Apple has today added a new guideline to the App Store Review Guidelines, the first clause specifically targeted at Apple Watch development. This rule that Watch apps that only tell time will be rejected has actually been enforced since Apple started accepting WatchKit submissions as many developers complained to find their apps had been rejected for this reason. The documentation change now formalizes this rule into an official policy.
The Apple Watch does not currently allow third-parties to create custom watch faces. Users are limited to the choice of ten faces that come pre-installed. Most of these faces can be customized with different features and complications (info panels) to suit user’s preferences, but it still leaves many eager for a wider choice of clock faces, especially when you consider that one of the ten faces available is Mickey Mouse.
Hope for third-party faces is resting on Apple’s announcement of a native SDK, which it has promised for later this year. It is very possible though that the native SDK will only allow developers to create apps, not system-level watch faces. As a compromise, there has been some speculation that Apple will add support for third-party complications but not whole watch faces.
Apple does seem to be considering adding more first-party faces soon, though. The Help Guide includes this paragraph:
Apple Watch includes a variety of watch faces, any of which you can customize to suit you. Check frequently for software updates; the set of watch faces that follows might differ from what you see on your Apple Watch.
This seems to imply that forthcoming software updates to the Apple Watch firmware will ship with more watch faces to choose from. At least, that text suggests that Apple has plans for changing the set of faces it bundles with Watch OS in the near term. In September, Apple showed two watch faces, Photo and Timelapse (Timelase is the third screenshot above), in marketing materials that disappeared by the time the Apple Watch was released. It is not unconceivable for these faces to make a return in future.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I always wondered why they use the word “complications,” but, to the WATCH app developers, I think they’re starting to understand that second meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complication_(horology)
I really hope there’s going to be some new watch faces (LOVE that jellyfish one, though) but the “set of watch faces that follows may differ” bit could easily be in reference to the fact that you can add/remove multiples of the same watch face with different complications/configurations so it could look different because of that
That is already part of the OS so, when/if there is a new update, that would be something that would not change.
Probably the only thing Android, and to a lesser extent Pebble, have got right is giving developers the freedom to design beautiful, functional watch faces.
What possible reason could Apple have for not letting developers and their customers truly customise something they have spent their hard earned money on?
certain watch faces are patented I’m sure. they don’t wanna open up that can of worms especially since there were so many other watches in the industry prior to theirs.
Apple already had to pay 21 million dollars to Swiss Railway because they used the SR clock face in IOS. This is going to be a huge problem for Apple. Apple Watch customers want a large choice of faces, but I imagine it would be very difficult to design a face that didn’t violate someone’s copyright.
Have you seen what the majority of the population thinks is “good” customization? People, in general have bad taste. The national average IQ is 98. It’s why the Kardashians are famous. It’s why Hummer was able to sell cars. It’s why women thought it was a good idea to get their hair cut like Kate Gosselin, ignorant to the fact they looked like a mix between Guy Fieri and Justin Bieber.
Even Google understands this, and is locking down Android. Pebble won’t be around in a few years.
That is so true. I never thought about these things in particular and never put words to my distaste of “people” and their choices… but you just managed to put a stringent an plausible explanation to all of this. Thanks
Your reply is something that Kim Jong-un would say.
Is it up to you, me, Apple or anyone else to say what is good or bad taste? No it’s not – and to say otherwise is incredibly arrogant.
This isn’t North Korea.
Yeah…it’s Apple’s product. They can do whatever they want with it. If you want to buy it, then cool. If you don’t believe it suits your taste, then don’t buy it. I’m guessing you’re here because their products make you feel good and look good, and hopefully help make you some money along the way. This is because they control their product. Not our product…we just buy it. If you want to crack into it, and customize it then…have at it. But it’s their product. It’s their reputation. Just like buying a car off a lot. Any customization available, be it a Chevy Cruz or a Porsche Panamera is still controlled by the brand. Apple is no different. To liken control of a product to a totalitarian government, because they won’t let people bedazzle the watch faces…seems ridiculous.
