Apple designers Jony Ive and Marc Newson to appear at Conde Nast luxury conference

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2015
Key Apple designers Jony Ive and Marc Newson will be opening up the first ever Conde Nast International Luxury Conference, scheduled for April 22 and 23 in Florence, Italy, according to an announcement made on Wednesday.




The conference is being curated by Vogue international editor Suzy Menkes, who will talk with Ive and Newson about their collaborations and the "21st century definition of luxury." In a prepared statement by Menkes, Apple was described as a "powerful part of the luxury industry."

"The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories," Menkes said. "I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."

Some other fashionistas appearing at the event will include fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, Beluti CEO Antoine Arnault, and Hermes CEO Axel Dumas.

At the Apple Watch's final unveiling on Monday, Apple deliberately positioned the Apple Watch as a luxury item, emphasizing its fashion appeal. The Edition models of the device will start at $10,000, making them the most expensive consumer products Apple has ever sold.

Ive is the company's senior vice president of design, and often considered the driving influence behind the look and feel of its products. Newson is a relatively recent hire, brought on board solely to work on special projects. The two have been friends for some time, and in 2013 cooperated on designs for a (RED) charity auction.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    Apple was described as a "powerful part of the luxury industry."

    That's a powerful statement. The fashion industry doesn't suffer posers...and only the real deal gets to speak. Apple has the chops in these two designer to be credible in the luxury market... I can't see Samsung, Google, Motorola, or Microsoft even being allowed in the same room when Jony Ive and Marc Newson speaks...
  • Reply 2 of 34
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

    The fashion industry doesn't suffer posers...and only the real deal gets to speak.

     

     

  • Reply 3 of 34
    popnfreshpopnfresh Posts: 139member
    That's a powerful statement. The fashion industry doesn't suffer posers...and only the real deal gets to speak. Apple has the chops in these two designer to be credible in the luxury market... I can't see Samsung, Google, Motorola, or Microsoft even being allowed in the same room when Jony Ive and Marc Newson speaks...

    If they have any sense they won't want to try. If Apple wants to be a maker of expensive fashion gadgets that will be collecting dust in a drawer within a few years, good for them. Those other companies have more interesting, important and useful things to do.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    That's a powerful statement.The fashion industry doesn't suffer posers...and only the real deal gets to speak.

    I would argue that's only partially correct. The fashion industry needs a certain creative type for the designs so ones without the "vision" (i.e.: posers) will get found out right away, but they seem more than willing to say whatever crap they feel will work best at a given moment, so I wouldn't put too much into that statement alone.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 5 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    The conference is being curated by Vogue international editor Suzy Menkes, who will talk with Ive and Newson about their collaborations and the "21st century definition of luxury." In a prepared statement by Menkes, Apple was described as a "powerful part of the luxury industry."



    "The iPhone, iPad, and the forthcoming Apple Watch are in direct competition with handbags, timepieces and high-end accessories," Menkes said. "I want Jony Ive to tell the conference delegates where 21st century luxury is headed."



    What a bunch of BS. Despite the claims to the contrary, Apple has never been a luxury company. Their success has always been in offering unique value, which is a very different thing. Obviously the Edition Awatch is a departure (yet to be successful.)

     

    I would characterize Jony Ive as a "luxury enthusiast" rather than as an "authority" on luxury items. It seems to me that all his tentative forays into luxury have been ill-fated. Perhaps the Edition Awatch will be different.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    At the Apple Watch's final unveiling on Monday, Apple deliberately positioned the Apple Watch as a luxury item, emphasizing its fashion appeal. The Edition models of the device will start at $10,000, making them the most expensive consumer products Apple has ever sold.



    Jeez, at least get this right. Just off the top of my head, Mac IIfx—it was around $10,000 and that must have been in early 90's dollars (multiply by 2 at least!) I'm sure they've sold other pieces of hardware that would work out to be more expensive too.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Ive is the company's senior vice president of design, and often considered the driving influence behind the look and feel of its products. Newson is a relatively recent hire, brought on board solely to work on special projects. The two have been friends for some time, and in 2013 cooperated on designs for a (RED) charity auction.


     

    Just my opinion, but I thought the stuff they did for the charity auction was crap. (I know, many of you disagree with me.) In any case I don't see it as a measure of their abilities in "luxury items" since it was for charity and a one off. Any one-off by by these two is probably a good investment (even if ugly, impractical, or just plain stupid) and of course when it's for charity, the whole idea is that folks want to open up their wallets and help.

     

    The "designer set free" thing is so silly—full of self-indulgence and hubris. People always seem to dig "design porn." Most intelligent designers get over it pretty quickly though. Seeing or impossible "design concepts" and just plain stupid [but very pretty] crap winning awards year after year is tiresome.


  • Reply 6 of 34
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,608member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post



    That's a powerful statement. The fashion industry doesn't suffer posers...and only the real deal gets to speak. Apple has the chops in these two designer to be credible in the luxury market... I can't see Samsung, Google, Motorola, or Microsoft even being allowed in the same room when Jony Ive and Marc Newson speaks...


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post



    If they have any sense they won't want to try. If Apple wants to be a maker of expensive fashion gadgets that will be collecting dust in a drawer within a few years, good for them. Those other companies have more interesting, important and useful things to do.

     

    Between what Apple thinks is best for business versus what popnfresh thinks, I think I'll go with the guys running the most profitable company on earth.

     

    Apple is not turning itself into another luxury goods company.  It is turning itself into the first true luxury tech company.  Not a tech company that dabbles in luxury (the old Apple), or a luxury company that dabbles in tech (Vertu), but one that is at home and respected and feared by both the tech and luxury goods industries.  Some products will lean more towards the tech side, others will lean more to the luxury goods side, but all will be enhanced by the strengths Apple possesses in both tech and luxury goods.

