FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Charlie Austin
Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 5:28:18 am

Just read a good post at Daring Fireball about the Apple Watch. In the footnotes, he makes an interesting observation. Possibly explains the reasoning behind the new boilerplate.

Nor do I think Apple Watch in particular is what Apple thinks was “historic” about last week’s event. Rather, I think Apple Watch is the first product from an Apple that has outgrown the computer industry. Rather than settle for making computing devices, they are now using computing technology to make anything and everything where computing technology — particularly miniature technology — can revolutionize existing industries. ... Apple Watch isn’t merely Apple’s foray into the watch industry — it’s their foray outside the computer/consumer electronics industry. I think they’re just getting started. At the close of his Apple Watch unveiling video during the keynote, Jony Ive said, “We’re now at a compelling beginning actually designing technology to be worn, to be truly personal.” The watch just happens to be first.

Thoughts? FWIW, I don't think this portends the end of Pro Apps or OS X or computers at all. I'm sure someone here will disagree though. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 12:48:47 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Sep 17, 2014 at 12:49:10 pm

[Charlie Austin] [Quoting someone else] "Rather, I think Apple Watch is the first product from an Apple that has outgrown the computer industry. "

Wow, I think that's way off. Apple dropped "Computer" from its company name in January 2007. Was that guy not around for that? And by then, Apple had already long outgrown the computer industry.

Look back through the COW archives as people here noted the day that the shiny new iPod provided more revenue than computers. Was that 2003? 2004? In any case, a dog's age in tech years.

Dang, man. Add the iPhone and iPad to the list too for that matter.

I'm really stupefied by his statement. It makes no sense to me at all.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 2:55:44 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Wow, I think that's way off. Apple dropped "Computer" from its company name in January 2007. Was that guy not around for that? And by then, Apple had already long outgrown the computer industry. " ... "I'm really stupefied by his statement. It makes no sense to me at all."

I dunno.. First, to be fair, the quote does seem a little random taken out of context. He wasn't talking about the the corporate description at all, I made that connection. So I guess I should be the object of your stupefaction. :-) It's from a footnote to a larger opinion piece which is pretty interesting. As I said, in terms of Pro Apps, computers etc, I don't think it means anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 4:07:46 pm

[Charlie Austin] "As I said, in terms of Pro Apps, computers etc, I don't think it means anything."

I don't think so, either. We have talked about this elsewhere, but I'll rehash.

The Apple Watch is a new way to interact with Apple technology. It is an access point. For now, it happens to be in the form of a watch.

For a lot of people, a time piece is a fashion statement. An accessory, and sometimes, a mind bogglingly expensive accessory. I knew an avid watch collector. He had a real job, but sometimes I felt his job was to buy and sell watches. He seemed to live for it. Apple's gold foray is honoring that connection. I don't really like it, it's not my style, but it's not off the mark when it comes to people who really really like watches as a statement, not watches as a timekeeper (or sundial).

They are playing with not only haptic technology (a device that sends physical alerts) but they are also playing with a new screen that differentiates amount of pressure vs touch, and reverse haptcs where your physical state alerts the device *which then gets recorded*.

Apple, typically, moves very slowly. The watch in my mind, is a very slow beginning. "Wearables" aren't new, other companies are already in the market place, other companies will outsell Apple, the same as ever. Apple is rarely first. That is their M.O.

It is also a very expensive toy that requires an iPhone to work. I feel like it's a controlled experiment. It is certainly not going to be for everyone the way that the iPhone 5C is now 'free' and the 5S is 'cheap'.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:33:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The Apple Watch is a new way to interact with Apple technology. It is an access point. For now, it happens to be in the form of a watch."

I don't have a problem with the watch. You're right, Jeremy, Android folks will be on the fourth generation of theirs by the time Apple's ships theirs. No surprises, no panic, no pain.

But also no shift in Apple's place in the world relative to computers or technology in general. My issue is with somebody saying that NOW Apple is moving beyond computers. Now? Really? This is the first time?

The flipside of Kremlinology is that you're quite right, Jeremy, Apple doesn't always change as much as appears. It's crazy to say that Apple doesn't care about computers anymore. Of course they do. I doubt one bit less than when they still had "Computer" in the name. (Ironically, I've seen analysis that their market share on the desktop may well be higher than their market share for smartphones.)

I also think that Apple loves pro software users as much as they did two weeks ago. For whatever THAT's worth. LOL


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:44:15 pm

[Tim Wilson] "But also no shift in Apple's place in the world relative to computers or technology in general. My issue is with somebody saying that NOW Apple is moving beyond computers. Now? Really? This is the first time? "

Yeah, a bit of a stretch, but then he goes on to say that the Apple Watch is a computer and says it more than once.

