Apple reportedly paid $21M to use Swiss Railway clock design - Page 2

Also remember Apple is TOP luxury feel product and having digital format is common as muck. If you watch collector like me, Swiss made watches/clocks are still the best in world and the time/detail put into making a swiss made watch is the statement Apple want to send to their consumers. Do you want the same old android common features phone or do you want a phone thats design/functionality has been fully invested by Apple to bring you a product superior in every feature.

I very much doubt Forstall was the genius behind this decision and looks more like Ive.

Just shows that Apple is willing to pay when they use someone else's design - this sends a strong message to Samsung and the other copycats.

$21 million does seem excessive, considering Apple's design looks better.

Has the saying "Time is money" ever been truer?

A lot of strong reactions based on a rumor. No wonder the stock is so depressed. So many people willing to go on an emotional rollercoaster based on hearsay.

I don't believe this, just because AI reports this doesn't make it true. AI has posted many things that been proven wrong before.
 

Apple just made that money back with less than one day of sales.

So, what exactly is worth 21 million? The ball at the tip of the second hand? Cause apart from that, it looks like a generic clock. 

 

Absolutely Incredible. 

We have no factual confirmation of this report. For all we know there was no exchange of money.
Edited by charlituna - 11/10/12 at 9:02pm

If you are trying to say that they knew it was trademarked etc and used it anyway, you can't really back that up. It is a majorly simple design and it is possible that it was assumed that it was too simple to be protected. Plus trademarks are market specific and it is very possible that a judge would say that watches/clocks and time telling software are not the same market do Apple is in the clear.

Apple and SBB came to an agreement. The terms and money are unknown. As is what Apple knew etc

It's not about the money. But perhaps we can put this disagreement behind us by coming to an understanding that involves you giving us money.

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If Apple is entitled to protect their IP then so are other companies and organizations.

 

That said, I would've had the design team lose the red disk at the end of the second hand for the next iOS release and saved the company $21 million.

Good for Apple for paying for iconic design.

Irresponsible? Paying a legitimate license fee for a design that is justly displayed in museums hardly seems irresponsible. One of the things that separates Apple from companies that make ugly products is that Apple cares about beauty and design, as well as beautiful design.

Samsung and other race-to-the-bottom-with-cheap-crap companies would certainly have never have considered doing this. And that's what makes Apple special.

I can't help but think that Ives could've designed something just as nice for a few tens of thousands.

 

People weren't complaining about the clock design with iOS 5 so why do they need a 21 million dollar clock design? 

 

Regardless of how much they are willing to pay or how much $ they have, I just don't see this as a smart use of $.

 

 

Since they were sued everyone found out that it's an "iconic" design. Before that no one except for maybe a handful of hard-core designers and Swiss citizens knew shit about the clock. 

 

I don't buy the "It's great that they were willing to pay up for an iconic design" BS.

Edited by success - 11/10/12 at 10:35pm

 

I remember it well... she replied, "If you've got the money!"

The clock design is striking in it's simplicity and ability to be instantly read. Apple reached an agreement with SBB, the design owner, over the use of the design, and  the deal was between them. The "I know how to run Apple better than Apple does" crowd that insists on second guessing every move that Apple makes, fails to get it once more. 

 

WHAT!! Do the swiss have a patent on the circle! These two designs are different. Apple's is much better, besides it's the only way it could have been designed. 

There's no way the apple or ANYONE would willingly pay 21M for the design of that clock. The reality is that they had apple over a barrel if for nothing other than litigation fees. Even if they found them not guilty of copyright infringement or whatever silly accusation that would have been laid, the time for the lawyers, people who would have been sequestered, digging through all the employees emails to try and demonstrate that it was knowingly done or not... All a big distraction & cost for what... A pretty silly graphic of a clock.

I would say apple sat down with the Swiss train guys (or whoever), they probably came to a net estimated cost of litigation of say 42M. They probably said 'hey, let's all save ourselves some time and money and split the difference' and wound up at 21M... Or something stupid like that.

No way anyone in apple actually thought that was "worth" 21M. I think if they did, the graphic would be identical, they would probably have a tv spot just showing off the iPads stunningly beautiful and incredibly useful clock and bragging that they decided to get the rights to this earth shatteringly life changing design that hypnotizes you whilst taking a poop as you gaze at the red ball second hand... Or somthing equally rediculous. No way.

I am sure whoever actually designed the iPad clock was severely reprimanded for this issue for not doing their homework. (Or they should have been)

2¢

The second hand reminds me of the old train signals: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5410679-old-train-signal.php and the clock was designed by a train company employee for use in train stations. Because time is a signal to the trains too, maybe that is what he was thinking?

 

I don't think it is a uniquely simple design that Apple just had to have, it is a themed design, and you just have to go to a department store and look at the fashion watches to see many very strikingly clear designs. It seems overpriced to me, for what it is, and the idea stated above that it was more about avoiding litigation could have some merit.