Or look at it like this. The next time you see some ratchet in a glitter purple civic, with a cubic zirconium portrait of Miley Cyrus on her phone case….you can bet that someone will want to make the watch look just the same.
You’re analogy isn’t right I’m afraid.
From the cheapest car to the most expensive, you have lots of customisation options available when you buy it. Once you HAVE bought it, then it is your car, to do with as you please.
If you drop $1,000,000 on a Bugatti Veyron, or $5000 on a Trabant, not only do you have the initial customisation but once it is in your hands it is yours to do with as you please.
Not only can you change the colour, you can alter the wheels, the suspension, anything you like. You can also change the interior to whatever you want. Not only that, you can even start tinkering with the engine and the electronics.
It’s your car to do with as you want and no matter what you to do it, good or bad, the $5000 car is still going to be perceived as a Trabant, and the $1,000,000 car is still going to be lusted after for being a Bugatti Veyron – even if it is glitter purple.
And there in is the crux of it and is also the reason why Apple are the riches co in the world. They control everything and give not one inch. Great for them, a little bit unfair for some punters who would like a little bit more control over what they’ve spent their money on :)
My analogies are correct. Your examples of aesthetics are analogous to custom bands (wheels), or color/interior (case/bands). You examples of engine and electronics are akin to tinkering with the software, which isn’t directly sanctioned by any car brand, unless you’re purchasing a customer race car from Porsche for example. So yes…in that sense, go right ahead and crack into the OS and “tune” your watch to your hearts content. Not one car brand will offer you the opportunity—off the shelf—to modify your car the way you describe, outside of it’s controlled options.
Or to make the comparison a bit more literal – what you describe with the watch is the equivalent to modifying the UI of a Tesla screen, or the digital screens in any modern car be it a Volt or a Ferrari.
If this control is the secret to building a $756 Billion dollar company that produces phenomenal products, however constrained…I don’t have a problem with that.
The beauty of our market system is that companies such as Android and Pebble are happy to give you more control in exchange for money. Understand however that their products were hardly an event…and barely moved the consumer interest needle. I’d ask myself why, and if their lack of control and focus has anything to do with that. Chances are, it does.
If however you’re unwilling to go toward those brands, and your commitment is to Apple products…then I’d bet money that your decision to stay has much to do with their stance on control, whether you realize it or not.
therackett, i’m sorry but your analogy is wrong, what do you mean “sanctioned by the car brand” ?? LOL
you seem to be missing the point by a mile, you’re thinking about car brands offering customizations “off the shelf”, if we’re talking about Apple offering customization “off the shelf”, then we would be talking about what color you want for your iPhone and the storage capacity you want it with, however, what we’re talking about here is customization of after-market parts from third-party custom shops AFTER you are already in possession of your car
Last time i checked, once you buy a car, whatever brand it may be, it’s yours, the car brand does not restrict it’s consumers on whatever they do to their products, including changing its engine and its chassis, you can buy a Ferrari and have it’s engine modified, tuned up or even changed, you can change its entire body as you wish, no car brand will stop you from doing it
Apple however stops you from ‘pimping out’ your Apple watch(car) with third-party apps(car parts) from third-party devs(custom car shops), which is a curiosity, Apple wants to control your Apple products that you own, which you bought with your money, you did not buy stocks in Apple’s company that you should follow a set of rules and guidelines, you bought a product that you should have 100% control of.
You should try Android devices as well, not just lock yourself in Apple devices, you can’t really call yourself a full tech person unless you use all devices and then make your judgment, because, the only thing people got from Google allowing users more control is a lot more options to personalize their phone deeper than merely changing backgrounds and cases.
More control allows more devs to produce customized UIs, software, etc., the average user does not know how to code that allows them to customize their phone, devs do that, they only pick out the customization they like.
and did you really have to insult everyone’s intelligence to compensate for your lack of it?