Here's one:

"But Apple Watch is not just a piece of jewelry, and it’s not a mechanical device. It’s a computer. And all computers have lifespans measured in just a handful of years before obsolescence."

Also, the quote that Charlie points to is about hiring Marc Newson (http://www.marc-newson.com):

It’s no coincidence that Apple announced their hiring of Marc Newson on the Friday before last week’s event. But I don’t think his hiring is about the Apple Watch in particular. Nor do I think Apple Watch in particular is what Apple thinks was “historic” about last week’s event. Rather, I think Apple Watch is the first product from an Apple that has outgrown the computer industry. Rather than settle for making computing devices, they are now using computing technology to make anything and everything where computing technology — particularly miniature technology — can revolutionize existing industries. Newson isn’t a watch designer, or a fashion designer. He’s a designer of anything and everything. He’s designed everything from watches to cars to chairs. Apple Watch isn’t merely Apple’s foray into the watch industry — it’s their foray outside the computer/consumer electronics industry. I think they’re just getting started. At the close of his Apple Watch unveiling video during the keynote, Jony Ive said, “We’re now at a compelling beginning actually designing technology to be worn, to be truly personal.” The watch just happens to be first.

It does seem to mark (marc?) new territory in that it's not just about a decidedly Apple device, but this opens up a new interaction to put Apple technology in whatever they want. Looking even further, it opens up Apple licensing their tech to other companies, or partnering with other companies, something that Tim Cook doesn't seem to be too iSheepish about doing, but that may be going too far.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:49:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "but that may be going too far."

Meaning, I went too far, in that I am probably wrong about that.

But for now, the watch gives Apple a test ground.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 4:31:42 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 18, 2014 at 4:34:38 pm

I'll tell you what's weird jeremy - have you read gruber's thinking on the price tiers? the mid range watch with sapphire glass and stainless steel isn't going to be a hundred bucks more - he thinks it will come in around two to three times the price of the sport edition?

so that's 350 - 1000 - 5000 dollar watches in the applestore -

what's even crazier is the likely price of some of the straps - listen to this stuff off the site:

Crafted from the same 316L stainless steel alloy as the case, the Link Bracelet has more than 100 components. The machining process is so precise, it takes nearly nine hours to cut the links for a single band. In part that’s because they aren’t simply a uniform size, but subtly increase in width as they approach the case. Once assembled, the links are brushed by hand to ensure that the texture follows the contours of the design. The custom butterfly closure folds neatly within the bracelet. And several links feature a simple release button, so you can add and remove links without any special tools. Available in stainless steel and space black stainless steel.

someone from the guardian said they've never seen this much verbiage on the apple site - they have a point. there's half a novella in the apple watch section.

but more crazy is what that strap is likely to cost - gruber reckons it'll be more than the sport watch itself. you don't tell someone you spent nine hours rubbing something unless you're going to charge them a ton for it.

Which gets to the basic problem here - apple stores are essentially egalitarian - the products aren't cheap, but they are broadly affordable - the macbook air is kind of an amazing computer for the price right?

But now when you walk in its going to be getting increasingly weird - there will be stands and presentation areas, in apple stores, specifically designed for and catering solely to very wealthy people who wish to flaunt that wealth. that just feels an incredibly odd thing for apple to be doing.

I don't like, at all, the feel of where this is going - I said before that its starting to feel like apple has decided to self-recognise its brand as an overtly luxury offering. Hence them hiring from luxury fashion, luxury marc newsom objects, luxury everything - I'm not even thinking about their position on pro apps anymore, the entire show is starting to feel off key at a basic level - to me at any rate. Five thousand dollar gold watches in an apple store is just wrong. there's no way around it.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 5:16:22 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'll tell you what's weird jeremy - have you read gruber's thinking on the price tiers? the mid range watch with sapphire glass and stainless steel isn't going to be a hundred bucks more - he thinks it will come in around two to three times the price of the sport edition?"

Yes! I enjoy the daring fireball.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "But now when you walk in now its going to be getting increasingly weird - there will be stands and presentation areas, in apple stores, specifically designed for and catering solely to very wealthy people who wish to flaunt that wealth. that just feels an incredibly odd thing for apple to be doing.

I don't like, at all, the feel of where this is going - I said before that its starting to feel like apple has decided to self-recognise its brand as an overtly luxury offering. Hence them hiring from luxury fashion, luxury marc newsom objects, luxury everything - I'm not even thinking about their position on pro apps anymore, the entire show is starting to feel off key at a basic level - to me at any rate. Five thousand dollar gold watches in an apple store is just wrong. there's no way around it."


You know, I agree with you. I do think, if this is true, this is an extremely weird move.

I know an avid watch collector. The amount of money, time, and effort that is spent on watch-ing, as well as the observation and curation of the history and craftsmanship that is put in to the time pieces, is a job unto itself.

