Apple Watch stars in Elle Australia magazine's styling section

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited March 2015
Apple's upcoming wearable made its Down Under debut this week in a spread for Elle Australia, with the magazine's senior fashion editor helping fashionistas with tips for styling the Apple Watch for the weekend, at work, or at an after-hours cocktail party.




Elle Australia's Sara Smith was given three different Watch variants to play with --?"under high security," the publication says --?pairing each with a chic outfit. There is "no need for jewellery or accessories because the watch is the hero," Smith wrote of one outfit worn with "chic tailored separates and martial arts-inspired pieces."

Other ensembles include a weekend look with "trackies, your boyfriend's shirt (worn cuffed and loose) and a chic cashmere overcoat," with which Smith recommends "fine gold and silver jewellery." For a cocktail party, Smith likes the Watch with "a tuxedo suit and sexy heels (think Le Smoking Saint Laurent style with Alexander Wang black heels), or if you have the legs for it, a killer cocktail dress."

At work, the Watch would pair with "a sexy silk Equipment shirt, buttoned down low with a black silk camisole underneath, and add a sharp tailored blazer and man-style pants." A "subtle pair of Tiffany & Co. silver earrings and a fine diamond tennis bracelet" would make for "added glam," Smith says.

Elle Australia's editor-in-chief Justine Cullen was able to use the Apple Watch during a visit to San Francisco, calling it "a fun new piece of arm candy that will look good on your wrist and impress the boys."

"I want one," Cullen wrote. "I'm sad that the Edition version costs US$10K because it's by far the prettiest, but I'm definitely a fan of the functionalities in the more accessible versions."

Apple has gone full tilt with its campaign to sell the Watch as a fashion accessory, with the latest spread joining earlier appearances in Vogue, Style, China's Yoho, and Hong Kong's street style East Touch. The company is also planning Watch retail locations in upscale department stores, including Tokyo's Isetan and Paris's Galeries Lafayette.

The Apple Watch starts at $349 for the Sport model, with pre-orders set to begin on April 10. It ships on April 24.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member
    I think it looks great on her and with her outfit. Can't imagine any fashion publication featuring or even allowing to be worn any other wearable crap out there.
  • Reply 2 of 57
    Queue all the trolls saying how ugly the watch looks or the reformed trolls that claim they never said that.
  • Reply 3 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Angela Ahrendts really proving her worth. I can't imagine anyone else succeeding to get these fashion magazines to provide PR for a mini-iPhone on a wrist.

    The astonishing is that all of these fashion shoots show the Apple Watch with the screen lit, when in reality, you will be wearing a black screen on a box on your wrist... I personally don't mind, but I would wear an Apple Watch for the functionality, certainly not because it looks good; because, let's call it, the things is an ugly little creature.

    The functionality is great, no doubt I will wear an Apple Watch at work and when out and about on weekends, but as a fashion accessory for a charity event? That calls for my wife's Cartier and my Jaeger Le-Coultre. And richer people than me will wear an IWC or Patek.
  • Reply 4 of 57
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Anyone who says the Watch is ugly is either a troll or has ZERO fashion sense.  It is really that simple.


     

    Beauty is subjective. I think the Apple Watch looks good but I can understand why someone else might not. I personally find pretty much all gold men's watches to be ugly.

  • Reply 5 of 57
    This ugly watch just can't win.

    Apple are aiming it at the female market, but no woman wants to wear identical clothes to her friends; neither does she wish to wear the same watch. In addition, wearing a digital watch is fashion suicide. I would be repelled by a woman wearing one, not attracted to her, not that I'm in the market as a married man.

    The number of women who wear even fitness bands is tiny. The number who will be in the market for the Apple Watch is a niche of a niche.

    Still, this watch begs the question: why?
  • Reply 6 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Anyone who says the Watch is ugly is either a troll or has ZERO fashion sense.  It is really that simple.


    ... or consider beauty to be something more sophisticated than a square with rounded corners.... Simplicity does not always equal beauty:

     

    Neuschwanstein is more beautiful than a trailer.

    A Renoir is more beautiful than a blank canvas.

    A Faberge egg is more beautiful than a gold bullion.

    A Hermes scarf is nicer than a white hotel towel.

     

    But fair enough, "ugly" may be the wrong word, the steel and gold versions are at best not an eyesore. So one may be able to wear them without destroying the look. A bit like chinos and a button down shirt: not a good look, but not terribly offensive. Maybe. But the aluminium one, at least on YouTube videos, looks cheap and toy-ish.

