photo credit: iFixit
This weekend, my colleague Jordan Kahn broke the news that “accessory makers plan to tap Apple Watch’s hidden port for battery straps and faster charging,” which is entirely true based on already-expressed developer interest. There is indeed a six-pin port nestled inside one of the watch band recesses, completely covered with a metal panel to obscure its functionality. Unfortunately, Jordan’s story has been picked up elsewhere to support the claim that the hidden port will be “a goldmine for accessory makers.” I hate to take issue with these reports, as the concept — exploiting a hidden port to make new accessories — is exciting, but I have one word for people who are planning to build or buy accessories reliant upon that port:
Stop.
Stop before you spend $250 to order an accessory that might never arrive or work properly. Stop before you spend $250,000 to build an accessory that might never ship, or might ship and then stop working.
The Apple Watch is not the first Apple product with an undocumented connector. There’s a very good reason the hidden port is there — and it’s not for accessories. I’ll explain below…
You don’t see hidden connectors on iPads, iPhones, iPods, or Macs because they don’t need them. Each of these devices has at least one obvious data and charging connector that can be used for diagnostic purposes on an as-needed basis. Most of Apple’s devices are now capable of operating wirelessly, but they’ve always had wired connectivity as a backup.
The Apple Watch is different. It has literally no user-facing wired connectivity option. Once it leaves the factory, it communicates 100% wirelessly, and even its charger uses an indirect, inductive technology. The hidden port inside the watch band recess wasn’t designed to be accessed by users; as shown in the image below, even the teardown geniuses at iFixit couldn’t initially figure out how to open the port’s compartment without using an unusual tri-blade screwdriver tip and poking at it from the opposite side. Apple clearly doesn’t want customers to access it.
While conspiracy theorists will come up with all sorts of explanations for a hidden port, the two key reasons for the Apple Watch to have it are for diagnostics and performing guaranteed reliable firmware updates. A wired data and power connection can bring a dead Watch back to life if it refuses to communicate wirelessly or inductively charge; it can also be much faster for installing Watch OS before the Watch leaves the factory, or reinstalling fresh software when a Watch comes in for refurbishment.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfM6oQmuK7s?rel=0&showinfo=0&w=704&h=396]
Hidden ports have a rich history of tantalizing users without actually delivering value. For instance, 30 years after Nintendo hid an expansion port underneath the original Nintendo Entertainment System, YouTube users were still releasing videos like “The NES Expansion Port: Exposed!!!” — even though the port was never really used for anything. Nintendo built similar ports into later consoles, but they were rarely used, and even when they were, the accessories weren’t great.
This isn’t the first Apple product with an obscure port, either: Apple TVs have had them for eight years now. The original Apple TV had a full-sized USB port on the back, while the second- and third-generation Apple TVs have micro-USB ports on their backs. Apple didn’t publicize their existence, and when asked, explained that they were included solely for service and diagnostic reasons. Hackers figured out how to use the original Apple TV’s USB port for certain accessories, but had no luck with the sequels; the micro-USB ports are mostly there to restore the Apple TVs’ firmware in emergencies.
Similar “cat-and-mouse games” between enthusiastic developers and Apple have been going on for years. Even before the iPhone was jailbroken, creating an alternative/unauthorized app and accessory ecosystem, companies including Griffin injected iPods with unsanctioned software to make their FM transmitter and radio attachments more intuitive. As noble as the developers’ original intentions may have been, all of these stories ended the same way: Apple shut them down, typically rendering the unauthorized apps and accessories completely unusable on newer or OS-updated devices.
How is Apple going to handle attempts to use the Apple Watch’s hidden port for accessories? If history’s any guide, not well: if the port was intended to be developer- or user-accessible, it would have said so already. Before iOS, Apple used to quietly reach out to certain developers to warn them that their hacks would soon stop working. But now every new iOS version arrives with the implicit understanding that previously-exploited hacks will be broken — follow the rules, or else. So unless Apple wants to encourage developer experimentation with a port it deliberately covered up, something similar is going to happen with the Apple Watch.
