alt.hn

7/4/2026 at 5:52:36 PM

Verizon is About to Break our Watches

https://www.jefftk.com/p/verizon-is-about-to-break-our-watches

by jefftk

7/4/2026 at 6:34:37 PM

Cell phone enabled watches are a pile of hacks sitting on top of hacks on top of a system pretending to be a telephone switch board from the 1940s. It’s surprising any of it works.

by bombcar

7/4/2026 at 7:03:23 PM

In what way are watches with SIMs (or eSIMs) not just tiny cell phones? Or is you meaning that the modern smartphone is itself a “pile of hacks sitting on top of hacks”?

by derefr

7/4/2026 at 7:42:25 PM

The main way is that literally zero of these watches actually meet the standards that the cell networks require of a cell phone. Every single one of them has a carrier exemption or a lower standard to adhere to, because it turns out that putting a cell phone's RF package into a watch is super hard, both because of size and the various negative effects of the human body on radio signals. This affects cell phones too of course, but less so (remember the iPhone 4 and how we were "holding it wrong"?).

Another way is that watch chipsets are distinct from cell phone chipsets in that they make a variety of compromises unique to wearable requirements. Apple may be an exception here, you can't get a spec sheet for their chip, but for the other providers their wearable chipsets are generations behind anything they sell for a cell phone and are compromised in terms of power. Interestingly even watches (Apple, Samsung soon) that support 5G are running a dumbed down version of 5G that was created specifically to support the wearables and IoT market.

It gets even stranger in software. A text showing up on your watch might have arrived two completely different ways depending on whether it's an iMessage or a regular text and you can't tell which. The watch often doesn't even have its own number -- it's borrowing your phone's. IOW, it's not a tiny phone doing phone things, it's a companion device trying to fake it.

by sulam

7/4/2026 at 8:09:44 PM

A few years ago, I signed up for an Apple Watch eSIM plan (which is a special type of eSIM plan that Apple make cell carriers agree to offer as an add-on to a normal cell subscription for your iPhone, and there is no other way go get an eSIM for it).

I then started regularly receiving phone calls (to my iPhone) intended for someone else. At first I thought it was a wrong number or an old number and kept telling them to remove this number. Buy the calls kept coming and I eventually I dared to ask what number they had dialed. And it wasn't a cell number I recognised.

After contacting support for my carrier, what I figured out was that the Apple Watch eSIM has its own phone number, for some reason, but it's not one you're supposed to know about; as an extension of your phone's subscription, the Apple Watch eSIM notionally has the same number as it. But they were calling the secret number associated with the eSIM, somehow. And I think there was a problem in the number routing table somewhere, because I think this number may have been in use with another cell carrier, and the calls only went to me when calling from my network?

Absurd nightmare situation.

by TazeTSchnitzel

7/4/2026 at 8:06:46 PM

What do you mean by "carrier exception"? Exception from policies those same carriers set up decades ago?

by izacus

7/4/2026 at 8:15:18 PM

Not exactly. Early cell watches were not going to meet the existing carrier standards and so they received specific exemptions from the carrier to operate on their network. Over the years the carriers have created requirements that are specifically for these devices, that are less stringent than what they require for a cell phone on their network. They still give specific exemptions if a watch is "close" to meeting a requirement but can't quite get there.

by sulam

7/4/2026 at 6:49:09 PM

I just went through this yesterday. My wife and I both have Apple Watches with LTE and I was rolling them over: both phones and my watch ported easily but the second watch wouldn’t show up on the account at all with no explanation. The first support person couldn’t see a problem with the details they were able to see, the second level one could see a fraud hold for non-specific reasons and forwarded us to a fraud team who verified my identity and back to a third person who solved the problem by deleting and recreating the line on our account. Every one of the people I talked to was clearly trying to help but their billing system sounds like it’s someone’s old house primarily consisting of duct tape and stucco.

