Jony Ive and Marc Newson reveal special Apple Watch Sport Band colors at Milan gala

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 207
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    It's a silly comparison. Apple was in its startup phase and needed whatever little buzz it could get.

    It's the largest, most successful company in the world now, in case you haven't noticed.

    I think Apple is indeed in startup phase in wearable computing. It is unclear if people appreciate wearable electronic devices. I am of the opinion that they should try as hard as they can to grab new customers.
    The Watch will succeed or fail based in whether it is a beautifully designed utility product, just as the iPhone or iPad did. For me (and I am sure a lot of people) it is good function in good form.

    There is an important difference. iPads can be carried in bags. Watches are worn ostensibly on one's wrist. The latter will be associated with fashion for both historical, and appearance reasons, more so than the iPad.
    I know that's meant to be insulting, but it's underscoring the *perception* of some folks: all for me, some for thee. The people who are uncomfortable about the spectacle of Apple traipsing after celebrities doesn't mean they are juvenile or just plain jealous, and are going to run to some other platform: it's the perception that makes diehards squirm, something that seems relatively new. Might be misplaced, might not: I have no idea anymore than you do. Perhaps not the best analogy, but pros often seem to be miffed that Apple focuses on their consumer level devices more than them. They're not going to get rid of their expensive setups based on hurt feelings, but they may not be inclined to keep with it down the line.

    Have a nice day.

    Not all diehard will squirm at this. I spoke to my friends and they don't mind at all.

    When Apple execs become friends with the fashion designers, they will learn more about the industry and can establish deeper relationships. It will help Apple design and sell wearables.

    As for the Pro folks, Apple's rise is tied with BYOD. So investment in consumer tech is equally important.

    They started a new and deep relationship with IBM in enterprise computing. Compared to a few years ago, Apple is a lot more willing to partner with other companies these days. It will help third parties create better pro apps and solutions. They also get earlier and consistent access to early Mac betas these days.
  • Reply 182 of 207
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    It's a silly comparison. Apple was in its startup phase and needed whatever little buzz it could get.

    ....
    This is just plain wrong. In 1984, Apple was a well-established company and one of the oldest personal computer companies in existence. This established company was introducing the Macintosh, a new product. It is important to understand that the Macintosh was not even an entirely new venture for Apple. The Macintosh was a inexpensive follow-on to the Apple Lisa introduced in 1983. The Lisa was later folded into the Macintosh line as the Macintosh XL.
  • Reply 183 of 207
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    Well, it's kind of hard to create a red-colored product for a charity that didn't come into existence until 4 years after the iMac G3 was discontinued.

    So thank you for confirming that since (product) RED began in 2006, no red-colored products have been released by Apple that didn't donate proceeds to that charity, until now.
    You admit that you were wrong. Finally!
  • Reply 184 of 207
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    v900 wrote: »
    Some of the most prestigious and respected watch makers in the fashionindustry, doesn't release an updated design every spring and fall, but sticks to the same design for decades.
    Isn't it funny that Cartier, one of the most respected luxury watch makers in the business has a Fall Winter 2014-2105 collection with new watch designs?

    http://www.cartier.com/2015-winter-collection/-17462

    I'll stick to my understanding of the fashion industry thank you.
  • Reply 185 of 207
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member



    Using the D.. bag word is offensive, you should be banned imho

  • Reply 186 of 207
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eric Alister View Post



    Look at the douche bags Ive is associated with now that Apple is filled with executives from the fashion world.



    I just flagged that as stating offensive opinion, watch out the mod will get you banned  if you continue with profanity

  • Reply 187 of 207
    I'm glad to see so many people who don't like change mouth off about Apple's new Watch. At least you guys are no longer complaining about Apple getting stale and not getting into a new product category since Steve died. That's progress: at least Apple is doomed for the totally opposite reason!

    Apple is doomed if do, doomed if they don't. Doomed if products are stale, doomed when products change. Doomed unless they use Windows or Android and do whatever Samsung is doing. And doomed if they do the opposite of their competitors. The naysayers say nay, no matter what Apple does.

    They say Apple is doomed because fashion is so shallow, and Apple has never been about fashion, even though these same trolls used to decry Apple's appeal to color and style over technical specs on the original candy-colored G3 iMacs, colorful iPod Nanos and trendy iPhone 5c. Or Apple's form-over-function "obsession with thinness." The trolls now claim Apple has always been about "bicycle for the brain" (as if people checking their FaceBook on a MacBook was?) or "never gave free macs to famous people" (even though His Holy Steveness handed them out personally). Nah, the trolls just slice and dice history to serve their new "Apple is doomed" narrative. Remember: it always starts and ends with Apple being doomed and abandoning (the fictional, imaginary version of) Steve's Original Holy Vision.

