We are being pandered to as would a flock of lemmings! (I am completely aware lemmings do not travel in flocks, btw)
Wouldn't we all wear our Apple watch if given one? Certainly. You can't yet buy one. It would have been way better to give one to Pharell and ask him to wait to wear it in public AFTER to release of the product giving everyone the thought he bought one himself. But with his wearing it now tells us it was a gift "seeded" to a trendy celeb. Look for Taylor Swift and Jimmy Fallon to to be pimping AW.
So here are some thoughts to fiddle with;
Apple has never seeded any product like this. Don't thin they did with the iPod and that would have been a natural for any musician!
Did they advance their MacBook Air to a famous professor or cosmologist?
Follow the hype. Does the Waz have one yet?!
iPad, Stephen Colbert.
Multiple times.
Woz likes to purchase Apple gear waiting in line with his "fans".
This story, with the picture of Pharell, shows the collision between the 'wearable' and the 'fashion' part of the Apple Watch.
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
Yep, you're right. Even in the new Instagram video it's picking up surrounding colors. But it's definitely the white band.
I color corrected a screenshot on the iPad ... It's almost certainly the Edition in Rose gold with a white sport band. His bracelet is gold, as is his jewelry. So it's unlikely he would be wearing a silver watch with that.
This story, with the picture of Pharell, shows the collision between the 'wearable' and the 'fashion' part of the Apple Watch.
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
So, you complain for several lines only to tell us that you're "probably" going to buy one, but not as a fashion statement even though that's what you're going to be announcing while wearing it because that's the only conclusion that people will reach as they care enough to strike up a conversation with you. Okay.
I reckon he'd be wearing the steel one on TV, maybe for security reasons as you wouldn't want it going missing in a dressing room if a producer said you couldn't wear a particular item on TV.
I think it looks like the gold one in the garden. Apple might have loaned it to him.
Apple has made more of a push into social media marketing in recent years and they've hired people specifically for this. They obviously haven't always done this because some of their products predate the rise of social media. Instagram was only founded in 2010, twitter in 2006, Facebook in 2004. They used Bono to help push the iPod:
Not at launch but companies adapt to the best sales strategies.
I think it looks like the gold one in the garden. Apple might have loaned it to him.
Why defend the decision to either give Pharrell an Edition watch, or for him to wear it? I doubt Apple loaned it to him, that's not what they do. The watch didn't cost Apple $10K afterall, and Steve Jobs was famous for giving away a $2500 Mac to numerous celebrities and luminaries in 1984. If anything, Pharrell would have given the watch to any number of willing people to safely wear while he was on camera if the producers told him no -- which they wouldn't.
And finally, Pharrell has lots of money. He and other music celebrities live large and their fans love it. Hate the game, not the player.
This story, with the picture of Pharell, shows the collision between the 'wearable' and the 'fashion' part of the Apple Watch.
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
Yeah, and he is holding it up. Lets hope that works as advertised.
Yeah, and he is holding it up. Lets hope that works as advertised.
It appears to be a one-two action from the video -- raise and twist. The slow motion nature of Pharrell's arm motion bothers me a little, because it makes me feel like it takes a long time to activate. But I'm sure that was just for dramatic effect. It would be nice if just a flick of the wrist would activate it. There are times when raising your arm to your face is not appropriate, or convenient for a quick glance at the time.
So, you complain for several lines only to tell us that you're "probably" going to buy one, but not as a fashion statement even though that's what you're going to be announcing while wearing it because that's the only conclusion that people will reach as they care enough to strike up a conversation with you. Okay.
I'm pointing out a discrepancy between Apple marketing the watch as fashion and the fact that the most fashionable part of the watch will be turned off most of the time.
In my opinion, this is a wearable computer. It can also work like a watch. But it's not a fashionable watch, because the watch face is black, unless the wearer is looking at it. It simply misses the point of being a fashion item. I think that's a pretty important argument.
Apple has pretty much nailed it when you look at the sensors, the communication methods, the notifications etc. All the stuff to make it a wearable are there. But the fashion part has a glaring black screen saying - well, not a whole lot, most of the time.
