Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple

John Gruber On Third-party Apple Watch Apps: They Suck and Are Really Slow 138

An anonymous reader writes During this week's episode of John Gruber's podcast, The Talk Show, Gruber sat down with Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal to talk all things Apple Watch. About two hours and 9 minutes into the podcast, both Gruber and Stern began lamenting the poor performance they saw with third-party Apple Watch apps. 'It makes me question whether there should be third party apps for it at all yet,' Gruber noted. The pair also took umbrage with what they perceived to be a poor design choice for the Apple Watch app screen, with both noting that the app icons were far too small to be practical.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Gruber On Third-party Apple Watch Apps: They Suck and Are Really Slow

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Probably some pun there.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @06:39PM (#49497297) Journal

    It's a new field. Vendors are going to trip and stumble until the lessons of the street straiten things out. The first PC apps sucked, the first Mac apps sucked, the first Linux apps were...all in EMACS, anyhow, you get the point.

    • by Bogtha ( 906264 )

      The Apple Watch has pretty severe resource constraints to fit into such a small package. At the risk of oversimplifying things, current third-party Apple Watch applications are essentially remote iPhone displays, so they aren't going to perform amazingly well.

      As developers learn how to work with this new platform best, things will improve. Also, Apple have already said that they are going to open up the SDK further to allow for applications truly running on the watch itself, which will be a big improve

    • The problem is, the have had YEARS to prepare for this. I was working on wearables 5 years ago.
      • by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @07:01PM (#49497417)

        The problem is that the developers haven't had a chance to work on the actual device yet except for a limited number of cases. They have been developing on a simulator trying to guess how it's going to feel and respond on the actual watch. Once they get their hands on the watch then you will see the apps will improve.

        Having said that I don't have plans to make apps for the watch or even to buy one. I just don't see what it gives me. Yes, for some people it will be handy but in my particular case I don't see the use.

        • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @07:36PM (#49497605) Homepage Journal

          That has nothing to do with it. The apps themselves are actually running on the phone, not the watch. Even the most basic app is laggy, and all third party apps necessarily have dumbed down, almost WAP-like user interfaces because of limitations in the API and GUI toolkit.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            The main limitation to third party apps is the fact that they are essentially projecting their screens to the watch over a wireless connection. This adds a layer of latency that will inevitably impact performance until future revision when the Watch can run more apps natively.

      • Yeah, and Microsoft and Blackberry had phones YEARS before Apple did. Just because you've been doing it for a long time doesn't mean it's better than what Apple's done. Just because Apple's been working on it for a couple years doesn't mean it'll be perfect out of the box. This is a first generation product, and it suffers from everything a first gen does. Nobody escapes that.

        Apple nailed a couple things with the watch, from all accounts. The watch looks good--which is critical if you want to sell it to non

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ganjadude ( 952775 )
          apple hasnt done anything better for a long time now. other than marketing that is, they are the kings of marketing.
          • by Zordak ( 123132 )

            apple hasnt done anything better for a long time now. other than marketing that is, they are the kings of marketing.

            They should have gotten Bose to design the sound. Then it would have been marketing squared!

        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Yeah, and Microsoft...had phones YEARS before Apple did.

          But people expect Microsoft to suck.

          We use Microsoft because help for all the glitches and work-arounds are relatively easy to find because everybody else uses Microsoft and gijillion people already ran into and documented the issues we encounter. It's the Network Effect [wikipedia.org] applied to volume suckage.

          Microsoft just couldn't sell enough phones for the Volume Suckage Network Effect to kick in.

      • So?

