Specialized is under NO obligation to let anyone who feels like it write apps that control the motor.
I have no desire for this. I simply want them to collect heart rate data from apple health and have navigation. Neither of which are particularly difficult from an engineering perspective in an iOS application. But, if I use mission control, I lose both. If I use nearly any other app, I lose bike data but get heart rate and navigation not to mention very good apple watch integration in other ways.
The bike also features ANT+ output, so you can use a bike computer
A bike computer represents extreme compromises in usability and service choice compared to app choice on a phone.
or an ANT bridge if you’d like to use your phone
NPE cable is unobtanium. Viiiiva sources are questionable and seem to be price gouged at the moment. But, I really don't want to wear their heart monitor anyway. I know of no other bridge. I was hoping a garmin watch or other device would effectively function as a bridge. But it does not seem to be the case.
glitch in your janky phone app
One thing I can pretty much guarantee, I write better code and apps than whoever did specialized apps. It has all the signs of cross platform web porting that non-native developed apps tend to come burdened. And, can also explain the complete lack of use of native platform technologies like HealthKit, MapKit and others.
you can control the bike from the buttons on the bike itself
Again, no desire to control the bike differently (in fact, the on bike controls are superb. specialized experience here shines). I simply want access to the data. And since there are only two devices on the planet that will read ANT+ and deliver Bluetooth Smart (that I am aware), neither of which are reasonably obtainable, I am at the mercy of junky bike computers, that will require additional heart rate monitor and maybe *still* not give apple health the data without tying me to a service I already dismissed from a usability point of view (strava). This is on a bike that likely has better versions of whatever is in the NPE cable and could almost certainly broadcast the ant+ data through bluetooth smart without the need for any additional anything if specialized chose to implement that capability.
If specialized is a "leader" in this, the bar is set incredibly low. Some Viiiiva review posts are from 2013. It's comical seeing the screenshots of the apps that could do this back then. 9 years ago, this was already a solved problem. In technology, 9 years is an eternity. Why, in 9 years, has specialized not bothered to expose data that is already present and available to bluetooth smart?
Anyway, there is a reason. And it is probably business related more than technology related. I would like the option to use my phone as my bike computer without sacrificing some subset of data.
That is the point. And, since my experience with specialized so far is that they are anything but rider focused, this just adds more fuel to that fire. And, also, I have no problems being ultra vocal on (almost) any topic. Specialized feels like it is resting on its laurels. And they need a good kick to get them back into gear.
Something else I have been thinking about. This problem really only applies primarily to e-bikes. And that may be part of the problem. On a regular bike, I would probably choose to use BLE enabled accessories since most appear to be BLE and ANT+ and choosing BLE enables the phone. But, regular bikes basically need a bike computer to exist (phone or otherwise) to record the data. The legacy of regular bikes has really made the jump to e-bikes murky for manufacturers. On a regular bike, the interrelationship between parts is practically non-existent. So "modularity" is a matter of changing one part without overly effecting others (within reason). I can change *just* the tires, or brakes, or cranks or ... anything, without directly coupling changes with the other parts (again, within reason). E-bike systems are not like that. Electronics require direct coupling and dependence whether hardware or software to function. That doesn't mean they can't be made modular and de-coupled. But it's a *conceptual* change more than a physical one.
The thing is, specialized appears to have done a better job decoupling their systems. Their brose motor is literally *their motor*. Mastermind seems to be largely unique to them (or I haven't seen anything it seems to be largely based upon). Yet they support a range of e-bikes. This would be hard to do without the ability to manage the coupling. ENviolo automatiq is *intended* to be coupled with and interacted with by other systems (at minimum it needs cadence provided to it). But, for some reason, they have stopped short at data output. Giant may be the same. Why? Is it purely a legacy "hey we didn't used to need to think about this, so we still don't" thing?
Anyway, the cycling industry seems to be one that is incredibly resistant to change. And I really don't see an inherent reason why that is the case.
End of pontification.