Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sponsoring 2016 'Fashion in an Age of Technology' Met Gala
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember the early iPod ads? Those were heavily fashion related with the dancing silhouettes. The theme was the iPod is hip and cool. That is what fashion is about. This isn't much different. It's how advertising is done 2015 social media style. "Design, Style, and Innovation," as you put it is fashion; that's what they are focusing on to expand growth into new channels.
Who would have thunk Apple is going Diva under Cook??
At least Taylor Swift will be there to protect the rights to strike the pose,
and Ives will be there to judge the models..*not thin enuf!*
(Guess Ives will speak at fashion events..but not keynotes..)
At least Taylor Swift will be there to protect the rights to strike the pose,
and Ives will be there to judge the models..*not thin enuf!*
(Guess Ives will speak at fashion events..but not keynotes..)
Last edited:
Haute couture is incredibly expensive. The apple watch edition is comparably priced, or if you're "Rhianna", an absolute bargain.
Haha, nice pic. But that's where we part ways my friend. Apple can pay to have their watch flaunted alongside the other incredibly expensive fashionista attire, but it's true home is Walmart, target, and Best Buy. Not that anything is wrong with that, but I find it silly they keep trying to push a gold version (with the same band as their sport model) has high end/ high fashion. Matter of taste though, I get it.
There is a big difference between "fashion" and "style". Style is the polar opposite to Fashion. Its about timeless design that will still look great in 20 years. Fashion is about the here and now, what looks great today and will be totally forgotten about tomorrow.
The iPod was hip and cool and now where is it? Almost dead and buried. The Blackberry was hip and cool once. Fashion is transient. It comes and goes. It doesn't last. Is that really what Apple wants?
I'm a fan of the Art Deco period. That is style and timeless design. Many of Jony Ive's designs still look as great today and they did way back when. I still think the original coloured iMac is the best looking computer Apple has ever produced. The current iMac is just bland and very dull by comparison.
Yes, it is a really dangerous trend. Chasing simply after the consumer dollar and fashion trends is going to lead to their destruction. Apple used to think different (and act different). I hope those days aren't gone... but I get the feeling ^THIS^ (see story photo) is now what Apple sees as thinking differently. It's not different, it's just cluelessly following (chasing after?) the stupid.
You think the candy colored plastic iMac is a timeless design? Please. The iPod's demise has nothing to do with fashion. It's because it was replaced by something better (iPhone). Fashion and technology are intersecting. Tech geeks can't stop it from happening. Heck last year Intel launched a wearables fashion bracelet that was sold at Barneys. The Met Gala is basically the Oscars of the fashion world. Celebrities, designers, models, entertainment execs all attend. Samsung wishes it had that much brand caché to ever be asked to sponsor an event like that.
There is a big difference between having an occasional clunker (anyone on the cutting edge, trying new innovations will have those), and changing your fundamental goals. It seems the 'new' Apple is doing the latter.
Some of it is maybe inevitable... going from a 'smaller' company to huge corporate culture, where big often turns into stupid. That's something every growing company has to actively fight against. I hope they are still trying on that front.
But, much of the problem seems to come from departments not talking to one another, and a huge shift from core technologies and products to whatever is 'winning' in terms of sales. For example, all the emphasis has shifted to the iPhone and OS X is largely languishing. (Or, to put that another way, a shift from supporting those who made Apple Apple to the consumer dollar.)
They've lost the Unix gurus who made OS X special (which impacts iOS as well) and have now been just plastering front-end and UI changes on the core OS and apps, just for the sake of change, while forgetting much of the UI innovation that made them special. They are breaking HUGE things without seemingly realizing the impact of them on their professional users.
And, maybe worst, they seem to have forgotten UX being job #1, and now spreadsheets rule the day.
That's not *just* Jobs vs Cook, but something Apple really needs to get a handle on or it's the beginning of a slow painful decline. What I'm not yet certain about... is if Cook realizes this and is trying... or if Apple is just headed down the new path, blissfully ignorant so long as profits are up.
Right because something fashionable can't also be timeless. Also, is Touch ID, Pay, Pencil, iPad Pro cluelessly chasing after the stupid? And when did Steve Jobs ever not chase after the consumer dollar or not care about fashion trends. Pretty much everything they did with iPod was around that and was hugely successful until Apple created something even better to overtake it.
Unfortunately, until the Apple Watch is a useful device to the average person, that's where they have to get it's success from (and, it is a piece of jewelry after all). And, in that way, it's a bit like the Tesla Model S. It isn't for the average person, but the goal is to have it driven by the who's who and be impressive to the sports-car crowd, etc. That's how it becomes known to the average person when they do release the model for the masses.
BUT, there is a big difference between high-end elegant fashion and this baloney... though probably a lot of cross-over in terms of the who's who.
Look at some of those runway pics again and then repeat what you've just said.
While I disagree with Shaun UK on the iPod and old iMac, the difference between fashion and style I think is solid (even if those aren't the right two terms... not sure on that). 'Fashion' (as in the runway above) is all about standing out, trying to set some 'trend', and being weird. 'Style' (if that's the term for it... maybe elegance?) is more about taste combined with good design principals. The latter, is by nature, timeless (even if that isn't recognized at points in time when the culture goes chasing after some 'fashion.')
So, yes, something fashionable can be timeless, when the two happen to intersect... but their goals just aren't the same.
And, as I think I said, it isn't 100% Jobs vs Cook. Certainly, the iPhone started under Jobs (and was aimed at the consumer)... but I think Steve's driving force was to make a better (or ultimate) smart-phone, not chase after the maximum consumer dollar. I'm not sure sure what Cook's goal is.