I do think that Apple is, at some level, honoring these traditions. When you step outside of the practicality, watches can be a very big personality statement.

The Jobsian led G3 blueberry era was fun, but not overt. As you say, gold is overt. It does signify wealth, and it does have "f*ck-you-money" written all over it.

So, on the one wrist, I have to say that Apple is doing right by the extremely weird and specific watch crowd, on the other wrist, I am not sure where this is going either, and it does feel creepy. I'll be honest, and you call me any name you want, fanboy/whatever/etc, I do have a lot of respect for Apple products, and I do believe that the Apple leadership truly wants to create a better user experience. For the first time in a really long time, this product is nothing that interests me, and I am unsure what this experience will do for anyone. And then you add the "gold that is harder than gold" that you mentioned, it does feel off. It's not really about the price, a top spec MacPro is not cheap, it's more about what a $10,000 watch represents.

I hear you.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 7:15:46 pm

Love the daring fireball. top of my feedly rss list it is. he writes good stuff.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know an avid watch collector. The amount of money, time, and effort that is spent on watch-ing, as well as the observation and curation of the history and craftsmanship that is put in to the time pieces, is a job unto itself."

small confession - I went through a period of watch madness last year - ebay, seventies indian watches, eighties russian watches - there is some great stuff out there. I bought this eco drive - with a custom black leather white stitch strap (because the one it comes with is disgusting):

http://www.shadestation.co.uk/media/thumbs/800x800/media/product_images/BM6...

also if you go here (you may have already been) : http://forums.watchuseek.com/f71/

you can find some ahhhhmazing stuff for not too much cash.

your mate will know the acronym: WIS. watch idiot savant. I'm not one by any stretch of the imagination, but I did have a few months of madness getting odd watches in the post. Its mad to read those guys on the forum. Watches can be deeply satisfying in a nerd design blokey way.

gruber linked as well to a brilliant article where a guy who runs a blog on watches was basically blown away by the quality of apple's work - big surprise right?
basically they've made some of the best engineered straps he's ever seen in his life, link straps better than stuff on watches that cost stratospheric amounts of money.

So I buy all that as far as it goes - apple have decided to get into watches in a big way. but still but still but still. Five thousand dollar solid gold watches in an apple store. For what it will be seen to say about them - is it worth it? They'll end up making more on iphone cables annually you'd suspect. there are only so many gold watch buyers out there. why do it? why make that statement about themselves?


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'll be honest, and you call me any name you want, fanboy/whatever/etc, I do have a lot of respect for Apple products, and I do believe that the Apple leadership truly wants to create a better user experience."

I believe that in spades too. Sure I'm apple up to my neck. the chances of me buying an android phone or a windows laptop are nil at the point. I have a basic belief in what apple stands for - because they execute it - and its that that is making a lot of this stick in my craw. I just can't square what they're doing here.

Also - I don't get it either. Same as you I can't find any enthusiasm for this thing - i keep trying to picture it - I think about the phone in my pocket and this thing on my wrist and it feels like overkill - at least the way they've constructed it. The one thing I thought was fascinating is that gruber was convinced they weren't going to do a watch - that they would really just do a bracelet sensor with some visual display, a ring even, which I found kind of fascinating. A ring could say presumably do all the health skin contact reading and maybe the haptic, some interesting visual colour notification. Gruber was convinced they weren't just going to do a big LCD with faux timepiece and tons of notifications and well... look what they did.

And they made a five thousand dollar one in gold.

misgivings, super unavoidable misgivings.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 7:39:40 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And they made a five thousand dollar one in gold.

misgivings, super unavoidable misgivings."


Well, there's always this take:

You’ll be able to buy one at the Apple Store but I’ll tell you right now it will never be in stock and will have to be a special order. Gold Apple Watches will instead be sold in the same stores as those other fine watches. That’s why Apple hired Monsieur Pruniaux.

Apple gets a new, small (but highly lucrative) sales channel that is perfectly happy holding inventory. And if they sell Apple Watches the watch retailers will probably sell iPhones to go with them.


-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 8:06:41 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 18, 2014 at 8:20:33 pm

tell me some part of you doesn't think this is weird - never mind his central speculation that the decision to make a solid gold apple wrist accesory comes from the newly installed "insanely pricey luxury object" part of the leadership team. that's a pretty weird new wing of apple. that cook installed.

and surely the weirdest thing is that, inside that solid gold ingot is commodity electronics that will be unusable inside 48 months.

