Apple Watch Featured on Cover of Canadian Fashion Magazine 'Flare'

[rowspaxe]

Anyone else starting to feel like these stories are nothing more than advertising?

I wonder what the cover goes for and how explicit the buy is. I am guessing its not much, and apple's new retail execs know the dance.

----------

These watches are a classy as google Glass. I will buy it for the functionality, but this is hardly a nice-looking watch

The casio vibe in this shot is inescapable

----------

I don't think it's ugly at all. The physical design is simple so what's on the face can shine. Some people just can't appreciate understated and go for gaudy instead. Different strokes.

i also personally like smudged black reflective glass. its stylish and flattering

 

[\-V-/]

A picture of a brainless model staring at the camera makes me want to go out and get an Apple watch.

She's actually an amazing actress, but ok.

 

[5105973]

Good grief it could have been Meryl Streep on the cover and she would have looked vacant posed like that. That facial expression with the mouth hanging open a bit is undignified and would make any talented lady (or man)look a bit vacuous at that moment. And how often do we see men posed with their mouths hanging open? I can't really think of the last time I saw a photo of a man with his mouth hanging open but I know it's a popular look in print ads for women. I guess it is supposed to be an alluring look for women but I find it cringeworthy and reinforces stereotypes. I can't fault anyone for posting an off the cuff remark about it. And no, I don't see very many movies anymore so I had no idea who this lady was, either. I just see a pretty girl breathing through her mouth and wearing a weird looking watch.

My goodness it does look awkwardly oversized. But I still want one anyway. It's a horrible look and will take some getting used to, but I want the functionality. I'm glad for these ads because it will help us all get used to seeing these watches so it won't be so jarring when they start turning up on the wrists of regular folks.

 

[laurim]

Good grief it could have been Meryl Streep on the cover and she would have looked vacant posed like that. That facial expression with the mouth hanging open a bit is undignified and would make any talented lady (or man)look a bit vacuous at that moment. And how often do we see men posed with their mouths hanging open? I can't really think of the last time I saw a photo of a man with his mouth hanging open but I know it's a popular look in print ads for women. I guess it is supposed to be an alluring look for women but I find it cringeworthy and reinforces stereotypes. I can't fault anyone for posting an off the cuff remark about it. And no, I don't see very many movies anymore so I had no idea who this lady was, either. I just see a pretty girl breathing through her mouth and wearing a weird looking watch.

My goodness it does look awkwardly oversized. But I still want one anyway. It's a horrible look and will take some getting used to, but I want the functionality. I'm glad for these ads because it will help us all get used to seeing these watches so it won't be so jarring when they start turning up on the wrists of regular folks.

Actually, the 38mm AppleWatch is only a few mm larger than the regular ladies watch I wear now. And since it's not round, it's actually a little smaller-looking.

They probably make female models pose with their mouths relaxed like that so they don't have the dreaded "resting bitch face". Men don't have to do it because it's ok for men to look a little mad when they pose.

 

[3N16MA]

A picture of a brainless model staring at the camera makes me want to go out and get an Apple watch.

Brainless model? No, she is an actress who was nominated for an Academy Award at age 14.

I wonder who is looking brainless now?

 

[5105973]

I love large watches! I have a lot of 38 mm and even a couple of 40mm watches. Plus a few that may be even larger. But they are true jewelry pieces integrated with stylized bands so they don't necessarily look out of proportion on me. It's hard to explain but even though they are oversized, they're pretty and fashionable jewelry pieces.

It's not so much the size of the Apple Watch but the overall look that is awkward. There's just no getting around the fact you're wearing a wee version of an Ipad. Even if Apple is going to great pains to say that's NOT the effect they're going for. Functionslly it's not a miniaturized IPad, but aesthetically, it is uncomfortably close. As someone said, it's got that old Casio look. I do also have an old 1980's men's calculator watch I used to wear for a job I had in college so I'm definitely well acquainted with that vibe.

I'd be interested in seeing what third party bands can do to give the watch more visual interest and soften that shrunken IPad look it's going to have on my wrist and my petite frame. It currently looks a bit too starkly functional with the Apple bands. I know they are trying to go for a classy or sporty look woth their band selection. And someone, male or female, with larger wrists and the right wardrobe, can pull that off. On a petite female like me, I don't see that easily happening. That watch is going to look especially odd with one of my summer sundresses, as it does on the actress shown wearing such a dress similar to one of mine.

I'll have to aim for artsy or funky as I do on my other oversized watches. It's simply not going to look classy or elegant on me the way my other watches do.

This actress looks a bit petite like me. The watch does look a bit better on tall athletic looking Christy Turlington and it helps that Christy models it while actually doing something and not just standing there trying not to look bitchy.

You're probably right about the photographer wanting to avoid the resting bitch face. It's just that this alternative isn't much more flattering. I prefer the look on the face of the lovely black woman on the other post someone provided. She's apparently engaged in conversation or lost in thought. The watch still looks large and stark on her, but overall the look isn't as jarring as it is on the photos of the actress.

