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.
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.
ascii wrote: »
That's an irresponsible use of company money, they should have just changed the app.
jkichline wrote: »
Everyone is getting up in arms that Apple paid $21 million for good design. Here's something I want you to pay attention to... Apple knew full well what they were doing when they used that clock design.
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.
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.
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.
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.