Ok they'll have some insane trade in system for the sheiks who bought one, (and as the verge pointed out in hysterics on the podcast, apple will need a smelting operation to recover the gold in the old iwatch) so they can run apple watch OS4 without the screen in the middle of the gold stuttering - but how mad is all that?

the point cringely makes on rolex is flat out wrong too, as has been pointed out: there is a central fallacy in the apple watch edition object. A rolex actually bloody is timeless - its hand machined innards are built to last a century - complications at the top end are fabergé like.

would you take an apple watch to the moon?

that thing has an lcd, a questionable battery life, and a soon to be commodity chinese circuit board that can just about stand a shower. It's not a timepiece, there is no surreal internal craftsmanship - there's just an lcd screen and that dodgy screen of overcrowded apps.

Apple are, in a sense, pandering to horology - edit - no point hammering them like mad. haven't actually even seen the thing.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 9:15:55 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but still but still but still. Five thousand dollar solid gold watches in an apple store. For what it will be seen to say about them - is it worth it? They'll end up making more on iphone cables annually you'd suspect. there are only so many gold watch buyers out there. why do it? why make that statement about themselves?"

I do think it has to do with the fanaticism of watches in general.

I still believe that the impetus for this is an Ive pet project. Cook believes in Ive's design (he gushes, really), ergo, make it so, Sir Ive. Gold. Gold everywhere. Then they hired the Burberry folks to make sure it wasn't going to completely fall apart from a marketing standpoint, and to give it a luxurious legitimacy. It's what huge companies do, hire more "experts".

I also think that despite the bling, the Watch is the test ground for a whole bunch of things new for Apple technology. And then there's the WISses (thanks for that) that Apple has to appease. Perhaps they chose a really expensive watch to test because, it's all consumers can handle at the moment in a familiar form factor, and it is what current technology can support. It's a first step.

I am conflicted. I get it, and then I really don't get it.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 10:20:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am conflicted. I get it, and then I really don't get it."

yep yep me too. part of me really does suspect that watch may represent the baroque apple period as after echo from the iphone cataclysm tho - it's too on the nose - that 2007 iphone is starting to look increasingly like a neutron bomb in historical tech terms.

bar the ipad - which they knew prior they would do - post that supernova, as the world's wealthiest company, you'd wonder if even apple know exactly where in the hell they are. as in they may be waiting for impressionism or something.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 11:09:40 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Sep 18, 2014 at 11:38:03 pm

The problem I see is that you guys are using one extreme to write off the absolute mainstream of the thing.

Apple isn't building a business on $5000 watches. They're building a business on extending the iOS experience for less than the cost of a pair of Beats headphones.

It's like computers. They're building the business on iMacs and MacBook Airs, which are still by far their most popular computers. The Mac Pros are a niche business, and taken opportunistically.

And I really do believe they'll take the same approach. In Times Square and Palm Desert, and dozens or hundreds of other locations, you'll be able to walk out with a gold watch. In the thousands of others, you can walk out with a $500 or $1000 watch...more than an iPad, less than a MacBook Air, and something that will get much more use than either of those.

It's a problem for people who still view Apple as innovators to think of products like this as having no precedent. Apple's not even fifth in line. These products absolutely do, and they're successful.

Apple will do what they did for music players and phones: show up late, grow the market for everyone, take only a small-ish share of that expanded market, and it will be vast piles of money.

You get that, right? Apple has around 20% of the smartphone business? And it's a freaking fortune.

iWatch isn't Apple TV, which really does have next to no use whatsoever (I say glaring at my own Apple TV: "DO something, damn you"). There was no real audience for something like that, and the goals still aren't all that clearly defined.

Wearables DO have a meaningful prior audience. People who have them like them. As I mentioned in my previous post, those drooling inbred Android slobs (like me) have wrapped their heads around it. I have no doubt that good lucking, intelligent Apple users with control over their salivary glands will figure it out too.

Apple has been able to take the last three years to watch -- WATCH!! GET IT??? -- the other guys, analyze what went right and wrong, and by Brendan Behan I swear that Apple will use their giant brains, giant resources, and giant retail footprint to make crazy money from this.

But NOT because they'll sell millions of $5000 watches. Because they'll sell TENS of millions of 'em at $300-500.

Look, all they have to do is be as good as Beats at selling $400 pieces of plastic, and they have a billion dollar business on their hands in a year, 18 months TOPS -- the big difference being that, unlike Beats, this thing has iOS in it: apps aplenty, massively customizable, and well within the financial reach of almost everyone buying an iPhone 6. A staggering number of people will buy both at once.

Fortunately, Apple has a great many trucks cleared and waiting to cart off the money.

You boys are thinking way, way too small. I assure you that Apple is not. Neither is Apple delusional that this market exists. It does, and Apple will grow it exponentially in a year, and with their small slice of it, they will make a fortune.


BTW, have not you Daring Fireballs been reading since 2012 about Apple working on this? I'm sure Apple and the stories about it started much earlier than that, but that's when I can definitely remember regular coverage of it. Timmy has been making public presentations about for a long, long time, including the All Things D conference in May 2013. People like the New York Times and the Wall St Journal covered it, along with every tech site I can think of (Mashable, engadget, Tech Crunch, etc etc etc.)