In general, all of the fake mechanical watch faces do little more than pretend, while at the same time taking up more space than is necessary. Sorry brah…it ain’t a Panerai or IWC or whatever else. I understand paying homage to mechanical watches, but the modular face is the only one that really allows for a degree of detail suited to everything else this thing can do. Understanding that the screen is off most of the time, and only really turns on for the user momentarily (meaning it’s not like you’re showing off the watch face, broz), I’m perplexed that anyone would even want to waste the space and fiddle with telling time with hands. Of the 10 faces available, 5 are fakeazz mechanical that reduce the complications to buttons , 4 you can’t add complications at all…which leaves Modular to bring some details aside from time to the face itself.
Good thing you can trash faces to keep it simple though.
The thing is, for many people, it’s faster and more intuitive to read and understand an analog clock face than a digital display. It’s the same reason why digital speedometers in cars largely went the way of the dodo after the late 80s. When you’re driving, it’s a lot easier to tell your speed by a quick glance to see where the speedometer needle is. The added precision telling you that you’re going 33 vs 34 just isn’t necessary. The same goes for clocks: most of the time knowing the time to within 5 (or even 15) minutes is plenty.
This is true, but it’s even truer if you put the modifier “old” in front of the “people.”
There are lots of people in the under 30 crowd for instance that have trouble reading analogue clocks (because very few of them existed in their environment when they grew up), and many more that find them as difficult and frustrating as old folks find the digital stuff.
I’m not that young, but I find analogue clocks a pain in the rear. You have to look at it, note where the hands are, then think about what that means, then translate the result into some archaic phrase in your head like “It’s a quarter to three” or some such. A lot of people don’t have time for all that nonsense and just want to see what time it is.
There is no way on earth that reading any type of watch hands on a dial is faster than reading numbers. Nowhere. For Nobody. Never.
Working medical I prefer hands. When I’m calculating Heart rate from a manual pulse or calculating drips old school because the new school crap doesn’t work I just want hands, not another set of numbers to juggle.
True and with a needle you can see your rate of acceleration not just a blur of 888s. Nearly all modern motorbikes have got digital speedos now, but mainly kept analog rev counters.
The rate of acceleration of…watch hands that have no variable rate of acceleration? I don’t see any correlation between watch hands and a rev counter on an engine, aside from the needle, which are telling you two completely different things.
it’s called personal preference, Little Hitler.
Some people like analog, some digital, some like the playful icons that apple watch comes with when on a casual day, some like to change their watch face to an elegant design that will match their formal suit on a date or a formal event.
You’re just saying all this because of Apple’s move right now, but when Apple decides to allow them, i bet you’ll be the first one to cry “it’s so innovative!!!!” Apple consumers also have the right to say what they want, they’re paying cold hard cash, they’re allowed a voice.
They’ve been saying this since they released the SDK.
What is with developers that think this is what we want?! Spend your time thinking more creatively developers, why would I want to open an app to see a watch face?!
Same reason why developers still try to make weather apps and calculator apps. Low hanging fruit.
I hope they come out with more faces soon. I really only use Modular because it’s the most information-dense, but even then I can’t show detailed weather and the name of the next calendar entry at the same time. Need more options.
hmm, i am confused ;-)
why not allow 3rd party watch faces – “bad taste”(what ever that means) …
as far as i remember there is/was an app called eclipse(?) – indicating the time by some sun eclipse things…
– why not allow e.g. such app to display on the A-watch …?
and if people like fake mechanical style – why not. as long as no functionality of the watch is affected in a negative manner … ? come on, it’s me who is running with that on my wrist :D
Apple doesn’t allow developers to integrate their watch faces because Apple wants to maintain a certain degree of quality. Let’s say a developer builds a watch face that is buggy, I can guarantee I could find a person thinking that this watch face represents Apple’s quality standards… although it doesn’t.
