Definitely smells like they'd rather screw over their customers discreetly than provide a better experience overall.

As for whether they should be compelled to, the watch is one of those things that aren't general purpose. I don't see it working out. But man, Apple is way too bold to lie about these things.
 
Yeahhh, I very much doubt it was 3 years full time either. At least half of the app would've already been made because of iOS.
Definitely smells like they'd rather screw over their customers discreetly than provide a better experience overall.

As for whether they should be compelled to, the watch is one of those things that aren't general purpose. I don't see it working out. But man, Apple is way too bold to lie about these things.
Yeah I don't think they are lying, just shading the truth. It probably happened just like the insiders said—the project was almost complete but Apple decided to can it because it figured it would lose iPhone sales and Apple just chose to call it "technical limitations." TBH I don't think it would have affected sales much. A customer is either in the market for a smartwatch or is not. Those that buy one are likely to go with the brand that they know and trust regardless compatibility. That is to say iPhone owners are more inclined to stick with Apple products and Android users are more inclined to stick with Android. So I think an Android compatible Apple watch would not have hurt Apple much.

That said, forcing Apple to make its products compatible—whether it's a watch or something else, just doesn't make any sense. I don't buy an Xbox disc expecting it to work in a PlayStation. Heck I don't even expect controllers to be cross compatible even though I think they are. But the only reason is because they operate on the same Bluetooth standard. With Android/iOS devices we aren't using the same standard or even the same architecture. So expecting either one of them to make products that work for the other is just silly. The DoJ is chasing dream that no court is going to find reasonable.
 
Heck I don't even expect controllers to be cross compatible even though I think they are. But the only reason is because they operate on the same Bluetooth standard. With Android/iOS devices we aren't using the same standard or even the same architecture.
from the internet: "Your Apple Watch uses Bluetooth when your iPhone is near, which conserves power. If Bluetooth isn't available, your Apple Watch will try to use Wi-Fi. For example, if compatible Wi-Fi is available and your iPhone isn't in Bluetooth range, your Apple Watch uses Wi-Fi." so it seems thy are using compatible interfaces and the "compatibility problem" is only the lack of an android app that apple doesn't with to make. I'm not saying they should, only that I don't see why they couldn't.
 
I can hear the conversation about the development stage now:
"Who can we give Android compatibility to?",
"Well, there's the new guy in the staff cafeteria",
"Perfect, but don't tell him what we want, just in case"
 
Google Pixel Watch 2: Android only
Samsung Galaxy Watch 6: Android only, plays best w/ Samsung phones
Those are the two leading AW competitors; neither works with iOS. Reads as platform plays, no?
 
Google Pixel Watch 2: Android only
Samsung Galaxy Watch 6: Android only, plays best w/ Samsung phones
Those are the two leading AW competitors; neither works with iOS. Reads as platform plays, no?
Neither work with Apple because to get it work with Apple they would need Apple's support. Apple is still the limiting factor in that scenario.
 
I'm sure a company the size of Apple could accomplish any interoperability they wanted in less than three years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don't think they are lying, just shading the truth. It probably happened just like the insiders said—the project was almost complete but Apple decided to can it because it figured it would lose iPhone sales and Apple just chose to call it "technical limitations." TBH I don't think it would have affected sales much. A customer is either in the market for a smartwatch or is not. Those that buy one are likely to go with the brand that they know and trust regardless compatibility. That is to say iPhone owners are more inclined to stick with Apple products and Android users are more inclined to stick with Android. So I think an Android compatible Apple watch would not have hurt Apple much.

That said, forcing Apple to make its products compatible—whether it's a watch or something else, just doesn't make any sense. I don't buy an Xbox disc expecting it to work in a PlayStation. Heck I don't even expect controllers to be cross compatible even though I think they are. But the only reason is because they operate on the same Bluetooth standard. With Android/iOS devices we aren't using the same standard or even the same architecture. So expecting either one of them to make products that work for the other is just silly. The DoJ is chasing dream that no court is going to find reasonable.
FYI it's one thing to do something, it's a totally different thing to support it perpetually. Especially with the 9 million different Android phones out there.
 
FYI it's one thing to do something, it's a totally different thing to support it perpetually. Especially with the 9 million different Android phones out there.

You don't support specific phone manufacturers and models--you support specific OS versions.

The things Apple doesn't do to be cross-platform compatible are choices to keep its own walled garden protected--not true technical hurdles that hamper it.
 
Back