I don't see how the Hermes watch precludes any other major brand from customizing an ?Watch, unless Apple refuses them, and I can't imagine they would as ultimately it's in their best interest to expand their reach to as many luxury customers as possible.
This is clever by Apple, I'm sure it's the first of several deals. I couldn't understand how Apple was going to break our of the traditional tech market into the wider (conservative) watch market. That's why I thought (a year ago) that they might sell "mechanisms" for established luxury watch makers to package. This is a smarter version of that approach.
Expect to see more bands and faces from other brands, then variations on the case too (colours but then also perhaps differently styled digital crowns and buttons). We know it's the same inside (and that's good: no software compatibility problems or Android-like OS fragmentation) but the buyer pays a premium for a brand they value. Why is that good sense? Difficult question but the fact is that people do. The luxury market shows that people value the ethos of brands and they value the scarcity of the product: "mine's a Hermes, yours is only an Apple". But they're the same, you cry, and no-one listens - look at the car market and people who buy Audi when it's just a VW under the skin. It gives them pleasure and it's their money...
This is clever by Apple, I'm sure it's the first of several deals. I couldn't understand how Apple was going to break our of the traditional tech market into the wider (conservative) watch market. That's why I thought (a year ago) that they might sell "mechanisms" for established luxury watch makers to package. This is a smarter version of that approach.
Expect to see more bands and faces from other brands, then variations on the case too (colours but then also perhaps differently styled digital crowns and buttons). We know it's the same inside (and that's good: no software compatibility problems or Android-like OS fragmentation) but the buyer pays a premium for a brand they value. Why is that good sense? Difficult question but the fact is that people do. The luxury market shows that people value the ethos of brands and they value the scarcity of the product: "mine's a Hermes, yours is only an Apple". But they're the same, you cry, and no-one listens - look at the car market and people who buy Audi when it's just a VW under the skin. It gives them pleasure and it's their money...
Smart move Apple.
I agree. And I think it's the first clear indication that Apple is willing to make significant compromises with their products for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons. Did you ever think you would see the day when Apple would prominently co-brand their products with a third party brand, much less give that partner top billing on the most visible surface of the product? If anyone was unsure before, I'd say this indicates Apple is willing to do whatever it takes to gain acceptance into the fashion community and its customers, which likely includes a round ?Watch, and other concessions in the future, for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons.
I agree. And I think it's the first clear indication that Apple is willing to make significant compromises with their products for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons. Did you ever think you would see the day when Apple would prominently co-brand their products with a third party brand, much less give that partner top billing on the most visible surface of the product? If anyone was unsure before, I'd say this indicates Apple is willing to do whatever it takes to gain acceptance into the fashion community and its customers, which likely includes a round ?Watch, and other concessions in the future, for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons.
In what way has Apple compromised the ?Watch to cobrand models with Hermes?
As to the rest of your comment, you clearly have a short history with Apple. Before Apple developed the iPhone, it partnered with Motorola on a special version the Motorola ROKR, feature phone with built-in iTunes music app. Apple's Network Server line of servers featured IBM's AIX Unix-based OS. Apple has numerous other examples of cooperation with other companies. Currently, the most prominent of these is Apple CarPlay.
Apple confuses Wall Street because it's the first LARGEST market cap company that is NOT an enterprise corporation (either through natural resources or selling something that has a high barrier to entry/monopoly) so they think another company can come in and take their lunch not realizing Apple is like Boeing 1972. It took 5 countries, 30 years and hundreds of billions to match Boeing - Apple basically has at least 5-10 years lead because their competitors have an old culture that cannot beat Apple by their old methods (300 product VP's fighting for resources to release 300 products) and loathe to let a "rock star" through.
And of course, Apple is the FIRST EVER luxury mass market company that WS also cannot get their heads around.
The story is behind the WSJ paywall, but the main point is visible in the teaser paragraph: "We don't think in those terms," said Jony Ive.
This corresponds to Tim Cook's "I don't see it that way," which he uses in interviews to slap someone down politely for trying the stupid view on him.
The stupid view is why Apple is still the underdog—on Wall Street, in the "business insider" press (WSJ, NY Times, etc.), among the geek hater throngs of the computer world, and I think among an alliance of sinister forces from Samsung to Gawker and lackies like Alex Gibney.
The stupid view floats on a mat of trash memes floating in the media ocean. Apple is only a marketing company, now a luxury company, sucking in enormous profits on the backs of Chinese children, and so on.
Sorry for the rant, but I know they're going to take some heat for this alliance with Hermes.
Does anyone know a way around the paywall?
Easy enough to get through the paywall. Copy the Full URL and paste it into the main search box on www.google.com. Click top link. Full article.
Comments
I don't see how the Hermes watch precludes any other major brand from customizing an ?Watch, unless Apple refuses them, and I can't imagine they would as ultimately it's in their best interest to expand their reach to as many luxury customers as possible.
This is clever by Apple, I'm sure it's the first of several deals. I couldn't understand how Apple was going to break our of the traditional tech market into the wider (conservative) watch market. That's why I thought (a year ago) that they might sell "mechanisms" for established luxury watch makers to package. This is a smarter version of that approach.
Expect to see more bands and faces from other brands, then variations on the case too (colours but then also perhaps differently styled digital crowns and buttons). We know it's the same inside (and that's good: no software compatibility problems or Android-like OS fragmentation) but the buyer pays a premium for a brand they value. Why is that good sense? Difficult question but the fact is that people do. The luxury market shows that people value the ethos of brands and they value the scarcity of the product: "mine's a Hermes, yours is only an Apple". But they're the same, you cry, and no-one listens - look at the car market and people who buy Audi when it's just a VW under the skin. It gives them pleasure and it's their money...
Smart move Apple.
I agree. And I think it's the first clear indication that Apple is willing to make significant compromises with their products for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons. Did you ever think you would see the day when Apple would prominently co-brand their products with a third party brand, much less give that partner top billing on the most visible surface of the product? If anyone was unsure before, I'd say this indicates Apple is willing to do whatever it takes to gain acceptance into the fashion community and its customers, which likely includes a round ?Watch, and other concessions in the future, for purely aesthetic and fashion reasons.
As to the rest of your comment, you clearly have a short history with Apple. Before Apple developed the iPhone, it partnered with Motorola on a special version the Motorola ROKR, feature phone with built-in iTunes music app. Apple's Network Server line of servers featured IBM's AIX Unix-based OS. Apple has numerous other examples of cooperation with other companies. Currently, the most prominent of these is Apple CarPlay.
And of course, Apple is the FIRST EVER luxury mass market company that WS also cannot get their heads around.
The story is behind the WSJ paywall, but the main point is visible in the teaser paragraph: "We don't think in those terms," said Jony Ive.
This corresponds to Tim Cook's "I don't see it that way," which he uses in interviews to slap someone down politely for trying the stupid view on him.
The stupid view is why Apple is still the underdog—on Wall Street, in the "business insider" press (WSJ, NY Times, etc.), among the geek hater throngs of the computer world, and I think among an alliance of sinister forces from Samsung to Gawker and lackies like Alex Gibney.
The stupid view floats on a mat of trash memes floating in the media ocean. Apple is only a marketing company, now a luxury company, sucking in enormous profits on the backs of Chinese children, and so on.
Sorry for the rant, but I know they're going to take some heat for this alliance with Hermes.
Does anyone know a way around the paywall?
Easy enough to get through the paywall. Copy the Full URL and paste it into the main search box on www.google.com. Click top link. Full article.