Did this really catch you by surprise? Did it seem precipitous to you? I'm amazed that the Apple watchers -- WATCHERS!!! GET IT??? -- haven't been all over this for AT LEAST 18 months, if not much more. Some have of course, but I'm amazed that people like DF are so widely missing the mark from a story they should have zeroed in on by 2012.

Not that I'll buy one before the sun goes nova, mind you. But this is slam dunk money that Apple has been leaving on the table. Not for long, my friends. Not for long.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 2:16:58 am

[Tim Wilson] "Look, all they have to do is be as good as Beats at selling $400 pieces of plastic, and they have a billion dollar business on their hands in a year, 18 months TOPS "

yes that's almost certainly bang on. the problem is that, circumstances aside (to a ludcicrous degree), those are the decisions of john scully.

apple just tried to cram an iphone, your caller list, your photo album, all your apps, your messages and your emails onto a watch on your wrist. they also tried to make it a heartbeat communicator, a sketchpad, a payment device, and a health and fitness tracker.

that is a samsung device.

with s-health, s-hearbeat, and s-sketch. Apple have no clue what they made - they just know they really want to charge insane margins on it.

apple didn't actually make anything here - they just made luxury coke - they made roughly the same market device and asked for a lot more money. and then they made a solid gold version.

on some level we can all feel the mirror cracked here.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 2:39:36 am

[Tim Wilson] "Apple isn't building a business on $5000 watches. They're building a business on extending the iOS experience for less than the cost of a pair of Beats headphones."

I get the Watch. I get what they may do with it, I get what it's supposed to be, and yes, it was obvious that "wearables" were imminent in the Apple Store.

What I don't get is the ostentatious veneer. A MacPro varies greatly in price, but it looks exactly the same on the outside. The lowest cost MacPro is $2999, the highest is $9600, roughly 3 times as much. It's a tool used for work, and some may use it for play.

At $349 and $4999 (or $9999 as the fireball dares) is ~14x (or ~29x) as much.

If this is about money, why not make gold iPhones? Not the gold aluminum ones, but the harder than gold, gold ones that are made of gold. I'm sorry, Tim, I'm having a hard time with it.

I don't mind the watch concept, I just find the luxury "edition" a weird choice.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 4:36:18 pm

ROFL Tim that post made my day. Just wondering if Neiman Marcus will start selling a gold plated Mac Pro cover in diamonds and other precious jewels with a complimentary $5,000 gold watch. :-)


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 5:10:51 pm

I hope you don't think I'm kidding. This will be the easiest money Apple ever made.

The reason I haven't replied to posts questioning this is that I am quite literally speechless. I can't come up with something to say that doesn't look condescending in print or isn't laden with profanity. I am stupefied that there would be the least doubt about this. This is the absolutely definitive Apple product.

For the third time in composing this post, I just wrote and deleted a massive block of text to follow that. For now, I'll leave it deleted. THAT's how strongly I feel about it. I'm afraid to let myself say much more about it, unsure how I'll be able to wipe my own exploded brains off the screen.

Carry on, lads. I'll try to keep myself together.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 6:56:45 pm

Have yet to see the Apple watch but very interested, not to mention, even a bit curious. This is big news and I sense big sales from this. Apple innovates and goes in a bold, new direction but in a very good way.

My comment about a gold plated Mac Pro was a tongue and cheek response, sprinkled with a bit of humor. :)

Now if I only had the champagne budget to buy that watch . . .


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 7:08:58 pm

That's it, Tim? I can handle profanity laden topics. :)

[Tim Wilson] "This is the absolutely definitive Apple product. "

Luxury jewelry? Are you saying that, in your self-professed "hatred" of Apple, that's how you've always viewed Apple products, and now they are finally showing us what they are really made of?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 19, 2014 at 2:47:55 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "as in they may be waiting for impressionism or something."

You're on fire, sir!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 20, 2014 at 12:23:24 am

Somehow after reading this thread, shooting that Bentley commercial with an iPhone make perfect sense!

;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 20, 2014 at 1:24:52 am

[Oliver Peters] "Somehow after reading this thread, shooting that Bentley commercial with an iPhone make perfect sense!

;-)"


Was thinking the same thing. Guess a screen door on a submarine will not be far behind. :-)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 20, 2014 at 1:44:58 am

[David Mathis] "Guess a screen door on a submarine will not be far behind. :-)"

As long as it's an 18k gold submarine.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 20, 2014 at 1:48:01 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "As long as it's an 18k gold submarine."

