I never said my comment was about price or about catering to the 1%.
I have always understood the "computer for the rest of us" comment as referring to the innovation of the GUI, which made computers much more accessible than the old command line interface. Steve Jobs said the computer is like "a bicycle for the mind" and therefore the opportunity to make computers more accessible was huge - it's like giving everyone a bicycle for their mind, which ultimately could expand human consciousness. A visionary type of goal! And the iPhone with it's touch interface (arguably even more intuitive than the mouse) was a continuation of this theme.
But the Apple Watch is a departure from this theme. Sending your heartbeat to another user kind of sums up the whole device for me. Expanding human consciousess is about transmitting ideas to each other, but the heartbeat is not even an idea but a mere physical measurement. And fashion people in general are not about deep thinking, but about looking good, i.e. the physical. So yeah, a bit of a departure from past Apple devices.
Wow way to stereotype people. By the way both John Gruber and Nilay Patel (The Verge) said ?Watch was the most ambitious product they've ever reviewed. If all you take away from the device is sending ones heartbeat you obviously don't have much imagination.
I think you've missed all the videos and examples of the watch and what it does. It is VERY much a continuation of the Bicycle for the Mind concept. I suggest you read "iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch" on WIRED.
Also. why can't something be fashionable AND a "bycicle for the mind"? Playing up the fashion aspect of the device takes nothing away from its functionality.
he worked secretly part time at apple with Ive. his ikepod watch straps were redesigned for apple watch. his employment was announced a day before the watch was announced. he works part time.
I think you've missed all the videos and examples of the watch and what it does. It is VERY much a continuation of the Bicycle for the Mind concept. I suggest you read "iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch" on WIRED.
I read the article, I don't see how the Watch continues the theme of giving everyone access to computers and thereby expanding human consciousness. In fact it seems like their entire design focus (Short Look, Glance, Lynch says: "You’re in the moment; just send it.") was on quick interations.
Well, "in the moment," is the opposite of deep conceptual thought. Understanding requires that you see a pattern, and that requires time to pass, so that multiple examples can happen and you can see their similarities and differences. A device that encourages you to stay in the moment discourages these kind of linkages, therefore discourages understanding, and far from raising consciousness, keeps it at the basic level. So this device is most definitely not a continuation of Bicycle for the Mind.
All Good & Well, but I'd like to see Jony Ive creating products with his design crew instead.
The fashion world is just about perception and ephemeral influence: one day you're IN, then you're OUT. Just because they feel like it. It's dumb and void. Hence the wearing of sunglasses inside buildings.
Ive, get back to the people who can truly make a change in this world. People that really care about you. These PR hangouts are just a waste of time.
I have no problem with Apple pushing this on the high end. The typical techie isn't going to understand what this is about. It's marketing, pure and simple. It's locking in the fashion and design side of things. For those of us more enthused by the technical side of things, there's lots to marvel over. Let the non-technical artsy types enthuse over the aspects they appreciate. We should be satisfied that form FOLLOWS function.
I never said my comment was about price or about catering to the 1%.
I have always understood the "computer for the rest of us" comment as referring to the innovation of the GUI, which made computers much more accessible than the old command line interface. Steve Jobs said the computer is like "a bicycle for the mind" and therefore the opportunity to make computers more accessible was huge - it's like giving everyone a bicycle for their mind, which ultimately could expand human consciousness. A visionary type of goal! And the iPhone with it's touch interface (arguably even more intuitive than the mouse) was a continuation of this theme.
But the Apple Watch is a departure from this theme. Sending your heartbeat to another user kind of sums up the whole device for me. Expanding human consciousess is about transmitting ideas to each other, but the heartbeat is not even an idea but a mere physical measurement. And fashion people in general are not about deep thinking, but about looking good, i.e. the physical. So yeah, a bit of a departure from past Apple devices.
What difference is this compared to when Steve Jobs showcased the Mac to Andy Warhol? If anything, the most anti-technology people are this 1% that wouldn't know how to turn on a Macbook in sleep mode. If Apple can make these tech-illiterate folks be excited about tech, it's great for everyone in my book.
However, I do agree with what I think you're implying. Would Steve Jobs be catering and hobnobbing with that elite crowd? Probably not. Then again, I wouldn't put it past him. Maybe Jobs would hang out with them, but Ive's would - obviously.