There’s a clear lesson here for consumers: it’s not safe to invest your money in Apple accessories dependent upon a hidden port. Under the best circumstances, the accessory will work when it shows up, but carry the risk of not working at some point in the future. If you’re really unlucky, your money will go towards funding a project that will be abandoned midway through development.
For now, my advice is to hold off. Wait to see what Apple authorizes, if anything. Faster Apple Watch charging and more sophisticated wristbands will certainly come in the future, but that port is currently hidden for a good reason: it’s not meant to be used yet. If you want to start accessorizing your Watch with something electronic, there are plenty of Apple Watch-compatible Bluetooth earphones and cool charging docks to consider.
Read More
I’ve written quite a few articles for 9to5Mac, and I think you’ll enjoy them. Here’s a full list of my guides, editorials, and reviews; don’t forget to click on Older Posts at the bottom of the page to see everything!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Some of the first iMacs had a “diagnostic” port, and then a lot of third party hardware developers took advantage of this and made accessories for it. Big mistake. Apple later redesigned the innards of the iMac, and this port was no longer there. Apple may remove this port from Apple Watch at some point. Anyone thinking of buying an accessory that leverages this port may find themselves with a worthless device when Apple updates the software in the Apple Watch.
What you say is absolutely true but that won’t stop the faux techies from railing against Apple for whatever happens to accessories if things change. They usually start by pulling out the old ‘monopoly’ and ‘anti-trust’ memes.
Meh. Screw ’em.
I’d worry about it shorting out and burning the heck out of your wrist.
This is exactly why I would never consider any of these accessories. Seems like a huge monetary risk.
You guys seem to have forgotten how vastly disappointing the announcement of the WATCH was, relative to what the rumor mill was pumping out. Blood pressure, blood glucose, sleep tracking; the list really goes on and on. Then we see a watch with only a heart beat sensor. This port makes everything we wanted and read about possible, and can greatly extend the watches life span. $17,000 for a watch that one will wear for 2 years tops before upgrading? This port changes all that. Sure other smart bands are possible regardless of the port being functional or not. But the fact that it transmits power, in my opinion, points directly towards future smart bands. If it didn’t transmit power, forget it, Apple would never make you have to charge your watch AND band every night. My guess is that two watch generations from now, Apple will announce a new watch along with smart bands for the new watch. But wait, the bands work with the old watches too!
It doesn’t matter how much the shipping specs fell short of announce specs, or how badly it should happen. I doubt the author has forgotten anything, it has nothing to do with his message.
If the port is undocumented to developers, Apple has a long and consistent history of shutting that stuff down, especially if the use of it complicates Apple’s administration of warranty or further development internally. That port is theirs, they’ll do what they please with it to refurb, emergency flash or manufacture them.
It’s not Apple’s problem if people get their hopes up based on an out of control rumor mill. There was zero credible evidence the watch would have all these sensors. Some of them would have required the device to be approved by the FDA. Most of it was just a pipe dream. I have no doubt Apple is working on this stuff but to think all of that would be in a first generation device was ridiculous.
+1
Actually there was plenty of credible evidence that Apple was working on these things, and probably still is.
And to be clear, even if this port didn’t exist, third-parties can STILL make smart bands. Data can still transfer wirelessly from the band to the watch/phone. Only difference is the band would have to include its own battery pack. So bands to supplement your watches battery life are basically the only thing out of the question, but there is no reason a third-party couldn’t throw whatever sensors they want in a band, right now.
That blood glucose rumor was a flight of pure fancy, and anyone who’s lived with a Continuous Glucose Monitor in reality (I’m one) could have told you that. The problem of reliably monitoring blood glucose levels is not something Apple could possibly solve overnight with a magic sensor in a watch. The best tools in the market still rely on sensors that rely on temporary filaments under the skin for a week at a time.
The reality is, Apple will be lucky to get some partnerships with the big manufacturers in that game (Dexcom or Medtronic) to allow the watch to receive the signals from such devices. Even that’s tricky — devices would likely need to be manufactured to fit in the Apple Watch specs and that’s an FDA approval nightmare. Trust me, those manufacturers are already jumping through amazing hoops to keep the FDA happy with sensors that are not terribly reliable.