    Keep trolling guys. Apple is going to make the smartwatch/wearable market in 2015, and you are all going to [I]watch[/I] it happen (pun intended).
  • Reply 188 of 207
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    I'm glad to see so many people who don't like change mouth off about Apple's new Watch. At least you guys are no longer complaining about Apple getting stale and not getting into a new product category since Steve died. That's progress: at least Apple is doomed for the totally opposite reason!

    Apple is doomed if do, doomed if they don't. Doomed if products are stale, doomed when products change. Doomed unless they use Windows or Android and do whatever Samsung is doing. And doomed if they do the opposite of their competitors. The naysayers say nay, no matter what Apple does.

    They say Apple is doomed because fashion is so shallow, and Apple has never been about fashion, even though these same trolls used to decry Apple's appeal to color and style over technical specs on the original candy-colored G3 iMacs, colorful iPod Nanos and trendy iPhone 5c. Or Apple's form-over-function "obsession with thinness." The trolls now claim Apple has always been about "bicycle for the brain" (as if people checking their FaceBook on a MacBook was?) or "never gave free macs to famous people" (even though His Holy Steveness handed them out personally). Nah, the trolls just slice and dice history to serve their new "Apple is doomed" narrative. Remember: it always starts and ends with Apple being doomed and abandoning (the fictional, imaginary version of) Steve's Original Holy Vision.

    Keep trolling guys. Apple is going to make the smartwatch/wearable market in 2015, and you are all going to watch it happen (pun intended).
    Ditto that 100% and Thank You!
  • Reply 189 of 207
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,817member
    It's a silly comparison. Apple was in its startup phase and needed whatever little buzz it could get.

    It's the largest, most successful company in the world now, in case you haven't noticed.

    Apple was not in its startup phase in 1984. They went public 4 years prior in 1980 and were a well established company that owned the personal computer market until the MSDos based stuff came out a few years prior.
  • Reply 190 of 207
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    I have no idea, since I have not surveyed folks. When I see legitimate, long-time, hard-nosed Apple fans start to squirm over this, I am simply speculating that the feeling must be more widespread.

     

    Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or think what I am saying is unlikely?


    Very unlikely. The only people who know about these fashion events outside of Apple forum dwellers are fashionistas who follow or attend those events. It's not like they're being reported on CNN, MSNBC, or even HuffPo for that matter.

     

    This is off the radar for the average consumer.

  • Reply 191 of 207
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    Steve would not have...

    *Drink*

  • Reply 192 of 207
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    I'm glad to see so many people who don't like change mouth off about Apple's new Watch. At least you guys are no longer complaining about Apple getting stale and not getting into a new product category since Steve died. That's progress: at least Apple is doomed for the totally opposite reason!



    Apple is doomed if do, doomed if they don't. Doomed if products are stale, doomed when products change. Doomed unless they use Windows or Android and do whatever Samsung is doing. And doomed if they do the opposite of their competitors. The naysayers say nay, no matter what Apple does.

    Diehard Apple fans should be worried if they find themselves in complete agreement with all of the company's developments. That would mean that they're only making things that people are asking for. No one asked for the iMac, or the MacBook Air, or the iPod, or the iPad. I personally have always disagreed with 20% of Apple's product decisions—either entire products (like the iBook) or certain features (lack of file manager on the iPad). This to me is the true "Apple tax": a few unpleasant surprised within a larger string of pleasant surprises.

     

    It's OK to dislike the Watch or its marketing initiatives. The world will still turn. Before long Apple will have something that will appeal to a different cohort of Apple fans.

  • Reply 193 of 207
    I had ordered the Watch sight unseen, but I finally had the chance to see one 'live' and spend some time with it today.

    It is bloody gorgeous.

    I was amazed by how compact the 38mm is, and how reasonably-sized the 42mm is. The entire thing is delicate and classy-looking, and screams quality. The crown, btw, is a marvelous piece of engineering. The interface is simple and intuitive, took me all of ten minutes to figure out. The competition is not even in the same planet. Reviewers complaining about its looks or how complicated it is to operate should have their sorry-a** journalistic credentials pulled.