Cue Ringo!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:30:38 pm

I agree with Tim that the statement quoted from Daring Fireball are puzzling and don't reflect the years of only using technology as the means to an end and that end is related to use by a consumer for non-computing purposes such as the 2001 iPod and so on.

With Google wanting us to sit in a driverless car without even a steering wheel to occupy our attention, with Jeff Bozos' rocket engines (almost the only thing in the world not available for online shopping via Amazon) propelling Boeing's new space taxis, Apple appears to be sticking closer to their knitting than some other prominent tech giants. Of course the rocket engines and driverless cars use computing technology but there are so many other factors to consider, they can't be considered computing devices. Apple continues to expand their ecosystem which includes computing hardware and software whether it be a MacBook Pro or iPad or Apple Watch. They are all integrated into that Apple ecosystem of things consumers eventually find that they can't live without.

I feel that Apple won't abandon the professional users at all as they expand their consumer-driven ecosystem, but being a professional
is not about owning some $100,000 system that now costs so much less that it's accessible to everyone--it's always going to be about the skill, apptitude, creativity, imagination, insight, and élan that you bring to the task that guarantees your success. Apple's success with their pursuit of consumers can also benefit their professional products in many ways.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:10:36 pm

[Rick Lang] "Apple's success with their pursuit of consumers can also benefit their professional products in many ways."

Rick,

This is true.

The more difficult question arises when professional needs differ from consumer needs.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:37:14 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The more difficult question arises when professional needs differ from consumer needs.
"


Franz, absolutely correct. Lots of evidence in the past couple of years that Apple had lost sight of the professional needs, particularly in terms of workstations and collaborative networking and abandoning their server and shared storage. I think I heard that Steve Jobs had wanted to stop all hardware development in those areas and discontinue product or let it whither on the vine. That old operations guy (what’s his name? Tim Cook?), not the visionary, built the new Mac Pro which is the first sign of new life in terms of hardware but there’s more to be done, particularly in software, to keep competitive in the space. The new Mac Pro obviously had tons of precedence but the Apple Watch had zero to do with that visionary and begins a new era of product development under Tim’s watch (oops, pardon the pun).

Hopefully Tim will keep the momentum going for the tools you need to do your work. He may need some reminders of course. Aperture is a case in point. From what I’ve seen of Photos, it will disappoint pros and prosumers and enthusiasts so the immediate future isn’t looking too rosy. Of course in a couple of years, Photos may have trumped Aperture with capabilities that are hidden from consumers but open to those demanding more. I hope so as I’m not really eager to go to Lightroom and another ecosystem. That discussion is in another thread.

I just mention it to agree with you that there are bumps in the road but it is inconceivable to me that a company with enough cash to do whatever it wishes would abandon the arts. Sorry I’m not a U2 fan and paying them $100M to give me a free album is not my idea of how Apple should support the arts!

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 1:45:29 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The more difficult question arises when professional needs differ from consumer needs."

Professional needs always differ from consumer needs. I don't think that's the point that was being made. I think you'd be hard pressed to call FCP X a "consumer" application. But there are definite advances in interface that came from iMovie that have been incorporated into FCP X to the professionals benefit. Skimming, keywording, filmstrip browsing, etc. Financial stability is also a benefit. I think Avid is an obvious comparison here.

Professional needs are also not monolithic. Your needs are different from mine. So if a product does not meet your specific needs it doesn't mean they are prioritizing consumers over professionals. It just means they are targeting a different group of professionals.

Perhaps you're getting at the issue of whether Apple sacrifices work on the ProApps to focus more on the consumer side. I think there is potentially an issue there, but it's difficult to quantify that sentiment with anything other than pure speculation.

I will also say that I wish Apple was more aggressive in pursuing all video professionals. I think that market share in different professional camps helps the product develop. But at the moment, with some gripes, I'm quite happy with FCP X for my professional needs.



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 2:03:16 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Professional needs are also not monolithic."


Brett,

This might be the key difference between professional and consumer needs, and it bears repeating.

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 4:23:38 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Thoughts? FWIW, I don't think this portends the end of Pro Apps or OS X or computers at all. I'm sure someone here will disagree though. :-)"

I would be interesting if they have an iMovie for their new fancy watch and call it something like iWatchMovie. A bit corny I know.

Now with the watch no need to answer the shoe phone anymore.







It really is amazing how technology has progressed in the last 50 years.

camera operator | editor | production assistant

Remember kids, tracks are you friends when you charge by the hour. Track Tetris, game on!


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:22:42 pm

I would say the changes really started ~25 years ago when hard drives,albeit expensive started changing the way media was being manipulated from what was then all analog and the physical mediums that were part of their DNA. Since then, it has been smaller, capacity, and quality.

Michael


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 7:58:26 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Five thousand dollar gold watches in an apple store is just wrong. there's no way around it."