  • Reply 7 of 57
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    sflagel wrote: »

    The astonishing is that all of these fashion shoots show the Apple Watch with the screen lit, when in reality, you will be wearing a black screen on a box on your wrist.
    Exactly my thoughts. This makes it look like any other watch and gives a false sense of how it will look on your wrist.

    I wonder how that was accomplished? Did the model have to keep re-pressing the illumination button (which would take some of the spontaneity out of the Photoshoot), or does Apple have special demo software that allows the backlight to stay on (I can't imagine that's an actual release option), or was it simply photoshopped?

    700
  • Reply 8 of 57
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,363member

    One thing that Apple really hasn't revealed (I don't think) is how the screen turns on. Have they? Maybe just a flick of the wrist enables the screen or pulling it up to view. I'm not sure that's really been covered yet unless I'm mistaken?

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post



    The astonishing is that all of these fashion shoots show the Apple Watch with the screen lit, when in reality, you will be wearing a black screen on a box on your wrist... I personally don't mind, but I would wear an Apple Watch for the functionality, certainly not because it looks good; because, let's call it, the things is an ugly little creature.

  • Reply 9 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    My point is some may not think the Watch is beautiful or their cup of tea.  But to calling ugly is ridiculous.


    True. But neither are the Moto 360, the Sony, or indeed many other Smartwatches out there. Most of them look "not ugly", but they are not beautiful, and neither is the Apple Watch (which is somewhere a bit above average in terms of looks).

     

    And before, some smartypants posts a picture of an ugly smartwatch to prove me wrong: SOME are much uglier than the Apple watch.

  • Reply 10 of 57
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    danielsw wrote: »
    I think it looks great on her and with her outfit. Can't imagine any fashion publication featuring or even allowing to be worn any other wearable crap out there.

    I can see a few others making the cut. I think the Moto 360, Withings Activité, Kairos a few others have a decent enough look, even if their construction, quality and diverseness (not to mention their usefulness) isn't even in the realm as ?Watch.

    sigma4life wrote: »
    Queue all the trolls saying how ugly the watch looks or the reformed trolls that claim they never said that.

    Don't forget the ones that claim it's a failure because it's being advertised. These asshats pretend that Apple has never advertised for any other product in the past and when you point t out they argue that it's different, as if a wearable with one foot firmly planted in the fashion world would require the same sort of advertisement as your standard CE. Well before there was any ?Watch talk I was saying that I didn't think any wearable would work unless it did focus on fashion and that Apple would have to hit the ground running with a lot of SKUs based on solely on appearance for wearable CE to ever work; and I fully expect to see Apple's competitors follow suit with multiple SKUs on the next go-round.

    sflagel wrote: »
    Angela Ahrendts really proving her worth. I can't imagine anyone else succeeding to get these fashion magazines to provide PR for a mini-iPhone on a wrist.

    Do you think Apple is paying for these ads or do you think their mind share is so excessive that these magazines know they'll sell a lot more copies if they simply put a pre-release Apple product on the cover. If I were running Apple's PR I'd argue the latter.
    The astonishing is that all of these fashion shoots show the Apple Watch with the screen lit, when in reality, you will be wearing a black screen on a box on your wrist... I personally don't mind, but I would wear an Apple Watch for the functionality, certainly not because it looks good; because, let's call it, the things is an ugly little creature.

    I suppose that depends on how long since they last listed the device. I wonder how long before it turns off again once you lower your wrist.
    The functionality is great, no doubt I will wear an Apple Watch at work and when out and about on weekends, but as a fashion accessory for a charity event? That calls for my wife's Cartier and my Jaeger Le-Coultre. And richer people than me will wear an IWC or Patek.

    But then you lose the usefulness of the device. Is that a good trade off?
  • Reply 11 of 57
    jakebjakeb Posts: 559member
    This ugly watch just can't win.

    Apple are aiming it at the female market, but no woman wants to wear identical clothes to her friends; neither does she wish to wear the same watch. In addition, wearing a digital watch is fashion suicide. I would be repelled by a woman wearing one, not attracted to her, not that I'm in the market as a married man.

    Repelled? Really?
  • Reply 12 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    Exactly my thoughts. This makes it look like any other watch and gives a false sense of how it will look on your wrist.



    I wonder how that was accomplished? Did the model have to keep re-pressing the illumination button (which would take some of the spontaneity out of the Photoshoot), or does Apple have special demo software that allows the backlight to stay on (I can't imagine that's an actual release option), or was it simply photoshopped?