Yes, but Apple's also got to manage negative perceptions generated by this sort of thing. It surely must run larger than forums like these.
I feel like Apple has effectively made its fashion point. It's starting to get flogged to death.
How is it flogged to death? Unless someone has been following this on sites like these, you get just about none of this info. What Apple is doing when doing all these things, is basically lobbying inside the fashion industry, more than selling directly to the end clients. All these things are long term plays, greasing the channels for future wearables.
BTW, anything people see on you is fashion. Other watches failed, because they weren't. Apple is thus using the correct approach.
As for negative perception? The only ones I see is the ones coming from people which will either never be Apple clients ever for a whole slew of reasons (one of them, many are part of the same Android user fringe who delighted watching Iphones be bent for weeks), or from people who will eventually buy one anyway because well, all other products suck (future self hate essentially... ;-).
Lets face it, buying a $2.5K ($6K in 2015), $2.8K ($7.2K) for the 512K released later in 1984 was not for some poor schlubby; and that was their mainstream product (the average ASP of an Apple product in 1980-1990 was probably at least $5K in 2015 dollars).
The key thing is that Apple must entrench its brand more and more in the high-mid to high end of the market, to prevent at all cost it becoming commodity. It does that through design, tech leadership, a coherent integrated ecosystem, marketing and PR. The risk of letting the brand slip down market (no matter the reason) is way worse than the risk of some loud mouthed geek being annoyed and not buying a product he wouldn't buy anyway.
All Good & Well, but I'd like to see Jony Ive creating products with his design crew instead.
The fashion world is just about perception and ephemeral influence: one day you're IN, then you're OUT. Just because they feel like it. It's dumb and void. Hence the wearing of sunglasses inside buildings.
Ive, get back to the people who can truly make a change in this world. People that really care about you. These PR hangouts are just a waste of time.
Right... That's why most upmarket brands have been around for decades... Ephemeral... A particular model may be ephemeral (like Iphone models), but the design language, the signature of a fashion house, what they represent in quality and attention to detail, is not.
There's very little evidence to suggest that Angela's role is anything more than running B&M and online retail. Yes she was CEO of a fashion house but she was hired to run retail, not product design or marketing. Tim Cook hired Paul Deneve from fashion house YSL. My guess is he's the one behind all this with Jony (and now Phi too) as the public face. Deneve's Apple bio says he's involved in "special projects". My guess is one of those special projects is Apple Watch promotion.
Love the red and navy bands. Maybe we'll see these announced at WWDC? And before anyone disses these bands....in John Gruber's Watch review he called them "luxurious".
WWDC seems to be a wrong venue for announcing anything not tech related.
I read the article, I don't see how the Watch continues the theme of giving everyone access to computers and thereby expanding human consciousness. In fact it seems like their entire design focus (Short Look, Glance, Lynch says: "You’re in the moment; just send it.") was on quick interations.
Well, "in the moment," is the opposite of deep conceptual thought. Understanding requires that you see a pattern, and that requires time to pass, so that multiple examples can happen and you can see their similarities and differences. A device that encourages you to stay in the moment discourages these kind of linkages, therefore discourages understanding, and far from raising consciousness, keeps it at the basic level. So this device is most definitely not a continuation of Bicycle for the Mind.
Don't forget about poetry and music. We have non-verbal ways of understanding. Transmitting heartbeat is too new to even classify, but I think it has to do with some kind of non-symbolic communication, like music.
One thing you can depend on with this fashion crowd. Some of them are going to be adventurous thinkers. Bohemians, but rich bohemians. They and their staffs need computers and phones, just like everybody else, maybe more. Who has them in pocket right now? Google or Apple?
Seeing as I and another million or so normal folk have an Apple Watch on order, and some will have them in a week, I don't see the difference. Apple Watch is the smart watch for the rest of us. That encompasses all, from the very wealthy to the lowliest of the middle class. As someone said, it is the most egalitarian of all Apple products. There is no difference on the innards of the $350 watch compared to the $17000 one. Just case and crystal and band material. The function is the same for everyone.
They're just jelous they couldn't get one as well.
