The Cornerplay: Apple Watch gets native apps, but we have no idea why

[Jeffrey Yuwono]

Apple has shared a few more details about how the Apple Watch will work -- see here for a good summary. The most interesting part is Apple's intention to enable fully native apps on the watch. This does not necessarily mean the Apple Watch will work without an iPhone, but it certainly makes it a possibility. The question though is... why?

The way Android Wear and Apple Watch generally work (in year 1, at least) is that the phone does most of the heavy lifting while the watch merely acts as a display that can receive inputs. It's not unlike thin client computing, where the cloud does the work and the client handles I/O. This arrangement makes sense, because then the watch doesn't need powerful chips or enormous batteries to deliver a good experience. It controls costs, too.

Editor’s Note:
Jeffrey Yuwono is CEO and co-founder of Feecha, a hyperlocal news app for neighbourhoods. A Stanford MBA and Duke undergrad, Jeff writes insightful observations about technology once a day on his blog The Cornerplay and on this weekly column on TechSpot.

The weakness in cloud computing is that a fast, consistent connection is required. Fortunately, because the phone is usually always with you alongside the watch, and because the two can connect via Bluetooth, smartwatches obviate that problem.

So why would Apple move to a future where watch apps are standalone? Is technology progressing so rapidly that streamed computing is unnecessary? That can't be right. Smartphones haven't yet crossed a threshold where performance gains are unnecessary, and smartwatches are way behind smartphones.

It could be because people might want to wear an Apple Watch but not an iPhone, like a fitness tracker for going on the run? That's possible... but this assumes the fitness tracker needs to do more than just record the run. Why would a fitness tracker need native apps when -- presumably -- it doesn't have a large screen? Where can native apps add value that syncing after the run cannot?

Or maybe the flaw is in Bluetooth? That for what Apple is envisioning, Bluetooth is an inadequate tunnel? Possible, but unlikely. Bluetooth 4.0 has a transfer rate of 3 mbps, enough for streaming video at a lower resolution. Like FaceTime. Even if it wasn't adequate, you'd think Apple would just invent its own proprietary channel like AirPlay.

Perhaps, the initiative to go fully native is due to limitations with the way iOS handles multitasking; maybe it's not easy for the watch to interact with all the apps idle on the phone? A system that's so set it would be a nightmare for Apple to change? That doesn't seem right either. Apple doesn't usually cut corners and the reason for limited multitasking -- an iPhone's battery life -- is less of a concern with each passing generation.

None of the above feel like good answers. Maybe Apple just wants to make the Apple Watch fully independent of the iPhone one day. So that a Windows Phone user can take full advantage of an Apple Watch with its native apps. Except this would come at the cost of performance and battery life. Moreover, Apple has never particularly cared about moving Apple products and services outside its own ecosystem.

So, basically, I don't know. Any ideas?

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58898-cornerplay-apple-watch-gets-native-apps-but-have.html

 

[RustyTech]

Cuz they feel like it?

 

[Rippleman]

Anyone not in the Android fanboy club doesn't need a miniature powerhouse computer with 4k resolution in a 5" block of plastic. Basic functionality can be had for very little power and this could be what they are shooting for.

 

[oldikes]

I would only ever consider a smartwatch (even though thats not saying much, id barely consider it anyway) if it were able to function independently when there wasn't a phone around.

My problem with smartwatches in general is that I already have too many gadgets. Im trying to downsize myself to my phone, normal laptop, and maybe a tablet (with a digitizer for drawing). There really is not a single thing I need a smart watch for and its just another gadget (AND BATTERY) to keep track of,

 

[Rippleman]

I would only ever consider a smartwatch (even though thats not saying much, id barely consider it anyway) if it were able to function independently when there wasn't a phone around.

My problem with smartwatches in general is that I already have too many gadgets. Im trying to downsize myself to my phone, normal laptop, and maybe a tablet (with a digitizer for drawing). There really is not a single thing I need a smart watch for and its just another gadget (AND BATTERY) to keep track of,

same here. I see the appeal of what I WANT a watch to be/do, but currently its not technologically possible.. yet!

 

[Littleczr]

I have the iwatch sdk fire up as we speak. I think it's a great idea but a pricey one.