Blood Glucose? Here’s an article you need to read. http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-app-will-track-your-glucose-levels/
To take blood pressure, you can purchase those cuffs that go around your arm, that’s about the only way I know of taking one’s blood pressure. I never assumed that the new watches were going to do blood pressure just because of the rumors. I know that rumors are about 50% bull$hit. Apple Stores sell one blood pressure device. http://store.apple.com/us/product/HA303ZM/A/ihealth-wireless-blood-pressure-wrist-monitor
I don’t know of any watch with the ability to take your blood pressure, you usually have to have one of those cuffs around your arm, which you can certainly buy and it sends the info to your phone, etc. I don’t know if they’ll ever get a smartwatch to take blood pressure readings. I could be wrong on this, but for some reason I think it’s something that maybe impractical. Time will tell.
Sensor technology is something Apple is working on and who knows, there could be future stick on sensors that work with the current Apple Watch, so these capabilities may be forthcoming. Apple has hired several medical sensor engineers and I read that some of them were working on stick on sensors. So, that’s the basis of my speculation. So, I think it’s still premature to think that you have to buy a new watch to do these functions. Right now, you can get external sensors to do some of the things that were missing from the Apple Watch.
Sounds like you are doing your own speculation that might turn out to be false, so be careful as to assume that your speculations are correct.
“A wired data and power connection can bring a dead Watch back to life if it refuses to communicate wirelessly or inductively charge”
For mere charging purposes, the port sounds promising and possibly not dangerous. To be sure, one should trace the wired power path to see if it gets regulated for battery charging the same as the inductive path to the battery. If so, the remaining concern would be whether the hardware is safe for regular use with a wired connection; this concern might be alleviated by monitoring temperatures during product development.
I thought that too but then I read one more comment and change my thinking:
Marek, said “… [Maybe] the OS assumes some things about being on charge. For example, when the watch detects it is on charge it may completely stop monitoring movement…”
Practical reasons aside, I think Apple might do it out of spite just to teach accessory makers a lesson.
Even if a band only supplies power and does nothing else it might make the watch kind of useless if the OS assumes some things about being on charge. For example, when the watch detects it is on charge it may completely stop monitoring movement and so if you had a one of these powered straps connected you may never record steps. Similarly, maybe it stops heartbeat detection when on charge since it assumes it is sitting on a dock. All of this would be software controlled, but unless you can jailbreak the watch you may hit some pretty big issues here.
For reference, the micro usb port on the ATV is used commonly for assigning profiles to the units in an enterprise setting. And it is documented https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202577
Seriously — this is the kind of thing innovation and potentially huge rewards are made out of. I don’t think anyone would claim that a hidden port is going to be around forever, or that it should be explored without caution… but if someone can figure out how to enhance the watch, then slap a warning label on the accessory to “Use at your own risk” and see if the investment pays off.
This article reads alot like older (and even some current) anti-jailbreaking commentary. I fully acknowledge that my jailbreak may not always be around; to a large extent it is up to me to make sure it is working and that I don’t lose it. If I buy apps through cydia, I know that there is a chance I may be throwing out that money if I ever lose my jailbreak. But this doesn’t stop anyone from innovating in the jailbreak market, and it clearly doesn’t make users shy away.
I say if you feel like investing in a risky technology (as a user, or developer) then go for it… why should anyone of us care about or try to dictate what other people invest in?
Because many accessories are marketed with zero or fine print disclaimers that give customers little sense of the risks they’re taking. I have no issue whatsoever if someone makes the informed decision to invest their money in something risky, knowing that there is a significant risk involved. But someone who signs on for a strap-based Apple Watch battery pack right now, believing claims that everything will work properly, is probably going to be in for one (or more) of several disappointments trying to actually use it.
I’d add to that another factor – Watch OS is nowhere near mature yet, and there is going to be a very real reason for Apple Watch owners to update it over time. Making any presumption about unauthorized accessory compatibility six months from now (when a product ships) given how Watch OS works today strikes me as an especially bad idea. Jailbreakers sometimes give up security updates, new Apple apps, and other features for months or years in order to keep their devices jailbroken. That’s a lot easier to do with a fully mature product where the extra features are gravy, versus one that’s still very early where the improvements can change the functionality and performance significantly.