        There had been smart phones around for years before the iPhone. And before that, we had PalmPilots. And yet, the first round of apps from the App Store and the first round of apps on Android, were both pretty craptacular too. The first round of apps on the iPad were little more than inflated versions of their iPhone counterparts. Most of the early (decent) PS4 games were just "remastered" released of PS3 titles. And then there's the whole Windows 8 fiasco, which took place years after desktops, smar

        • The difference is we are quite tired of being beta testers so they can build a base faster than the competitor. These watches are truly half-baked proprietary pieces of crap. That sort of thing was excusable for the smartphone explosion, the need for usable pocket computers was enormous and the market huge. These smartwatches are doomed because the price has nowhere to go but down. Build a cheap smart watch that can work with any phone, and that will be the winner.
      • by itzly ( 3699663 )

        They don't have Steve Jobs any more. He would have kicked and screamed that the product wasn't good enough.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Its a bad idea, full stop. Its a watch that requires a phone to be of any real value

        Duh. Wrong in two ways: First, it "requires" a phone because everybody already has a phone. Second, it doesn't require a phone for many of its functions. Pick the one that makes you most unhappy.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Does it make calls? No? Then what the fuck does it do that the smartphone I already have to carry already does?

            You are complaining that you Watch doesn't do calls of its own, so why does it require a phone. Why am I even trying to argue with a lunatic like you?

  • by David_Hart ( 1184661 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @06:52PM (#49497379)

    The real question, of course, is whether the apps are the problem or the device itself?

    After all, Apple no longer has perfectionist management at the top. It seems to me that they are more likely to release a product before it's fully baked. When the iPad was release, Apple had gone through hundreds of prototypes. I wonder if they put the same amount of design effort into the Apple Watch.

    • Re:Is it the Apps? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ericloewe ( 2129490 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @06:59PM (#49497403)

      You mean like the iPhone supported the vast majority of smartphone features when it was released, like native applications beyond what's bundled, MMS, video recording, 3G, Copy/Paste/Cut functionality, multitasking...

      Oh, wait, that was a rushed piece of shit as well.

      • it didnt even have copy and paste... id say it was missing vital features....
      • Re:Is it the Apps? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Feral Nerd ( 3929873 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @07:14PM (#49497491)

        You mean like the iPhone supported the vast majority of smartphone features when it was released, like native applications beyond what's bundled, MMS, video recording, 3G, Copy/Paste/Cut functionality, multitasking...

        Oh, wait, that was a rushed piece of shit as well.

        And yet people lined up to buy iPhones by the truckload, Google copied it's user interface and general device layout, the iPhone changed the mobile phone business forever and Nokia who dominated the mobile market went from having over 50% of the cellphone market to being a marginal player that got bought up by Microsoft. All things considered that is a pretty good track record for a rushed piece of shit.

        • by Shados ( 741919 )

          The marketing was good. The device sucked, and beyond the touch screen and including an actually adequate browser, was barely an incremental improvement over what was out there. Yeah, Pocket PC and Windows Mobile sucked, but the iPhone only sucked marginally less (and they had apps, the iPhone didn't).

          The only thing Apple did aside the incremental technical improvement, was strike a deal for unlimited internet with a major carrier (which didn't last, btw), which got attention. More importantly, they managed

          • Re:Is it the Apps? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by schnell ( 163007 ) <me@schnelBLUEl.net minus berry> on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:28PM (#49498439) Homepage

            the iPhone only sucked marginally less (and they had apps, the iPhone didn't)

            I don't think you actually remember what Windows Mobile 6 and BlackBerry 6 were like. Yes, the iPhone was the first mobile device that had a browser that wasn't painful to use, as you point out, but the user experience was RADICALLY different in many ways. Yes in 2007 when the iPhone launched, it wasn't unique in having a touch screen, but BlackBerries not only didn't have touch screens at all, they were controlled either with touchballs (that sounds weird) or scroll wheels(!). Most Windows Mobile phones were near-impossible to use without a stylus. And it wasn't just the touch interface... remember "pinch to zoom" before the iPhone? No? That's because it wasn't there. How about visual voicemail? Screens that rotated aspect quickly and easily based on orientation? A smartphone that worked with an online music store that didn't blow goats? You get the idea.

            The only thing Apple did aside the incremental technical improvement, was strike a deal for unlimited internet with a major carrier (which didn't last, btw), which got attention.