This is a disappointing contrast to their actual network which is clearly run by people who take running a reliable network seriously with good coverage and latency.

by acdha

7/4/2026 at 7:35:50 PM

Since beginning of 2025 big corps turned to be each time more anti consumer. They feel quite comfortable. I wonder what happened for them to feel like that.

by motbus3

7/4/2026 at 8:00:02 PM

Sounds to me like you just became aware of it in 2025. This has been happening for forever. Keeping with the electronics example, the Phoebus cartel was lowering the lifespan of lightbulbs in the 1920s. The US government seemed to be stricter on it at that time (I mean in the 1920s), but billions of dollars in lobbying will change that over time.

by bigC5560

7/4/2026 at 7:58:01 PM

Pretty sure that phone companies have been anti-customer ever since the invention of the telephone.

by mr_toad

7/4/2026 at 8:05:35 PM

> Since beginning of 2025

I suggest you to study the birth of consumer protection laws on the beginning of the 20th century, such as the birth of the FTC in 1914. It was a time when milk and beer were routinely adulterated, most meat was contaminated and all sorts of cartels did price fixing [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...

by diego_moita

7/4/2026 at 7:49:07 PM

Any actual evidence to backup this claim?

by nxm

7/4/2026 at 7:56:17 PM

Are you serious?

Only in the last week we have Sony deleting paid-for movies. That is pretty anti-consumer.

I realize all of this is empirical, but the term enshitification just didn’t form out of thin air.

by kmbfjr

7/4/2026 at 8:03:07 PM

He's probably looking for evidence of "Since beginning of 2025". (I'm curious too)

Feels like we've been on the same train for over a decade.

by cj

7/4/2026 at 7:57:49 PM

just since 2025?

by replygirl

7/4/2026 at 7:57:49 PM

I have a verizon watch only account. I was able to get the new app working, but it was a struggle. I think it worked on the 3rd or 4th attempt. I had to start over and lost all of the contacts that were connected to the watch. Fortunately, there were only a few.

Overall, the Gizmo watch has been nice to have, but it leaves a lot to be desired. It's surprising that there are not better products in this market segment.

by teliskr

7/4/2026 at 8:07:15 PM

So the author probably could have migrated if he hadn't used a Google Fi phone number for 2FA. Some banks and businesses (such as Uber) will detect a Google Fi or Google Voice number and not let you use them. Other businesses don't do the detection, but the 2FA texts will never arrive. Like the author, I've got some accounts that I was able to set up for 2FA using a Google account, but 2FA no longer works on them.

by anonymousiam

7/4/2026 at 7:54:31 PM

I feel like this is an edge case where it's less expensive for Verizon to issue a refund than it is to actually fix the problem. Sometimes paying for the problem to go away is the best solution and you get a new thing that works better.

by mgiampapa

7/4/2026 at 6:47:12 PM

I wonder what the warranty period on this sort of device is. It’s broken without access to the hub, right? And it’s only 2 years old.

by bee_rider

7/4/2026 at 7:38:45 PM

Hey, that scorpion stung me!

by Hizonner

7/4/2026 at 7:49:09 PM

Honestly, I'm beginning to feel the same at this point. How many stories of people getting burned do we need before we collectively wake up?

by Underphil

7/4/2026 at 6:39:06 PM

[dead]

by slipperybeluga

7/4/2026 at 6:32:01 PM

Choosing a carrier device without being on that carrier for the rest of your devices would seem to be the first mistake. Treating the carrier as anything other than dumb pipe seems like the issue here. Going with the Pixel Watch LTE and then doing same custom app development might make more sense for the described use case, but I haven't explored the author's use case thoroughly.

by fragmede

7/4/2026 at 7:21:35 PM

Good point, consumers should all simply develop their own apps instead of buying a product.

by ghostly_s

7/4/2026 at 6:36:17 PM

How would the custom app disable the native Watch services?

by NetMageSCW

7/4/2026 at 7:53:12 PM

So you blame the victim and also admit you haven't explored the author's use case. Very helpful

by anonymars

7/4/2026 at 6:29:24 PM

Is part of US phone cartel. What you expect?

by lowbloodsugar