And, Jobs seemed able to control the investors expectations and support to put off short-term gain for long-term success. I don't get that impression so much anymore. Apple seems to be making more and more 'popular tech industry' decisions (like they were back in the 90s) than the kind of decisions they were under Jobs.
And, again, the iPod. Job's goal was to revolutionize how music was consumed (which happened), and ALONG WITH THAT came financial success.... not the other way around!
That is silly. That would mean that fashion could never have style and style could never be in fashion.
As I mentioned above, I think those terms are wrong, but the concept is good. Maybe 'fashion' and 'good-design' might be better ways of looking at it.
Fashion follows fancy (i.e.: what the 'trend setters' fancy at the moment). It might involve good design (in those moments when the 'trend setters' recognize and value good design), but often doesn't. In fact, often, it embodies the anthesis of good design in an act of rebellion from the 'norm' (when the 'norm' is based on, or involves good design).
Good design, on the other hand, is by nature timeless (within limitations)... because it's good design. It might look a bit different over time, but has certain fundamentals to it. The change in look or function often fall within real-world limitations and are driven by need to solve some problem... thus it will ultimately change over time (as needs drop away, or limitations change).
In that regard, I suppose the candy iMac was at least in part, good design, as it was the 'all-in-one' computer of that time, within certain bounds of that time (yes, the candy colors, were more fashion). Today's iMac follows that lineage, but looks quite different because of technology and materials advances. But, it's similar at the core, and is different from many other all-in-one computer designs that aren't nearly as elegant.
Or, say a car... the basic or core 'look' and 'feel' haven't really changed for quite a long time, while the 'fashion' of cars has changed considerably. And, if you diverge too far, you end up in bad design land quite quickly.
Or, since the fashion runway is the topic at hand.... a 'suit' or 'dress' are fairly timeless designs, while 'fashion' come and go as quickly as these runway events.
As the photo in this article demonstrates, fashion is dead. In fact, it died a long time ago.
Art is dead. Music is dead. Architecture is dead. We can only look to the past.
Art is dead. Music is dead. Architecture is dead. We can only look to the past.
No. That doesn't make any sense either. You can't have a concept without terms to describe it. You don't seem to have really thought it out... or maybe are thinking about it too hard.
It's often the case that what is fashionable becomes tired and people want something new so that particular fashion fades away, replaced by something new. But that doesn't mean it's not "good design." If t's good design that tired fashion after a long rest in the closet is likely to come back in a modern form years later.
Even "good design" can be locked in a time and require updating. Take the early 911's or Jaguar Mark X. Both classic "good design" cars. But in there original design would not sell in 2015. They needed modern tweaks along the way to remain relevant and not resemle museum pieces on a new car lot.
Also your use of "fashion" is too narrow. Fashion is not by sole definition "fanciful." Often high fashion is, but, for example, business fashion is typically conservative. Tech fashion is casual, even sloppy at times. Fashion can be as practical as "good design" can be thought provoking and controversial.
The steering wheel and pedals are still in roughly the same places, and haven't been replaced by a joystick. And, they still have 4 wheels and roughly, a 'car-like' shape.
And, sure, 'good design' can be controversial, but unless you're going all post-modern on me here, there are still good designs (in opposition to bad ones). It isn't solely up to taste, as is often the case with fashion. Sure, even fashion runs into reality eventually... that's why we don't see much of the runway stuff on the average person.
And, I never said that something that's fashionable can't be good design... I'm not sure where you got that from.
Look at some of those runway pics again and then repeat what you've just said.
While I disagree with Shaun UK on the iPod and old iMac, the difference between fashion and style I think is solid (even if those aren't the right two terms... not sure on that). 'Fashion' (as in the runway above) is all about standing out, trying to set some 'trend', and being weird. 'Style' (if that's the term for it... maybe elegance?) is more about taste combined with good design principals. The latter, is by nature, timeless (even if that isn't recognized at points in time when the culture goes chasing after some 'fashion.')
So, yes, something fashionable can be timeless, when the two happen to intersect... but their goals just aren't the same.
And, as I think I said, it isn't 100% Jobs vs Cook. Certainly, the iPhone started under Jobs (and was aimed at the consumer)... but I think Steve's driving force was to make a better (or ultimate) smart-phone, not chase after the maximum consumer dollar. I'm not sure sure what Cook's goal is.
And, Jobs seemed able to control the investors expectations and support to put off short-term gain for long-term success. I don't get that impression so much anymore. Apple seems to be making more and more 'popular tech industry' decisions (like they were back in the 90s) than the kind of decisions they were under Jobs.
And, again, the iPod. Job's goal was to revolutionize how music was consumed (which happened), and ALONG WITH THAT came financial success.... not the other way around!
Thought this was a great post. Especially on the decision making at Apple. They had more of an identity with Jobs for sure, and under Cook seem to be finding their way. Maybe that's a reflection of the two men.
The original coloured iMac changed the face of PC design from boring beige to something more stylish. You can still see its influence today in current PC design. If that's not a timeless design then I don't know what is.
I'm really not interested in fashion but I am willing to pay for stylish design which is why I like Apple products. Howerer that wasn't my central point which is that chasing the fashion market is a risky and speculative move that is only likely to have short term success. Eventually the fashionistas will move on to something else.
Last edited:
Show me a current PC that is taking influence from the candy colored iMac. If anything most PCs especially laptops are taking cues from Apple's minimalist unibody design. The candy colored iMac is certainly iconic and I'm sure it's sitting in the museum somewhere. But there's plenty of fashion that is iconic too. I don't think Apple underwriting this event equates them to chasing after "fashionistas". I firmly believe Apple will be playing in the wearable space beyond the current Watch. Being tight with the movers and shakers in the fashion world is not a bad thing. I happen to think the Hermés bands for Watch are beautiful and timeless too.