There’s a blog post making the rounds, likely because it allows Tesla and Apple Watch to both be crammed into a lede, about how useless the watch is without an iPhone, how pessimistic its future is for developers, and how Apple hasn’t delivered on what they “promised” at the event last September. In other words, it represents rage against a fantasy world very unlike the real one in which Apple very carefully set expectations at the event, on the product preview pages, and in the developer resources that followed. From the rant:
Although the opportunities seem pretty huge with Apple Watch, unfortunately, the current capabilities of the emulator-only development don’t match the expectations set after the keynote. We can now confidently say that creating anything really necessary and fully functional for Apple Watch with the current SDK version is very, very difficult, and many of the things promised at launch that were perfect for some business ideas are not at all available yet. The only thing left for the developers is to wait for spring 2015 when a new version of WatchKit will be released and Apple Watch will finally start selling.
The Apple Watch has no cellular radio and no GPS. It relies completely on its connection to an iPhone to exchange and update data. Apple made that crystal clear from the start. First generation Apple Watch extensions require an iPhone the way first generation iPod touch web apps required a Wi-Fi router.
And extensions are all Apple “promised” for the first version of the Software Developers Kit (SDK) — interactive notifications (short and long looks), widgets (glances), and remote views (WatchKit “apps”).
So, yeah, sorry you can’t yet build a native Tesla app with full, unfettered access to the hardware. Or, you know, a native game or native video player or… native anything. Because Apple only “promised” native apps for later this year.
It’s okay to want more faster. It’s human nature. But misrepresenting reality to spread FUD about a product and its development potential isn’t okay. It’s negative attention-seeking and, frankly, it’s bullshit.
You can Google for the article if you absolutely have to give it your page view. I’d recommend against it, though. David Smith‘s excellent, in-depth WatchKit series is far, far more deserving.