I disagree completely. Does this Apple store look a place to buy a $5000 watch? In fact, it looks like the best place to buy a $5000 watch in the history of the world. It's insanity NOT to sell $5000 watches there.




I don't live in Manhattan. I live in a small mountain community with maybe 200 hundred houses. Not luxurious. Mine's around 1500 square feet. Killer view looking into the valley mind you, but this is by no means a wealthy enclave. It's not even an actual town.

My nearest Apple store is 25 minutes or so downhil, in Palm Desert. Got this picture from the Apple site. I think a gold watch would look just fine in here, don't you?





What's next to it?



Yeah, Gucci and some Bentleys. And just outside the frame: Tiffany.

Hardly a representative sample, so just at random, I decided to look at the very next Apple store to be opening: inside the Lynnhaven Mall in Virginia Beach, VA. Opening next week in fact.

Completely mainstream. The anchor stores are JC Penney, Dillard's, Macy's, and then an anchor cluster of Dave & Buster's, Barnes & Noble, and Dick's Sporting Goods. Absolutely classic American mall.

Inside, you'll find even more classic American shopping: The Gap, Footlocker, an ear-piercing kiosk, GNC, Sunglass Hut, Cracker Barrel, Lens Crafters, Spencer Gifts (the 70s! Represent!), Limited, McDonalds in the food court, an AMC theater, etc. This is AMERICA.

And it includes FIVE stores that sell watches that cost more than $5000: again, absolutely mainstream companies like Zales and Kay Jeweler. MOST of what those stores sells costs less, but they carry plenty that costs a lot more, even if they might sell only a few a week.

And when I said 5 stores, I wasn't even counting Macy's, which DEFINITELY sells watches that go higher than $5000.

There are malls like this in every major city in America. Every one of them has stores that includes a few premium products among a mix that's otherwise geared much below that.

Here's my bottom line: It's insane for Apple NOT to sell lifestyle products that cost a f-load more than an iPad. And it's insane for Apple not sell them EXACTLY where most people are buying those products from other vendors: in malls, and in standalone stores areas that skew affluent.

Exactly the strategy that Apple has been pursuing from the beginning.

Apple knows that their audience skews affluent. Anybody remember the first carmaker that Apple worked with on direct support of iPods? Bueller? Bueller? Thaaat's right, BMW.

Having said this, it's conceivable that Apple won't be heavily stocked with every model at every store. Among the coupla hundred to maybe $1000 models, maybe a display model of the top of the line. Maybe not even that. You can't buy every Mac Pro at every mall, either. Those stores will happily take your order, though.

But a $5000 watch will look MUCH less out of place than a $2500 computer. People might go years without seeing a $2500 computer anywhere else, but they'll pass 30 $5000 watches between the Pretzel Factory and the Flip Flop Shop, both of which you'll find at the Lynnhaven Mall.

re: who this is for, what it's doing, etc. Well, how big a need did you feel for an iPad before they existed? I'll wager, none whatsoever.

The fact is that wearables have been around for years, and Android users have been merrily using them for a while now. Reviews are pretty typical for early generation products, running in the 4.4 star range at Best Buy, for example. If Android morons can figure it out, I'm sure that you smart, handsome Apple guys will figure it out, maybe just starting with a $300 model to take it for a spin or for a gift for a teenager or some such. And it'll work its way into your life by 2016.

Or it won't. Lifestyle wearables have little to do with the people who post here. They have a LOT to do with people who post in other forums in the COW, though, and elsewhere of course. Not just tech hoarders and early adopters, but also college kids and the subset of post-grad millenials with money to spend who are already plotting on pairing an iWatch with their iPhone 6.

The same people who spent MORE than the cost of an entry-model iWatch on their Beats headphones, even without an Apple logo on them. Abbbbbbsolutely mainstream.

This is going to be huge. You watch.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 9:21:24 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I disagree completely. Does this Apple store look a place to buy a $5000 watch? In fact, it looks like the best place to buy a $5000 watch in the history of the world. It's insanity NOT to sell $5000 watches there."

Until you get inside and are greeted by a scruffy 20-something in a blue t-shirt and jeans with a lanyard name tag that can't tell you anything about the product that isn't already printed on the box. ;)

I agree with point that for watch connoisseurs/collectors going to the Apple store is probably going to be off putting. Not just because there will be the all around chaos of tweens milling about and little kids playing in the kid's corner but the level of service will most likely be far below what they are used to. Maybe Apple will go to a store-within-a-store concept staffed with a specially trained watch expert. Or watch-geeks will just do all their discussing online w/other watch geeks and only go to the Apple store to get hands on with it before making a final purchasing decision.

I'm not a watch guy, but when I started building computers as a hobby I quickly realized that retail employees exist to answer only the most basic of questions, work the register, and up-sell you. Trying to talk shop w/them is pointless (unless you find a hole-in-the-wall shop that's run by computer geeks for computer geeks).

