Apple bans Watch apps “whose primary function is telling time”

>This rule that Watch apps that only tell time will be rejected has actually been enforced since

Smart watches actually have really nothing to do with time pieces -- the name watch is just some marketing skeumorphism because its a smart phone on your wrist. If the Apple watch couldn't tell the time it would still be just as useful and expensive.

If you don't agree with this policy because its authoritarian -- it is -- but thats Apple and thats another debate. Given that they are authoritarian they might as well get rid of "apps that exclusively tell time" or "fart apps". This makes sense to me.

So while the headline seems pretty damning I think this policy makes sense seeing how the third-party "apps", as of right now, do not execute ON the watch (everything happens on the phone and talks to watch). Apple doesn't want "custom watch faces" which will require talking over the expensive (in terms of battery) link to the phone for every update. I think this is all about battery not trying to stifle third-party watch faces.

I wonder if the restriction only regards Earth time. People have made watches that kept Mars time - http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/spirit/a3_20040108.html . I'm sure some JPL people and other Mars fans would want their Apple watch to be the same.

Yes please don't let your customers customize their watch face. One of the few cool things about a smart watch. Idiots.

That makes sense. Though a clock fart combo app might be able to squeeze by. I guess it doesn't fit in with their vision of what they want it to become.

After reading this article and some of the comments, its completely clear that Apple has undeniably triggered almost the exact same effects on some people as the most addictive drugs known to mankind. It's almost mind boggling to consider but I would go a step further to say this is likely the same effect reflected in Apple's recently announced profits - much like a drug kingpin entering the market with his highly addictive product would experience (ie. Crack cocaine in the 80s). It's truly beyond anything I could imagine and honestly scares the shit out of me.

The problem in such scenarios is that reason and logic become completely irrelevant - the addict falls under the trance of the drug and short of keeping them physically separated from said chemical in order to let the body clear itself of its influence and effects, few have the will to come back from the depths - and the end result is almost always painfully tragic. It's so tragic that society ends up going to the opposite extreme and attempts to ban nearly any mind altering chemical - that is how fearful the collective sentiment is and if the war on drugs is any precedent, it can last four decades and ultimately ruin even more lives than the drug itself.

I read this article and I really felt I had been directed towards a satirical article from the likes of The Onion or Clickhole. I am NOT trying to be overly emphatic or derogatory - it just seems like the first time a brand and their line of material products seems to have such a deep rooted hold on its customers. Sure, there are always fads which have a momentary grasp over their customers: Tickle me Elmo, Furbies, various pop artists, etc. But those always seemed to follow the same trajectory and never indicated any lasting effect. But this is clearly very different.

Think about this piece for a moment and the clearly Apple supportive writer and website. On one hand, he had the sensibility to write the article and even put the almost satirical title on it. That's probably a good sign. Also good is the factual recounting of the brand's position and justification of such. Reason seems to still have a far deeper rooted presence in this person's being than the brand does. But in much the same way an addict or a victim of domestic abuse reacts upon the possibility of losing said target of addiction, it quickly devolves into justifications and ultimately acceptance of such a completely untenable prospective future. Though there is certainly some sarcasm in the few commentators here, it's clear their sentiments and perceptions follow the same trajectory.

Again, I apologize and don't mean to insult or belittle, my argument is my true and honest opinion. So I must ask - is it me? So disconcerting is this notion that I'm compelled to ask if perhaps I'M the crazy one. Because I read this article and see that a company has produced a product precisely to resemble a watch in every way and even includes such in the name but then makes a draconian move to deny third parties willing to do so the ability to distribute software producing A WATCH FACE for said watch (likely thousands with no desire to even make a profit). Is this real? Am I hallucinating??? I struggle to come up with any reasonable scenario where this is a move to prevent competition, which would also be highly disturbing but not in the least surprising, especially considering the brand in question. It's simply some form of an arbitrary egomaniacal move which defies rational belief to those not completely consumed and ultimately entranced with any position held by some perceived 'god' or 'god-like' object (need to confirm I'm not the only one before fully backing this statement). But it's bizarre and the potential is as unsettling as the actual result in front of me - the same as if Apple produced the Apple Cat and then immediately barred anyone from calling our treating it as a cat while simultaneously making it appear as a dog and requiring all customers assimilate and accept the same. And the response being, "Yeah, I think it's their right to do this - I mean, it's not a REAL cat anyway, so why not call the Apple Cat a DOG..I mean it's Apple afterall, right ;)". Yes - it's Apple, the company who indirectly employs factories with such inhuman work schedules that they need to install nets to catch the numerous employees jumping from the roof to end their torture; Apple, who while hoarding tens of billions in stockpiled profits uses all its might to prevent potential extra costs by clearly colluding with and/or threatening competitors from "poaching" talent interested in reclaiming their souls and free thought by leaving - even for ex-employees years departed from their empire of misery. Holy hell, where am I and how did I get here?!?

There are a number of anecdotes describing the Microsoft antitrust investigations years ago. I recall one description of the completely defiant and confrontational tone of Mr. Gates during these times and his unflinchingly complete denial of any possibility of such a concept. There is some room for debate, but I can't imagine a rational person would see such accusations as completely baseless, especially when presented with evidence of clear internal communications showing not only obvious actions to suppress competition, but purposeful intent and rhetoric to this regard. I remember thinking then that this was delusion personified - someone so desperately self identifying with his creation that to accept such condemnation would be to accept condemnation of himself. It happens and perhaps at some point, to all of us. But the normal progression ultimately leads to a snap back to reality (thankfully the case with Mr. Gates - at least as far as one can tell from his undeniable and profound generosity). And ultimately a nostalgic look back at how entranced one had been as almost unbelievable - from the comfort of rational thought. So here's hoping the spell is broken and those held captive by their obsessive enchantment come back to reality because we really need you here.

Otherwise, if you're out there, Morpheus - I desperately need a red pill