The reason I'm pointing this out is that Apple has tried to give several reasons for people to buy this watch. I agree with most of them, even though the most important one is a bit self-defeating for Apple (the more you use the watch, the less you get distracted by your phone - which puts the iPhone in an awkward position), but the fashion argument just seems like a paradox. A special self-muting fashion item?
And why should my point about Apple overselling the watch as a fashion item keep me from buying it as a wearable? I mean, it'll blow every other wearable out of the water the second it's released!
I'm pointing out a discrepancy between Apple marketing the watch as fashion and the fact that the most fashionable part of the watch will be turned off most of the time.
That's a valid point albeit not very important for me.
We will see what the battery usage/capacity really is in time, but I agree, many would want the watch face to display something while in "standby" mode. I'm assuming that aWatch can display in standby?
Edit: I would opt for the $100M-diamonds-sparkling display for my standby mode.
many would want the watch face to display something while in "standby" mode. I'm assuming that aWatch can display in standby?
I don't think so. That would require a power draw. Arguably the backlight is the biggest user of battery life on that thing.
This is where having a traditional watch, or at least a fixed watch face design on something like e-paper with a transparent LCD overlay would come in handy.
Looks like steel to me. It is simply reflecting his skin which is why it takes on a light gold hue.
no. the side of the crown facing us looks gold, and is not reflecting his skin because it doesnt have line-of-sight to his skin. its the gold version in this video clip clip.
Comments
We are being pandered to as would a flock of lemmings! (I am completely aware lemmings do not travel in flocks, btw)
Wouldn't we all wear our Apple watch if given one? Certainly. You can't yet buy one. It would have been way better to give one to Pharell and ask him to wait to wear it in public AFTER to release of the product giving everyone the thought he bought one himself. But with his wearing it now tells us it was a gift "seeded" to a trendy celeb. Look for Taylor Swift and Jimmy Fallon to to be pimping AW.
So here are some thoughts to fiddle with;
Apple has never seeded any product like this. Don't thin they did with the iPod and that would have been a natural for any musician!
Did they advance their MacBook Air to a famous professor or cosmologist?
Follow the hype. Does the Waz have one yet?!
iPad, Stephen Colbert.
Multiple times.
Woz likes to purchase Apple gear waiting in line with his "fans".
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
Nah. That is the white band which reflects the colors around it - which is why it looks pink.
Yep, you're right. Even in the new Instagram video it's picking up surrounding colors. But it's definitely the white band.
And you're calling me a troll?
I color corrected a screenshot on the iPad ... It's almost certainly the Edition in Rose gold with a white sport band. His bracelet is gold, as is his jewelry. So it's unlikely he would be wearing a silver watch with that.
This story, with the picture of Pharell, shows the collision between the 'wearable' and the 'fashion' part of the Apple Watch.
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
So, you complain for several lines only to tell us that you're "probably" going to buy one, but not as a fashion statement even though that's what you're going to be announcing while wearing it because that's the only conclusion that people will reach as they care enough to strike up a conversation with you. Okay.
Gold and white? Maybe it's blue and black ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress_(viral_phenomenon) ).
I reckon he'd be wearing the steel one on TV, maybe for security reasons as you wouldn't want it going missing in a dressing room if a producer said you couldn't wear a particular item on TV.
I think it looks like the gold one in the garden. Apple might have loaned it to him.
Apple has made more of a push into social media marketing in recent years and they've hired people specifically for this. They obviously haven't always done this because some of their products predate the rise of social media. Instagram was only founded in 2010, twitter in 2006, Facebook in 2004. They used Bono to help push the iPod:
Not at launch but companies adapt to the best sales strategies.
And finally, Pharrell has lots of money. He and other music celebrities live large and their fans love it. Hate the game, not the player.
This story, with the picture of Pharell, shows the collision between the 'wearable' and the 'fashion' part of the Apple Watch.
Just take a few moments to look at that picture. And focus on the Apple Watch.