Third party bands are coming whether Apple chooses to support them or not. And given the more open source direction Tim has been moving in certain departments, I think Apple will gladly create a framework or “Strap Kit” for third parties. It’s either that or third parties will force Apple’s hand in the not so distant future. Just like Steve didn’t want to give third-party developers access to his phone, he eventually succumbed and we got the iPhone 3G. Discouraging developers from working on smart bands is telling them to stay away from an inevitable gold rush.
So you know, I don’t have a preorder or monetarily support any third party bands, nor do I plan on getting any of the bands in development, nor do I plan on working on my own.
Still they’re coming. Six months, two years, or five, I dunno, but they will come.
Lol I definitely didn’t think we’d have third-party guidelines in 6 hours.
While it is true that ifixit went through the back to take the port panel off … there is a small hole in the front that is probably the designed way in. Maybe it needs more than a simple straight pin to open it. The strap people say that if their decide makes it to market then it will come with a tool to pop it out.
To me it looks like this was designed for the purpose. Apple could have quashed the rumours when they first came out in early March but do not seem to have done so.
Apple doesn’t quash rumors on anything. But I would wait for official confirmation from Apple before I bought any 3rd party band, especially an expensive one that claims it can charge the device. If that was Apple’s intent right now we’d have a band like that from them.
I don’t disagree with the gist of the article, just a minor quibble: The article states “even the teardown geniuses at iFixit couldn’t initially figure out how to open the port’s compartment without using an unusual tri-blade screwdriver tip” – this isn’t accurate, the exterior door covering the port is easily removed; the iFixIt folks had to use the tri-blade tip to unseat the connector from the interior of the watch.
From step 18: “Still unable to remove the diagnostic port door, we resort to pushing it free through the little holes on the inside of the case. There’s got to be an easier way to access the door than disassembling the whole watch—but we’re not privy to Apple’s secrets.”
I agree entirely with your sentiment – it should be pretty easy to remove the exterior door. But the iFixit team (which, it can fairly be said, opens things for a living) says it couldn’t figure out how to access the door until it unscrewed the connector and then poked through the holes inside the case. My point was simply that any port that’s too difficult for expert disassemblers to quickly figure out is clearly not intended for average consumers to access.
I bought the damn watch, therefore, I’ll do whatever I want with that 6-pin port! Apple has no say in that matter – Legally or morally. If I can find a way to charge my watch with that port – I’ll be damned if I don’t use it for what I WANT and NOT what Apple wants.
In fact, I’m going to take the cover off of the port right now just to give Apple the middle finger. If you didn’t want users interfacing with that port – then you should have left it out.
There are only two things Apple cares about here:
1. They want your Apple Watch to work, reliably, and without ending up with stories about stolen bank accounts because of Apple Watches with hacked software splashed all over the news, or (equally) stories about how thousands of people bought some neat accessory only for it to stop working because they redesigned or reconfigured something that they told you not to use.
2. They want to be able to fix it if it breaks.
Number 1 is why they discourage access to the diagnostic port. They want to be free to change it to suit whatever engineering/maintenance issues come up in the future, and they don’t want it used to make ill-advised alterations to the software that would let people steal your card details or address book or similar.
Number 2 is why the diagnostic port exists.
Apple probably doesn’t care if J. Random Hardware Hacker interfaces with the diagnostic port. You might void your warranty, but that’s fair — you could easily short or zap something while fooling with the port.
Apple probably does care if J. Random Idiot starts selling things to the general public that connect to it, or starts promoting ways of using it to alter the software on the device, because it could lead to a poor public perception of the watch, and unnecessary compatibility problems in future, not to mention problems if end users damage their Apple Watch on the advice of said idiot and then take them en-masse to Apple Stores expecting Apple to pick up the tab for fixing them. And that might lead them to try to make access the port obviously difficult.
TL;DR: Don’t use diagnostic ports on devices you own, unless you know what you’re doing and understand that you do so entirely at your own risk.
We’ll see if the charging band gets Made for Watch status soon. If so it’ll be HUGE