For rich people with f-you amounts of money it won't be a problem because they don't really care about what they are buying (it could be a gold Apple Watch, it could be Ferrari) they just care about getting a status symbol. I'm sure LA will be flooded with gold Apple Watches in short order. haha


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 18, 2014 at 9:28:06 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Sep 19, 2014 at 3:41:39 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I disagree completely. Does this Apple store look a place to buy a $5000 watch? In fact, it looks like the best place to buy a $5000 watch in the history of the world. It's insanity NOT to sell $5000 watches there."

I feel like really expensive watches require to walk up to a door, get buzzed in, met with dim lighting, and aaddressed by an employee who's outfit appears more expensive than everything in my entire closet.

Even in stores like Macy's, you ask for the gold watch, they bring out microfiber cloths to hold and rub down the watch, before placing it on a pad on top of the glass so as not to scar any surfaces.

This isn't the extremely utilitarian, touchy/feely Apple store model where you can try anything and most assuredly don't have to be buzzed in, or wait for a set of keys to unlock the glass cabinets, and the super friendly staff is in a casual uniform.

There's no one question that Apple is a retail company. I am not doubting that. I am also not doubting that this device will be pretty popular, and it will lead to other technologies for Apple. I'm just not understanding the high-end luxury part of it. Apple was seen as "premium brand" for quite some time, and then they worked hard to put as many devices in to as many hands as possible, and now, it's also a luxury brand because they wrap the exact same technology in stronger than gold, gold? It just seems a little weird.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple's Corporate Definition Part Deux
on Sep 20, 2014 at 8:23:23 pm

insanely cogent post - also hey! I've google mapped your area sir. my rejoinder is: a solid gold apple watch.

from a garage in the valley, to an object best sold by gucci. no one makes a dent in the universe with solid gold watches, and people with predilections for solid gold watches are less likely to consider the issue.
Andy inhakto pointed out the input is fundamentally skewed as well. Even watching apple personnel he said - they were twisting the digital crown, tapping on the screen, scrolling with their finger - and thats on a thing on your wrist.

not alone did apple not arrive at a clean decision, because they utterly failed to - instead they threw spaghetti at the wearables wall, but they also decided to turn it into wealth flaunting.

you're right the apple stores look kind of amazing, for my money they look better than most ostensibly high end stores - but surely the point is that is born out of their credo. it's not meant to signal the presence of overt wealth goods, it's meant to signal the presence of apple design ethos, which is intended to religiously disseminate excellent design for broad social usage as transformative technology.

the apple watch is kind of depressing in multiple directions - its fundamentally intellectually miscued, it represents nothing like the sets of stunning execution and insight the iphone did, and it is patently an attempt to reposition apple to luxury as directed towards a bifurcated society where there are obscene economic distortions.

Apple have actually created an object, in the gold watch, that formally tells broad society that there are parts of apple that are not intended for them. not because it is a macpro stacked, but because they specifically designed it for obscene wealth. It goes to Warhol's quote on coca cola.
it's like apple acknowledging they are arrived in venice:

http://kottke.org/12/10/is-the-us-becoming-an-extractive-state

Extractive states are controlled by ruling elites whose objective is to extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society. Inclusive states give everyone access to economic opportunity; often, greater inclusiveness creates more prosperity, which creates an incentive for ever greater inclusiveness.

apple as a US company seem to be internalising and signalling the presence of near feudal social economic distortions. that board increasingly amounts to courtiers for the elite and the wealthy: they have an ever growing number of board level executives trained and groomed in catering to obscene wealth.

and your new apple board everyone.

It's also noticeable that the apple watch section dwarfs the other primary categories in verbiage, photography and sub-sections.

also as a last point - there was an insight on a podcast lately that cook, so desperate to mould apple in this direction, has created multiple chiefs - multiple parachuted in CEOs and near CEOs as little chiefs in effect - the resulting apple watch smacks of indecision more than anything. It might as well be a microsoft product. I have absolutely no clear idea what the apple watch wants to be, or what its reason for being is.

cook hasn't got the clarity of thought - or the sociopathic tendencies of Jobs - required to pull that together.

if, as your photos illustrate, apple becomes a half century transient mall outlet on the highend in the fashion of gucci or the others, then you might suspect jobs will rise out of his grave and actually throttle cook for his hubris.
Because jobs put pianos and bmw bikes on the foyer to remind his people what technology could and should be, not that they were intended as staff to cater to fatcats with stupid gold baubles.

Jobs determined to alter the world on his terms - as any good genius level near sociopathic maniac would.
Cook now seems crazy to stuff his board with burberry / yves saint laurent people who want to make gold watches and fashion accessories.

that is quite some come down.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]