     

    This statement though is just plain petulant and silly: "If Apple wants to be a maker of expensive fashion gadgets that will be collecting dust in a drawer within a few years, good for them."  As if adding luxury chops to tech chops will suddenly turn Apple into a maker of crappy Android tablets.

  • Reply 7 of 34
    Wasn't the 20th anniversary Mac considerably more than the Watch Edition? If I remember correctly it sold for around $20,000.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    chadmaticchadmatic Posts: 285member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

     



    What are you on???  The Leica camera alone sold for $1.8 million, if that's not luxury...

  • Reply 9 of 34
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    50miles wrote: »
    Wasn't the 20th anniversary Mac considerably more than the Watch Edition? If I remember correctly it sold for around $20,000.

    The initial price was $7500. Even when adjusting for inflation that's well under $20,000.
  • Reply 10 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

    What are you on???  The Leica camera alone sold for $1.8 million, if that's not luxury...


    It's called reality (it's great, try it!)

    Read what I said.

    Key words:

     *one-off*   *charity.*

  • Reply 11 of 34
    popnfreshpopnfresh Posts: 139member
    tundraboy wrote: »
    This statement though is just plain petulant and silly: "If Apple wants to be a maker of expensive fashion gadgets that will be collecting dust in a drawer within a few years, good for them."  As if adding luxury chops to tech chops will suddenly turn Apple into a maker of crappy Android tablets.

    Well, we'll check back in three years and see how many version 1.0 Apple Watches are still in use. I'll guess very few indeed. The other part of your statement is just flat out moronic. As if the only things Google and Microsoft make are crappy Android tablets.
  • Reply 12 of 34
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    desuserign wrote: »
    It's called reality (it's great try it!)
    Read what I said.
    Key words:
     *one-off*   *charity.*

    So now a Fabergé egg isn't luxury because it's a one-off production item? :\
  • Reply 13 of 34
    chadmaticchadmatic Posts: 285member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

     

    It's called reality (it's great, try it!)

    Read what I said.

    Key words:

     *one-off*   *charity.*




    And how exactly is that not luxury?

  • Reply 14 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

    The initial price was $7500. Even when adjusting for inflation that's well under $20,000.

    Yup! I think he's remembering a later auction price on the 20th A Mac.

    Apple Lisa $9,995 in 1983 (@$23K today's dollars.)

    Also read there was an Apple server that sold for nearly $20K (initial price) but I don't know what it was called or when it came out. Possibly this doesn't fully fit the "consumer product" qualification though.

    Today's topped out MacPro sells for over $20k, but so far I've been limiting myself to base prices only. Seems like a cheat to me.

  • Reply 15 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

    And how exactly is that not luxury?

    Use your brain.

    Is it luxury just because it costs a lot or there is only one?

    Is a moon rock "luxury?"

    When My NPR station sends me a $5 cary bag because I made a $130 contribution, does it mean the bag is somehow a luxury item (or even just worth more than the same $5 bag I buy elsewhere?)

  • Reply 16 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

    So now a Fabergé egg isn't luxury because it's a one-off production item? image

    Was a Fabergé egg made to be sold at a Charity auction?

    Does Apple sell one-offs (other than for charity auctions?)

    I'd consider any one-off (other than architecture etc.) to be a novelty or art piece, not a luxury item. Jewelry often skirts this since the stones are often unique, but unique jewelry is generally seen as art also.

  • Reply 17 of 34
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    desuserign wrote: »
    Was a Fabergé egg made to be sold at a Charity auction?
    Does Apple sell one-offs (other than for charity auctions?)
    I'd consider any one-off (other than architecture etc.) to be a novelty or art piece, not a luxury item. Jewelry often skirts this since the stones are often unique, but unique jewelry is generally seen as art also.

    Ah, so if a Fabregé egg was made to be sold for charity it would not be a luxury item simply because it was sold at charity. That makes perfect sense¡ :rolleyes:
  • Reply 18 of 34
    xixoxixo Posts: 417member
    Jony always looks so pouty in these press photos. I bet this year he packs it in for real and heads back to the UK.

    The MacBook with only one port is some kind of design revenge on Apple for paying him an obscene salary not to quit.
  • Reply 19 of 34
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

    Ah, so if a Fabregé egg was made to be sold for charity it would not be a luxury item simply because it was sold at charity. That makes perfect sense¡ image

    That's a great purposeful misinterpretation of my position, but no.

    As I said Art is Art.

    A Fabergé egg is an art piece, so I wouldn't call it a "luxury item." It certainly would be luxurious to own one, but I think it falls into a different category from, say a Rolex watch, which is broadly seen as a "luxury item." It seems to me that a "luxury item," like any other product, has a certain commodity aspect to it, even if it is offered in very limited batches.

    This is all very subjective of course, (especially since "luxury item", like art, is not really defined,) but I think my view is pretty widely accepted by people who think about such things.

  • Reply 20 of 34
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    desuserign wrote: »
    That's a great purposeful misinterpretation of my position, but no.
    As I said Art is Art.
    A Fabergé egg is an art piece, so I wouldn't call it a "luxury item." It certainly would be luxurious to own one, but I think it falls into a different category from, say a Rolex watch, which is broadly seen as a "luxury item." It seems to me that a "luxury item," like any other product, has a certain commodity aspect to it, even if it is offered in very limited batches.
    This is all very subjective of course, (especially since "luxury item", like art, is not really defined,) but I think my view is pretty widely accepted by people who think about such things.

    1) Your course argument to me clearly implied that because it's only a one-off but not for charity it's not luxury.

    2) Art can very much be a luxury item. One could argue that expensive items that have no utility outside of being classified as art are the epitomity of luxury.
Sign In or Register to comment.