Apple has just released a flood of information about how apps on Apple Watch work, through the WatchKit framework. There are three types of integrations currently possible: WatchKit apps, Glances and actionable notifications. Although they sound similar, the development process for WatchKit apps are actually very different to that of normal iOS apps for iPhone and iPad, as much of the computation is done on the connected iPhone rather than rendered by the watch’s hardware itself.
The interface elements and interaction patterns for WatchKit apps revolve around a core set of user interface components and layouts. Arbitrary views are not supported, which is a big departure from how iOS apps are constructed.
The constraints are in place because although the Watch renders the UI, any other coding logic is actually managed by the connected iPhone through a WatchKit extension, that silently runs on the iPhone. For instance, animations are pre rendered as an image sequence on the phone GPU before being sent OTA to the watch for display. Apple has announced that fully-native Watch apps will debut later in 2015, which will likely loosen these restrictions somewhat.
For Glances, these are template-based notifications that persist on the watch. For instance, apps can show the current Weather information in a Glance. Glances are limited by the available templates, as described by Apple, as to how they can appear. Glances do not accept user interaction themselves, but they can act as a gateway to their respective parent apps. The Handoff API is used to ‘deep-link’ users to the relevant areas of the host app.
Actionable notifications are even less customizable. This is basically a different way of viewing the notifications that already present themselves on iOS today, although developers can provide some custom images to personalize the notifications. Notifications are presented as a modal view when they come in (with the icon centred) which transitions to a strict style of form, with any associated button actions shown below. As they are so limited, developers need to almost nothing to support this type of Apple Watch integration.
Developers can start creating WatchKit apps and Glances, by downloading the Xcode 6.2 and iOS 8.2 betas.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
As long as I can still use it as a watch without having an iPhone connected, that’s all I’m concerned with.
Why not just buy a watch and save yourself $300?
no shit
You will bring iPhone with you anyway. If you actually wear a watch, putting on Apple Watch will be same no brainer. I think people make too big of a deal out of the need to tether. There plenty of use cases where Watch will be just way more convenient to use then iPhone, but in a daily use Watch cannot be enough
In many ways I wish iOS Apps were still this restricted in terms of UI.
Like how so?
So… it’s essentially AirPlaying an invisible app from the iPhone to the Watch?
Kinda. The Apple Watch does all the UI rendering stuff itself, and knows how based on the app in the phone. It just gets all its data from the phone, whose faster processor is responsible for all the heavy lifting in terms of getting something to show in the pretty boxes.
Currently I use the FT7 Watch and run 5K-10K besides doing my Insanity routine. I was excited about the prospect of an Apple Watch with a focus on health and fitness.
Apple is great at taking a category that already exists and taking it a step forward to something you can really use or not do without. This watch doesn’t feel like it is that revolutionary step forward.
What exactly is Apple going to say that makes me “need” this device when the battery is short, I’m still tethered to a phone, and cost is expensive and doesn’t really do anything that my FT7/Iphone combination does?
In terms of fitness and the Apple Watch compared to your Polar FT7 band, there’s hope that Apple’s heart rate sensors will actually be accurate, unlike every other smart/fitness watch/band on the market. There literally is no band out there right now that is accurate. Apple claims their heart rate sensor is “custom made,” so here’s hoping. Also, the taptic feedback could be useful for indicating miles reached and other info without need for earphones or hearing the alerts from a tiny speaker. The Apple Watch will record steps even when you don’t have your iPhone on you, which will be helpful in measuring your true daily activity, and I’m sure the way Healthkit seamlessly records that data works smoother than your Polar band, You can leave the iPhone home for some training runs and use the Apple Watch as an iPod via bluetooth headphones. I’m also sure the extensibility via third-party apps will bring in tons of other fitness features not available to your Polar FT7.
You obviously haven’t tried a Microsoft Band. I was really looking forward to the Apple Watch but I actually expected more like an Apple Band. Needless to say, I was disappointed with the introduction of this product. I don’t want my device to be tethered to an iPhone!!! I don’t want to carry my iPhone everywhere I go. If Steve Jobs were alive he probably would say “If your device needs to be tethered you blew it” This was the first real product for Tim Cook and it’s a huge disaster. It may say well but Samsung phones sell well so…
For some reason, I guess nest limits, I can’t reply to Cynthia, but I would like to point out that native apps will be coming soon, possibly before launch. The WatchKit is still in beta.
I think making apps an extension of existing apps is a brilliant move by Apple. Many developers do not really know how people will use a smart watch. Lets be honest, smart watch market can be thought as presently non-existant or at such an infancy that even Apple is just barely testing waters. I do not have exact numbers, but from what i am reading the sales of Android based smart watches are not enough to really say there is a market for them. So Apple requires very little work on part of developers merely extending existing iPhone apps. It is a start. Clearly developers evaluating whether extending their apps to watch makes sense. For many it won’t, but they also won’t expand time and resources to develop something from scratch and see if users like it. That being said, the fact that Apple Watch currently requires an iPhone to function is better for developers anyway. It is clear that first customers to buy Apple Watch will be iPhone owners and that is perfectly ok with Apple. The extended apps will work right out of the box making for “just works” experience.
Even though you will have to have an iPhone to use this, the idea of having so many of my devices connected through this wearable IoT device is pretty exciting. Even your household items like this here http://blog.myheatworks.com/the-worlds-most-advanced-water-heater-meets-the-worlds-most-advanced-watch/#sthash.0vettUBN.dpbs pretty exciting!!