    I see this thing flying off the shelves, fashionistas or not.
  • Reply 194 of 207
    Unlike other stuffs, It gonna be hard for competitors to imitate the apple watch due to its brand appeal and fashion orientation.
  • Reply 195 of 207
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I'm glad to see so many people who don't like change mouth off about Apple's new Watch. At least you guys are no longer complaining about Apple getting stale and not getting into a new product category since Steve died. That's progress: at least Apple is doomed for the totally opposite reason!

    Apple is doomed if do, doomed if they don't. Doomed if products are stale, doomed when products change. Doomed unless they use Windows or Android and do whatever Samsung is doing. And doomed if they do the opposite of their competitors. The naysayers say nay, no matter what Apple does.

    They say Apple is doomed because fashion is so shallow, and Apple has never been about fashion, even though these same trolls used to decry Apple's appeal to color and style over technical specs on the original candy-colored G3 iMacs, colorful iPod Nanos and trendy iPhone 5c. Or Apple's form-over-function "obsession with thinness." The trolls now claim Apple has always been about "bicycle for the brain" (as if people checking their FaceBook on a MacBook was?) or "never gave free macs to famous people" (even though His Holy Steveness handed them out personally). Nah, the trolls just slice and dice history to serve their new "Apple is doomed" narrative. Remember: it always starts and ends with Apple being doomed and abandoning (the fictional, imaginary version of) Steve's Original Holy Vision.

    Keep trolling guys. Apple is going to make the smartwatch/wearable market in 2015, and you are all going to watch it happen (pun intended).

    I have no time for the faux outrage. This 'news' article is primarily based off an Instagram post. There was no PR for Apple's appearance at Milan Design Week. OK, Wallpaper got a quote from Jony Ive but most people have probably never heard of Wallpaper and his quote wasn't widely publicized, certainly not by Apple. IMO the only reason this story even got traction is because MacRumors posted about it on their front page using the word "exclusive" in their title as click-bait. And posting it on the weekend when there isn't any other news and it sits atop the front page for several days. Most of the rumor sites are IMO wrongly treating this as a "fashion" event. Milan Design Week isn't fashion it's product design. And the Salone Del Mobile is actually a furniture trade show. Milan's fashion event (aka Milan Fashion Week) took place at the end of February and as far as we know Apple had no presence there (or New York, London or Paris Fashion Week either).

    With Apple there's always a meme being pushed. The latest is Apple used to be for everyone and now they're not. Because yeah, the Lisa and the Mac were products everyone could afford. I guess people forget that the original iPod was more expensive than the ?Watch Sport? Apple's products have never been for everybody. They've always played to the premium segment of the market. I don't expect that to change as they enter new markets/categories.
  • Reply 196 of 207
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gameboy70 View Post

     

    Very unlikely. The only people who know about these fashion events outside of Apple forum dwellers are fashionistas who follow or attend those events. It's not like they're being reported on CNN, MSNBC, or even HuffPo for that matter.

     

    This is off the radar for the average consumer.


    Well, you haven't been looking in some pretty obvious places, then: see this article from yesterday's New York Times on Apple new 'luxury' strategy: 'Apple Promotes Watch as Luxury'.

  • Reply 197 of 207
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Btw, I think the rose gold with white sport band looks quite nice on Anna Wintour. Having her attend fashion shows wearing the Watch is marketing genius and cheap too. Let's not forget that Samsung spent billions of dollars on their Next Big Thing™ campaign and Microsoft has spent over $400M in partnership with the NFL to promote Surface. Having Anna Wintour rock a gold watch at a fashion show costs peanuts in comparison.

    2rgcsua.jpg
  • Reply 198 of 207

    Good catch. I still think that if you asked 10 people at random if they've heard about the Milan gala to show off Apple's new bands, you'd get zero recognition.

  • Reply 199 of 207
    aeleggaelegg Posts: 99member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post



    The invention of a god IS the meaningless layer. The question of the origin of EVERYTHING includes the origin of a god who created all the rest. You can't win a logical argument about where ALL of this came from by separating out part of the whole, not explaining its origin, and then suggesting that the part you separated out (in this case God) is the explanation for the rest. It still leaves you with no explanation for that part that you separated out; god.

     

    I read the Russel's Teapot Wiki.  I'm sure it's maddening to hear people of Faith to say, "Just take it on Faith".

     

    What Athiests leave out are modern miracles.

    Not stories handed down from the 12th century that grow in the telling and sound like Pagan VooDoo, but modern, documented miracles.