I have to admit, seeing these also makes me a little uncomfortable. Apple pushing their watches to celebrities makes me feel like they don't believe in it, like they need people buying this because it's a trend and not because it's something that would change the way people live. Which is something that Steve was angling toward, always. I really see no point in buying and using something because some other person says it's pretty and/or cool.
Then again, it's also hard to understand the whole concept of turning people into deities just because they appeared in front of a camera. So why is the opinion of such a person a valid argument for someone to adopt a certain pattern of behavior or a product? Does such a someone even have a personality or is he/she just a puppet on strings being pulled by these bloated individuals?
Kinda shows that as far as we have come in our progress as a species and as far as our technological advancements are, we are actually still just so incredibly primitive.
This strategy has Angela Ahrents written all over it. She did much for Burberry with social media campaigns. She's "Retail" the way Philler Shiller is "Marketing"-so much more than the title implies.
I don't think any of us have enough info to be sure who is written all over this. Logic says it's not her, because she is VP of retail stores. At Burberry she was CEO, and thus able to do any stunt needed for the company.
This event may have Schiller with input from Newson, Ive and maybe Ahrendts written all over it in my opinion. People seem too quick to blame Ahrendts for Apple's Watch/fashion strategy. There's more evidence to suppose that Ive is the ultimate driving force behind it.
The more I think about it, the more spot on I think you are. ^^
All Good & Well, but I'd like to see Jony Ive creating products with his design crew instead.
The fashion world is just about perception and ephemeral influence: one day you're IN, then you're OUT. Just because they feel like it. It's dumb and void. Hence the wearing of sunglasses inside buildings.
Ive, get back to the people who can truly make a change in this world. People that really care about you. These PR hangouts are just a waste of time.
I'm not sure what you mean....the Watch was created by Ive's design team and some (or all) of them were at this event last night.
From what I can tell, Milan Design Week is focused around product design, not fashion. Salone Del Mobile is actually a furniture fair. Milan fashion week took place two months ago.
Comments
A lot of Envy on this forum...
Wow way to stereotype people. By the way both John Gruber and Nilay Patel (The Verge) said ?Watch was the most ambitious product they've ever reviewed. If all you take away from the device is sending ones heartbeat you obviously don't have much imagination.
A lot of Envy on this forum...
Also. why can't something be fashionable AND a "bycicle for the mind"? Playing up the fashion aspect of the device takes nothing away from its functionality.
he worked secretly part time at apple with Ive. his ikepod watch straps were redesigned for apple watch. his employment was announced a day before the watch was announced. he works part time.
I think you've missed all the videos and examples of the watch and what it does. It is VERY much a continuation of the Bicycle for the Mind concept. I suggest you read "iPhone Killer: The Secret History of the Apple Watch" on WIRED.
I read the article, I don't see how the Watch continues the theme of giving everyone access to computers and thereby expanding human consciousness. In fact it seems like their entire design focus (Short Look, Glance, Lynch says: "You’re in the moment; just send it.") was on quick interations.
Well, "in the moment," is the opposite of deep conceptual thought. Understanding requires that you see a pattern, and that requires time to pass, so that multiple examples can happen and you can see their similarities and differences. A device that encourages you to stay in the moment discourages these kind of linkages, therefore discourages understanding, and far from raising consciousness, keeps it at the basic level. So this device is most definitely not a continuation of Bicycle for the Mind.
All Good & Well, but I'd like to see Jony Ive creating products with his design crew instead.
The fashion world is just about perception and ephemeral influence: one day you're IN, then you're OUT. Just because they feel like it. It's dumb and void. Hence the wearing of sunglasses inside buildings.
Ive, get back to the people who can truly make a change in this world. People that really care about you. These PR hangouts are just a waste of time.
I never said my comment was about price or about catering to the 1%.
I have always understood the "computer for the rest of us" comment as referring to the innovation of the GUI, which made computers much more accessible than the old command line interface. Steve Jobs said the computer is like "a bicycle for the mind" and therefore the opportunity to make computers more accessible was huge - it's like giving everyone a bicycle for their mind, which ultimately could expand human consciousness. A visionary type of goal! And the iPhone with it's touch interface (arguably even more intuitive than the mouse) was a continuation of this theme.