            Not so much, amigo. In 2007, at least in the US, unlimited smartphone data plans were very common. This was for the simple reason that it was f*$%ing painful to use more than a couple hundred MB of data on a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone with a 2G connection - 3G was very new in the US then, and the original iPhone only had a 2G connection. When people started to actually USE mobile data because the iPhone's browsing experience made it not painful - and it kicked the ass of AT&T's 2G network as a result - that was when capped plans became the norm.

            • If you didn't install Opera then yeah, mobile browsing was pretty damned bad. Truth be told though, I was much more impressed with a mid-2000's Palm with stylus, than the near painful to use Android that came a few years later - mis-clicks, miss-drags, inaccurate to type on, a horrible default browser. Android had what 10 times the RAM of those PALM devices, yet performed worse and still to this day only gives you about 5 hours on a single charge.
        • by msauve ( 701917 )
          "Google copied it's user interface and general device layout"

          Well, no, although that's certainly the Apple worldview. Fact is, both iPhone and Android came out due to a convergence of technologies at pricepoints which made smartphones, as we now know them, practical.

          Think low power processors/GPS/WiFi, low cost hi-res color touch LCDs, flash memory, MEMS/sensors, high speed cellular data connectivity, etc. The iPhone and Android phones came out essentially simultaneously, and both had been in development
          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            Nokia's (and Blackberry's) problem was mostly one with which market leaders have had a long tradition - the unwillingness to compete against or see beyond their own success.

            With less infighting and a bit more resources the N900 would have come out before the iPhone (it was nearly ready for sale at that point), and then Nokia may have decided it was worth enough of an advertising budget for people to actually hear about it.
            Yes, I know about the mythical man month and all that but the N900 team was tiny and t

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Google copied it's user interface and general device layout

          Android has been announced before the iPhone came out. Apple copied Android as much as Android copied them, for example with the notification shade and app support.

          The iPhone was an evolution. The interface was nice, but not quite as revolutionary as was made out at the time. That was just the Apple hype machine, which started to look increasingly silly as every new device was described as "revolutionary, again" because it had a slightly better than average screen or half working voice input.

          • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

            Android has been announced before the iPhone came out.

            Moving the goalpost from announcement to release in less than ten words, impressive.

            The iPhone was an evolution

            A mere evolution that merely drove the largest players in the phone market, Nokia and Blackberry, into single digits within just a few years.

        • You're missing the point.

          The point is that rushed first-gen devices with a long list of crippling "features" is Apple SOP.

          • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

            You're missing the point.

            No, he understood the Hatorade just fine.

            The point is that rushed first-gen devices with a long list of crippling "features" is Apple SOP.

            Hateboi tautology. Maybe they should just do what Google does, and call their product "beta" for the better part of a decade, and all "sins" are forgiven.

  • Misinformed (Score:5, Informative)

    by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @07:14PM (#49497489) Journal

    Currently the application are hosted remotely on the I-Phone. Apple has promised that the will release a native api in the near future. What they are seeing right now are NOT native apps.

    • by kuzb ( 724081 )

      It won't matter. Initial negative experience will color all future opinions. Apple really screwed the pooch on this one.

      • It won't matter. Initial negative experience will color all future opinions. Apple really screwed the pooch on this one.

        Yeah, badly. I mean, they only presold 1,000,000 of them with an average price of around $400. That's $400,000,000 in one single day.

        This is version 1.0, which in the open source world would really be version 0.8 or so. It's a beta. Totally new product for Apple, and the people who are lining up to buy them know this.

        Give it a few versions and it'll likely be faster and have longer battery life, as well as some very reasonable native apps.

        • Give it a few versions?

          Tell that to the 1,000,000 people who bought this version. They lined up to buy more than vapor.

          No, it's likely this will be really bad for Apple.

          • Gruber is only saying that 3rd party apps suck at this stage. Every thing else about the Watch he loves.

            The iPhone didn't even have 3rd party apps when it launched. And it's first round of apps were web apps, which also sucked.

            And yet the iPhone has been the most successful smartphone ever.

            • This new thing isn't a phone. It's a cosmetic phone addon. If it lands as a turkey it'll be the last addon of it's type that those 1,000,000 customers buy from Apple. They all get a new phone every year or two. This is new, different, and a whim purchase. When it sucks they're not going to 'upgrade' it.