If a plain clock face is worth £21million, how much is of Apple's own icons worth? All the icons in iOS must be worth billions.

 

Apple should have stuck their logo on the end of the second-hand, with the Apple turning and remaining right-way-up as the seconds ticked away. Now that would have been worth many millions.

Edited by sip - 11/11/12 at 5:27am

So Apple just pay for it... nice... too avoid courts and alike

 

But see, that's ugly.

One thing is sure: after the agreement (with the unknown amount of compensation) if Android makers copy the clock from iOS, they could be, should be in trouble.

By the way, if Apple paid for the design, it would want exclusivity right, exactly to protect itself from the copytitors.

 

It may well have the appearance of being 'simple' but that is usually the case in all the very best designs.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Apple can make more use now of such an iconic design.

For those having trouble getting this $21 million as a value proposition, try comparing it to advertising. It's the equivalent of 3.5 minutes of Super Bowl commercial time.

The design is worth copying, and therefore worth buying. It's clean, beautiful in its simplicity, instantly readable, non-exclusive culturally (no Arabic/Western number characters), interesting, and very Zen, while being precise in a Swiss way.

Its iconic value is huge. People will recognize it, contemplate it, talk about it, feel good about it—unless they don't get it, like some here. But even those people are affected by it.

The best thing about it: it could rescue the ancient analog clock face from digital destruction for another generation.
Edited by Flaneur - 11/11/12 at 12:19pm

Apple did not need to pay Swiss Railways, they could have simply apologized and changed the clock face. I have a feeling the $21M was paid more to keep the story quiet. If Apple apologized and changed the clock face, it probably would have caused bad press. That bad press, in Apple's opinion, was worth about $21M to keep out of the media. Possible?

 

Why should they have compromised on the design they wanted?

 

Sounds like it's being screamed throughout the media BECAUSE Apple paid for it.

Which would make sense if they used the same clock design on iPhone too but for some reason they did not so the original design is apparently not so bad.

I'm ashamed!

This is irresponsible spending.

Options:
1. Use the original design along with the train company's name in full and then charge SFR one dollar for advertising. The original is elegant in simplicity. Both win.

2. Post the offer for designs that would include the originator's name (brand) discretely below the clock and then choose the three best submissions. Then donate $7 million per design to the charities of their choice.

3. Apple designs its own iconic clock face.

4. Let the user choose his/er own face shape, hands, markers and colours to personalise their timepieces.

 

Okay, does that somehow invalidate this one being better?

 

You don't get it.

That's amazing! Especially so since the digital clock on the iPhone is not terribly accurate. You might find this app informative:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/emerald-time/id290384375?mt=8

the AI pictures don't represent the original clock design (wikipedia) :

Apple clock is a complete copy -minus the logo- of the original design, the pictures showed here are misleading.

@ireland: In fact, it speaks volumes for the SBB brand. Apple doesn't seem capable to design its own clock-face.

 

Glad we cleared that up. 

Just about a perfect post. Thank you.

 

No.

 

Well, now that they've bought the rights, they can use it on any of their devices (reducing the price to a few pennies per device.)

 

Following is directed not to you, specifically, but to various posters, possibly including you:

 

 

Whoever said it was busy is sadly visually illiterate, as are any kids who can't read an analog clock. This points to a basic attention lapse in our artistic, cultural, and educational efforts. Reading a clock is like tying shoes -- it's so elemental children should be learning it from other children by the age of 5.

They did pay a lot. But Apple appreciates good design. The SBB design truly is iconic. Swiss graphic designers were so far ahead of their time. Look at this clock face: 1944 --- amazing! It's so incredibly legible, at any distance. No numbers. Symbolic, but once initiated, completely transparent. Really, it is a semiotic triumph (nerdy, I know, but true.)

 

Apple's design is superior, but clearly derivative. So of course they paid for it. Superior, because it's even more simple, iconic, and readable than the original.

Better contrast between the major and minor tick marks on the dial.

Better contrast between the hour and second hands.

No needless tapering of the hands.

Drop shadowing that enhances readability (a rarity, I generally find drop shadows annoying, but not on this.)

I even prefer the square gray frame. It sets of the clock face reducing distraction.

 

If SBB still had their long tradition of visual culture, they would have rewarded Apple publicly by reducing the settlement, then cross licensing with Apple, and adopting some of Apple's improvements in their own design. (This would have been a classic example of "Great artists steal" [in this case, "steal back."] But SBB has n't been great for 40-50 years.)

Read my post above: the design is exactly the same between the existing clocks and Apple's one, only AI cherry-picked illustrations are misleadingly feigning otherwise.


Edited by Sensi - 11/11/12 at 11:32am

+1

But I might be a little biased.

Still, I love the disign. It' timeless, yet it shows the time.