    Correct. This is what it really looks like.

  • Reply 13 of 57
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    This is certainly different to how Apple has marketed products in the past. We'll see if it works!

     

    They really have getting dressed down to a science, don't they?

  • Reply 14 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    I will delight in your delious tears when Apple sells 15 million of these watches.

     

    And why are you showing that picture?  Since when did the Watch come without a strap?

     

    I know I'm wasting my talk talking to you.  Some people just have no VISION and want things to say the same as they were 30 years ago.


    Given that I own about 150K worth of Apple shares, I'd be very happy if they sell 15 M. But one can still have an opinion... and discuss it on this "discussion" forum. I am surprised how some people here become triumphant about Apple. I wasn't aware any of them actually CONTRIBUTED to the success to feel so smug about it. Or are Apple now a football club that people follow weekly and celebrate all revenue increases with a a few beers down at the pub? Otherwise, who cares whether Apple, Google, Swatch, or ABC NewCo have the best Smartwatch?

  • Reply 15 of 57
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

    Correct. This is what it really looks like.




    At least the Sport Watch looks like a fitness tracker, or one of those trendy rubber "support" bands. But it looks even stranger without a face on the most expensive band Apple offers -- the stainless link band:

     

     

    And I actually think I prefer it without the colored "dot" on the digital crown, as on the Sport model.

  • Reply 16 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    Do you think Apple is paying for these ads or do you think their mind share is so excessive that these magazines know they'll sell a lot more copies if they simply put a pre-release Apple product on the cover. If I were running Apple's PR I'd argue the latter.


    I think Angela has top notch relationships and was able to pull together a campaign. I don't think Apple pays for these spreads. But a campaign is a blend of paid advertising, celebrity placements (usually paid), and PR (free). To pull that together, Ms Ahrendts did an exceptional job. Exceptional.




    I suppose that depends on how long since they last listed the device. I wonder how long before it turns off again once you lower your wrist.


    Probably a minute or so, in reality, you will be wearing a black screen 19 out of 21 minutes. Assuming people look at their watch about once every 20 minutes.




    But then you lose the usefulness of the device. Is that a good trade off?


    Yes. I still have my iPhone....

  • Reply 17 of 57
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,716member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     



    At least the Sport Watch looks like a fitness tracker, or one of those trendy rubber "support" bands. But it looks even stranger without a face on the most expensive band Apple offers -- the stainless link band:

     

     

    And I actually think I prefer it without the colored "dot" on the digital crown, as on the Sport model.


    I think that looking at the watch without the context of wrist, clothing and surroundings is a fool's errand.

  • Reply 18 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     



    At least the Sport Watch looks like a fitness tracker, or one of those trendy rubber "support" bands. But it looks even stranger without a face on the most expensive band Apple offers -- the stainless link band:

     

     

    And I actually think I prefer it without the colored "dot" on the digital crown, as on the Sport model.


    They look like one of those 1970's LED watches that showed the time in red numbers when you pressed the button. Cool retro look, but not mainstream beautiful.

     

    The functionality is great, but not the look. Buy it for the functionality.

     

    Maybe generation 2, 3 or 4 will get there (slimmer, always on on)

  • Reply 19 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    LOL.

     

    Thats the new troll line.  Just say you own stock and that gives you the right to say any BS.

     

    Lets see some proof of that so called $150k in Apple stock.

     

    Why am I critical that you don't own $150k in stock?  Because when Apple reported the greatest earnings quarter in the history of mankind there wasn't a single peep from you here.  Yet when there is any negative press about the watch or Applepay you show up.


    Apple is 4% of the S&P and almost 5% in the DJ. plus some single stock holding bought luckily 10 years ago. If you are middle class middle aged man like me, having USD 150K of APPL stock in not exceptional.

     

    I am just saying the watch is not that great looking, its a bit "blah". Whats the big deal? It is a nice piece of tech. And lots of people will buy it, including probably me. But its not nice looking.

  • Reply 20 of 57
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Some random guy on the internet that says he owns $150k in Apple stock yet we don't hear a peep from him a few months ago when Apple reported the greatest earnings in the history of man.  Yet he always shows up when there is something negative to talk about.


    Yes, Apple is a big company. So is Nestle. Shall I now go on the Internet and shout from the rooftops what an incredible company Nestle is because they revolutionised our daily habits by inventing instant coffee 100 years ago? And now they are coming out with Nescafe Cans? Nice, OK. Apple Watch, nice, OK.

Sign In or Register to comment.