              • **Colligan laughed off the idea that any company â" including the wildly popular Apple Computer â" could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector.

                âoeWeâ(TM)ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,â he said. âoePC guys are not going to just figure this out. Theyâ(TM)re not going to just walk in."**
                Ed Colligan - Palm CEO - 2006.

            • by Dahamma ( 304068 )

              Take that with a grain of salt, obviously, as Gruber is the most biased Apple-Fanboy-Journalist in existence. Though, actually, if he says something Apple is bad, it must be REALLY BAD.

              • He may be the biggest Apple fanboy in existence, but he's definitely not a shill. He has always called Apple out on dumb ideas. I think the words he used to describe Apple's plan for webapps as 3rd party apps on the original iPhone was "shit sandwich".

    • That's even worse. The iPhone is immensely more powerful than the watch. I can excuse the watch being slow, but the iPhone?

  • Unless it's in China, who the heck wears a watch nowadays, other than old people?

    I mean, come on!

    And why would I want to be constantly interrupted by stuff I don't want to do anything about?

    Maybe an Apple Monocle. That I could see. Give it a wider spectra range so I can see IR and UV and display stuff, but pop out of the eye when I don't want to be bothered, like a real monocle. Totally retro steampunk. That's the ticket!

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      who the heck wears a watch nowadays, other than old people...And why would I want to be constantly interrupted by stuff I don't want to do anything about?

      So you can more easily press the "F off!" and/or "Get off my lawn!" reply button.

    • by mgscheue ( 21096 )

      Unless it's in China, who the heck wears a watch nowadays, other than old people?

      Well, people who, among other reasons, don't want to take their phone out of their pocket to see the time. Pretty much the same reason why most people don't carry pocket watches any more.

    • by laird ( 2705 )

      I used to think this way, because if you want to know the time look at a clock or cell phone. Then I got a Pebble, and found that it's fantastically useful to have little bits of info pushed to your wrist to see at a glance, and to have your watch know your schedule and location rather than just the time, so it can tell you things like "you should leave for your next appointment now, given where you are and where you need to be and the traffic". Then you only need to pull out your phone occasionally, she yo

      • Indeed. My phone's battery life seemed to double when I got a Pebble. I'd not say that's useless at all.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      You obviously don't know many hipsters.

      They are also wearing monocles and otherwise dressing like they are in the 1920s.

      Scratch that, they don't have wristwatches. They have pocket watches. My mistake. Carry on.

    • Unless it's in China, who the heck wears a watch nowadays, other than old people?

      LMGISTFY: https://www.google.com/search?q=celebs+wearing+watches&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=m44yVfDnIJG0adWKgfgP&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1301&bih=821 [google.com]

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      Under 40 is old now? I still wear watches like my Casio Data Bank 150 calculator watch! :(

  • If on the watch, between application and screen, XML is being generated and parsed into DOM like things to render the user interface of the application, web browser stylee, it's no surprise it runs slow.

    I may be wrong, but I fear I may not be.

    • The UI definition is held in a Plist format (like, but not, XML) but that's not what the device gets. It gets a very compact binary form of your UI, that is loaded onto the watch before the user even opens your application.

      The Apple Watch API is actually EXTREMELY conservative with what gets sent over to the watch, to the extent that even attempting to set the same label value twice in a row is rejected with a warning. and UI elements on the screen are wits-only (you cannot query the watch see what current

      • The UI definition is held in a Plist format (like, but not, XML

        uhm, actually plist files are xml, with a schema definition and everything. They certainly aren't very compact as far as formats go, even on the watch.

        • uhm, actually plist files are xml

          ACTUALLY plist files can be either textual or binary, which is very much not XML

          I should have said not necessarily though, instead of just "not"... but it was kind of irrelevant to the main point.

          They certainly aren't very compact as far as formats go, even on the watch.

          Sigh, didn't read much of that original message, did you?

          They don't NEED TO BE EXTREMELY COMPACT because they are sent over only once, when the app is loaded on the watch - that said, it is in the binary form

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...