     

    Padre Pio (see Wikipedia) was a catholic priest in Italy who died in the late 1960s.

    Thousands came from around the world to go to Confession to him.

    In cases he knew their sins without being told, and would add to the list if things were left off.

      Athiest explanation:  He's a mind-reader and is evolutionally-early, or everyone's lying.

    He bled from the wounds of Christ, known as "The Stigmata".

    Doctors examined him and found no evidence of man-made scrapes/burns etc, yet the wounds/bleeding continued.

        (When asked if they hurt, he exclaimed, "What do you think they're for, my looks!?!?!?")

    He also ate so little that not enough Calories could have been consumed to make up for the blood loss.

      Atheist explanation:  He must've hurt himself on purpose, AND the doctors are lying, and/or he's sneaking food.

    A man who lost an eye in a construction accident (with doctor's examination), was prayed over by Padre Pio and was healed.

    The healed man was also examined by doctors, who said there was no explanation for the new eye.

      Athiest explanation:  Everyone's lying including data-driven scientific doctors, and weird things happen.

    He appeared to people in visions in the America's.

      Athiest explanation:  Everyone's lying.

     

    The convents and monestaries, filled with people of Faith, would produce broken-hearted whistle-blowers ratting out fakery (as Scientology has now).

     

    Two more modern examples:

     

    See "Proof of Heaven".  The most skeptical brain-surgeon, who was convinced it's all BS (even his own patients stories of visions in which there was no way for the patient to know what they're recounting), until he had his own near-certain death from spinal-meningitis (infection numbers off the charts, brain-activity flat-lined for 1-week), and he had a heavenly experience with his separated-at-birth natural sister that he never knew about.   His book is half medical-jargon of his case, and half "experience".

      Athiest Explanation:  Weird things happen when the brain goes kablooey (that's what the brain-surgeon used to think, but the "Science" said that any random dream-generation wasn't active since he was essentially brain-dead during that time, yet has clear memories of the experience).

     

    See "Heaven is Real" (4yr old Son of a Minister who, while lying in a hospital bed near-death, saw visions of his parents and what they were doing in the hospital, an older sister who died before he was born, that he'd never been told about, Heaven, Jesus, etc.).

      Athiest Explanation:  This man of Faith must be lying just to promote his Fake God and give his life meaning.  (See whistle-blower response).

     

    The easier path for me is to consider the absurdity of two ants debating the existence of 401(k) investment plans, tax-law, or other human-understood complexities.  They'd say it's all made up craziness and they won't take it on Faith since they can't observe it.  It must not exist.

     

    Mans ways, are not Ants ways.  Ants don't have the mind to understand our thoughts, visions, creations, and plans.  We operate outside the limits of Ant-consciousness.

     

    Gods ways, are not Man's ways, and we don't have the mind to comprehend what He does.  He operates outside the limits of human consciousness.

     

    Isn't it absurd to think human-observable "Science" is the be-all end-all of everything, in light of such outside-of-Science happenings? 

     

    Are we really going to find out the Science of knowing personal things you've never been told, experiences with no detectable brain-activity, and un-explained healings?

     

    What would Mr. Russell say to modern Miracles?  If it was all made-up, then 2000 years of conspirators could never keep the story straight, and there would be whistle-blowers.

     

    Respectfully -

  • Reply 200 of 207
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,817member

    I've not bailed on this topic (God etc).  Just have not had the time yet to prepare my responses.

     

     

    However, anti-God people take things on faith just as much as God-fearing people do.  If you dig down deep enough, or go back far enough, with Science, you have to rely on faith that there is an answer that we don't know, and the anti-God dogma will put in base beliefs that they have faith in, and which upon the rest is built.   No different than what the God-fearing people do.  

     

    And another thing.  Science is not fact.   Science is not true.   Science is our beliefs about what we believe to be fact, based upon our observations.  It is our best guess, more or less, about how things are, based on our own observations and related calculations / processing of those observations.   This is not an anti-Science screed.  It just is a factual statement about what science actually is (and not what some people like to believe it is).

     

    Remember, if God exists, it does not matter what we believe about Him at all.  There are lots of different beliefs about God from the God-fearing side as well as from the anti-God side.  If God exists, He exists independently of any given set of beliefs about Him.  So it is easy to set up straw men arguments against God, but those arguments don't disprove God at all, they only disprove the belief set that is being judged.

     

    Personally, I am a God-fearing science believing person, and have no problems with the two.

Sign In or Register to comment.