But the Apple Watch is a departure from this theme. Sending your heartbeat to another user kind of sums up the whole device for me. Expanding human consciousess is about transmitting ideas to each other, but the heartbeat is not even an idea but a mere physical measurement. And fashion people in general are not about deep thinking, but about looking good, i.e. the physical. So yeah, a bit of a departure from past Apple devices.
What difference is this compared to when Steve Jobs showcased the Mac to Andy Warhol? If anything, the most anti-technology people are this 1% that wouldn't know how to turn on a Macbook in sleep mode. If Apple can make these tech-illiterate folks be excited about tech, it's great for everyone in my book.
However, I do agree with what I think you're implying. Would Steve Jobs be catering and hobnobbing with that elite crowd? Probably not. Then again, I wouldn't put it past him. Maybe Jobs would hang out with them, but Ive's would - obviously.
Agreed.
If Apple's fortunes were decided by Internet forums then they would have gone bust when Steve Jobs passed away.
Yes, but Apple's also got to manage negative perceptions generated by this sort of thing. It surely must run larger than forums like these.
I feel like Apple has effectively made its fashion point. It's starting to get flogged to death.
How is it flogged to death? Unless someone has been following this on sites like these, you get just about none of this info. What Apple is doing when doing all these things, is basically lobbying inside the fashion industry, more than selling directly to the end clients. All these things are long term plays, greasing the channels for future wearables.
BTW, anything people see on you is fashion. Other watches failed, because they weren't. Apple is thus using the correct approach.
As for negative perception? The only ones I see is the ones coming from people which will either never be Apple clients ever for a whole slew of reasons (one of them, many are part of the same Android user fringe who delighted watching Iphones be bent for weeks), or from people who will eventually buy one anyway because well, all other products suck (future self hate essentially... ;-).
Lets face it, buying a $2.5K ($6K in 2015), $2.8K ($7.2K) for the 512K released later in 1984 was not for some poor schlubby; and that was their mainstream product (the average ASP of an Apple product in 1980-1990 was probably at least $5K in 2015 dollars).
The key thing is that Apple must entrench its brand more and more in the high-mid to high end of the market, to prevent at all cost it becoming commodity. It does that through design, tech leadership, a coherent integrated ecosystem, marketing and PR. The risk of letting the brand slip down market (no matter the reason) is way worse than the risk of some loud mouthed geek being annoyed and not buying a product he wouldn't buy anyway.
All Good & Well, but I'd like to see Jony Ive creating products with his design crew instead.
The fashion world is just about perception and ephemeral influence: one day you're IN, then you're OUT. Just because they feel like it. It's dumb and void. Hence the wearing of sunglasses inside buildings.
Ive, get back to the people who can truly make a change in this world. People that really care about you. These PR hangouts are just a waste of time.
Right... That's why most upmarket brands have been around for decades... Ephemeral... A particular model may be ephemeral (like Iphone models), but the design language, the signature of a fashion house, what they represent in quality and attention to detail, is not.
Could be. I forgot about him.
Love the red and navy bands. Maybe we'll see these announced at WWDC? And before anyone disses these bands....in John Gruber's Watch review he called them "luxurious".
WWDC seems to be a wrong venue for announcing anything not tech related.
Don't forget about poetry and music. We have non-verbal ways of understanding. Transmitting heartbeat is too new to even classify, but I think it has to do with some kind of non-symbolic communication, like music.
One thing you can depend on with this fashion crowd. Some of them are going to be adventurous thinkers. Bohemians, but rich bohemians. They and their staffs need computers and phones, just like everybody else, maybe more. Who has them in pocket right now? Google or Apple?
They're just jelous they couldn't get one as well.
Then again, it's also hard to understand the whole concept of turning people into deities just because they appeared in front of a camera. So why is the opinion of such a person a valid argument for someone to adopt a certain pattern of behavior or a product? Does such a someone even have a personality or is he/she just a puppet on strings being pulled by these bloated individuals?
Kinda shows that as far as we have come in our progress as a species and as far as our technological advancements are, we are actually still just so incredibly primitive.
The more I think about it, the more spot on I think you are. ^^
I'm not sure what you mean....the Watch was created by Ive's design team and some (or all) of them were at this event last night.
From what I can tell, Milan Design Week is focused around product design, not fashion. Salone Del Mobile is actually a furniture fair. Milan fashion week took place two months ago.
http://salonemilano.it/en-us/PRESS/Press-Releases