Let’s say a dev builds a watch face that looks really stylish but results in huge power consumption or some anomalies in the gyro sensors, then again, it is Apple that is being blamed… because people are dumb. And people see Apple as the one being at fault.
The flip side of that though is that if we only get Faces that Apple approves, there are lots of faces we will never get, simply because of Apple’s well-known strict design dogma.
Like for instance we will likely never get Faces that imitate the LED watches of the 1980’s (one of my faves), because Apple will no doubt rule that to be “skeuomorphic” even though in fact all of their analogue Faces could be tarred with that same brush.
We also won’t see “famous watch faces of the past” (some of my faves again and pretty much the first thing most people would want), because of misguided perceptions of copyright abuse.
We won’t see anything “political” because that would be censored, so we’ll never see that “Tricky Dick” watch from the 70’s or the Spiro Angnew follow-up.
the only reason we see Micky Mouse now, is that Apple has made a deal with Disney, so what we are actually more likely to see, are Faces that are similar faces that are “special deals” with other commercial and corporate entities. In a word, advertising.
Apple doesn’t give a crap what you actually want in a watch face. It’s all about the rules, about censorship, and about advertising and partnerships now.
Yeah you are right Gazoo, but let’s just hope Apple and the dev find a satisfying solution. On the other hand, imagine where Apple’s iOS would be, if users and devs had the possibility to personalize it… 70% of the users would still run around with an out-of-the-box iPhone and the rest would look like a chaotic mess of accumulated cluster of widgets and silly shaped icons. Maybe that’s why Apple keeps a firm grip and watchful eyes over their rules…
And quite frankly, I am okay with it.
Oh the disney deal, though…. Is that some kind of sick joke? Oh and am I the only one to mention that almost E.V.E.R.Y. reviewer and hands-on-tester who uploaded short videos on youtube (from 10th – 24th), displaying the watches, showed us E.V.E.R.Y. time that Mickey face?? I mean, they are like “okay… here is the watch face and with a….ahm… force touch, I can now customize the faces” *scrolls through them and picks the Micky one..*
Seems as if the store managers gave them permission to film only if they show that Micky face…
I run Glance on my Pebble about 99% of the time. But sometimes I’ll change to a custom face “for fun” or for some special occasion – usually one of the faces I created using an online watchface generator. One of the (small) benefits of a smart watch (especially one with a brilliant color screen) is that it is highly customizable in a non-permanent way. Somebody will want a watchface with their dog’s, kids, or girlfriend’s face prominently displayed. Pictures inside pocket watches go way back.
In the end, the Apple solution may very well be to provide an app where individuals can create and exchange their own basic “fun” watchface templates in the same way that we swap photos back and forth. That keeps Apple out of hot water legally and lets people have fun with their new toys.
Smart watches are hardly all about function and practicality. Right now they are a LOT about just having some fun with technology.
Don’t forget, another source of income for Apple could be charging for watch faces. Like ringtone for iPhone = watch faces for Watches.
There was a small fracas a while ago when the new iPhone style came out, about the illegal use of the Swiss railway system clock face. It is a stunningly beautiful stylish and timeless face which I would love to have on my Apple watch.
I wouldn’t call payout of $21m “a small fracas” :)
Also, you may not realize it, but the white disk used in that clock would use A LOT more power than current faces.
This is disappointing.
Pebble users have thousands of watch-faces to choose from and there is even a Website where anybody can design their own and Downloaded to their watch.
It is such an obvious need I’m sure that Apple will come ups with a solution of some kind. It may cast the end user a bit more, but that seems fairly standard for Apple users and they generally seem OK with it.
Show a little class, Apple. Let the customer decide.
This is just plain stupid!
What is Tim Cook doing here ? He is doing his best to alienate both developers and customers this way.
The first apps should have been thousands of new faces created by developers for customers to buy!
It would be nice to see the day of the week alongside the date in the clock face