You done? Ok, what's missing?
Yep, the watch face is missing! It's just a black screen, because the wearable needs to conserve battery. A normal watch doesn't behave like that. But you already knew that, of course.
So, why is this interesting? Because a normal watch can be a fashion statement by showing off! And the most important part of the showing off is, in fact, the watch face. There are other parts, like the bracelet and the shape of the watch case. Even the back of the watch can be showing off. But the most important part is the face of the watch, with delicate 'complications' like sub-dials, contrasting colours and so forth.
Now, the Apple Watch lets you compose your own watch face - and that's great, for you to look at and of course to show off when people show interest in your watch. But fashion is meant to show off all the time, which Pharell does in the picture above with his jewellery and clothes.
However, the Apple Watch will only display a black screen. And that is the paradox between being a wearable (with current battery limitations) and a fashion piece. You end up being fashionable with a black brick on your wrist.
PS: I love Apple products and will probably buy the Apple Watch at some point. But not as a fashion statement.
Yeah, and he is holding it up. Lets hope that works as advertised.
I'm pointing out a discrepancy between Apple marketing the watch as fashion and the fact that the most fashionable part of the watch will be turned off most of the time.
In my opinion, this is a wearable computer. It can also work like a watch. But it's not a fashionable watch, because the watch face is black, unless the wearer is looking at it. It simply misses the point of being a fashion item. I think that's a pretty important argument.
Apple has pretty much nailed it when you look at the sensors, the communication methods, the notifications etc. All the stuff to make it a wearable are there. But the fashion part has a glaring black screen saying - well, not a whole lot, most of the time.
The reason I'm pointing this out is that Apple has tried to give several reasons for people to buy this watch. I agree with most of them, even though the most important one is a bit self-defeating for Apple (the more you use the watch, the less you get distracted by your phone - which puts the iPhone in an awkward position), but the fashion argument just seems like a paradox. A special self-muting fashion item?
And why should my point about Apple overselling the watch as a fashion item keep me from buying it as a wearable? I mean, it'll blow every other wearable out of the water the second it's released!
Great - we have "Dre", "Jay-Z" and now Pharrell whatever - who's next? Notorious B.I.G.?
I notice you didn't mention Christie Turlington Burns, Candace Swanepoel, or Liu Wen. Hmmm.
I'm pointing out a discrepancy between Apple marketing the watch as fashion and the fact that the most fashionable part of the watch will be turned off most of the time.
That's a valid point albeit not very important for me.
We will see what the battery usage/capacity really is in time, but I agree, many would want the watch face to display something while in "standby" mode. I'm assuming that aWatch can display in standby?
Edit: I would opt for the $100M-diamonds-sparkling display for my standby mode.
Great - we have "Dre", "Jay-Z" and now Pharrell whatever - who's next? Notorious B.I.G.?
So, you only object to black stars, and not white ones wearing it?
Or are you implying something else....
B.I.G. has been dead for more than a decade, time you brush up on your hiphop references for your next insinuations...
Very nice. Don't really care or watch The Voice but thousands do and that's all that Apple cares about.
Uuuuuuuh.... I get that you don't like "the voice" (and I hear you, I'm not really a fan of contest shows) however "thousands"?????
I would venture to guess that millions, or, perhaps, tens of millions likely watch it.
many would want the watch face to display something while in "standby" mode. I'm assuming that aWatch can display in standby?
I don't think so. That would require a power draw. Arguably the backlight is the biggest user of battery life on that thing.
This is where having a traditional watch, or at least a fixed watch face design on something like e-paper with a transparent LCD overlay would come in handy.
Looks like steel to me. It is simply reflecting his skin which is why it takes on a light gold hue.
no. the side of the crown facing us looks gold, and is not reflecting his skin because it doesnt have line-of-sight to his skin. its the gold version in this video clip clip.
Apple has never seeded any product like this.
except when they have. Jobs gifted an original Macintosh to Mick Jager pre-release:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=A_Mac_For_Mick.txt
...oops.