This is not your ordinary watch so the ordinary strut and pout fashion photo shoot poses may not be the best way to show the watch off. I'm still glad they tried. At the risk of sounding like a sheep or lemming, I'm glad to see them getting celebs on board to model this watch in as many settings as possible. Get people used to seeing something like this.

 

[MarkusL]

In addition to the fashion shoot, the magazine outlines more than a dozen ways the Apple Watch can be used beyond timekeeping...

This "timekeeping" sounds like a killer app. But I'll tell you what, hearing that the Apple Watch can be used beyond fashion shoots is enough to amaze me!

----------

As someone said, it's got that old Casio look. I do also have an old 1980's men's calculator watch I used to wear for a job I had in college so I'm definitely well acquainted with that vibe.

HP even made one in gold, so we have come full circle with the Apple Watch.

 

[5105973]

Brainless model? No, she is an actress who was nominated for an Academy Award at age 14.

I wonder who is looking brainless now?

She could be Grace Hopper or Marie Curie but there just no getting around the fact that photo shoot reduced the celebrated actress to looking vacuous and the watch looks a bit goofy. It's just a very cliched photo shoot and if you're not up to speed on current celebrities you can't blame someone for not knowing this is a brilliant actress. Looking just at the photos it does look like a standard photo shoot and we all know those don't aim to showcase the wit and wisdom of the models involved.

Yikes, MarkusL, you're giving me flashbacks to my youth! Those red digital displays didn't seem to last that long. They were quickly replaced by the less battery hogging LCD displays.

 

[sickducker]

She could be Grace Hopper or Marie Curie but there just no getting around the fact that photo shoot reduced the celebrated actress to looking vacuous and the watch looks a bit goofy. It's just a very cliched photo shoot and if you're not up to speed on current celebrities you can't blame someone for not knowing this is a brilliant actress. Looking just at the photos it does look like a standard photo shoot and we all know those don't aim to showcase the wit and wisdom of the models involved.

Yikes, MarkusL, you're giving me flashbacks to my youth! Those red digital displays didn't seem to last that long. They were quickly replaced by the less battery hogging LCD displays.

If you don't know, you should stay quiet.

 

[5105973]

If you don't know, you should stay quiet.

Fair enough. And just for clarification I wasn't the one to say anything insulting about this actress, just discussing the way she was posed wasn't best suited to flattering her or the watch. But page after page of dog piling on the original post isn't getting us anywhere either. It's starting to sound like she's got a lot of Stans.

 

[flat five]

Fair enough. And just for clarification I wasn't the one to say anything insulting about this actress, just discussing the way she was posed wasn't best suited to flattering her or the watch. But page after page of dog piling on the original post isn't getting us anywhere either. It's starting to sound like she's got a lot of Stans.

pretty sure she would of been posed a whole bunch of different ways with different facial expressions etc.. hundreds if not thousands of pictures.

idk, your beef isn't so much with the photographer or the model.. more like the magazine editor.. probably better if you complain to that person about not liking the picture on the cover.

 

[DeeEss]

apple pays a magazine to feature it's product on a magazine cover and it's news?

 

[5105973]

Actually I didn't really have that much of a beef with the article or photos myself. It is what it is, I've seen worse. I was just stunned at post after post listing this actress's credentials over and over again to dogpile on that one post. She's a lovely young woman and her acting credentials are impressive but really, a couple of posts defending her honor would have sufficed.

It would be ludicrous of me to bother the editor of a magazine over my opinions. Especially when I'm in favor of the coverage for the watch. As I already said, it is not my favorite set of photos ever, but I appreciate that the effort was made to make the look of the watch more mainstream by presenting on the wrist of a popular celebrity.

Anyway I'm failing to see why we can't discuss or criticize the photo shoot and article without folks taking it so personally as if any of the people involved in its production were friends or relatives. I don't imagine any of them care if I liked or disliked any of it and that young actress could laugh all the way to the bank or cry on her resume at anyone who saw those photos and mistook her as brainless.

Speaking of the article, was I missing something or was that short listing of the watch's potential uses all there was? It seemed a bit brief to merit a cover, but then I am not familiar with that magazine.

 

[flat five]

I was just stunned at post after post listing this actress's credentials over and over again to dogpile on that one post.

it's the second post in the thread.. people see it and reply to it.

i suppose you could be stunned that people don't always read an entire thread prior to responding but such is the internet.. it will continue to happen unless the forum software is somehow designed to make a person read everything prior to replying.. that would suck though

Speaking of the article, was I missing something or was that short listing of the watch's potential uses all there was?

dunno.. i didn't read it : )

 

[laurim]

Actually I didn't really have that much of a beef with the article or photos myself. It is what it is, I've seen worse. I was just stunned at post after post listing this actress's credentials over and over again to dogpile on that one post. She's a lovely young woman and her acting credentials are impressive but really, a couple of posts defending her honor would have sufficed.

It would be ludicrous of me to bother the editor of a magazine over my opinions. Especially when I'm in favor of the coverage for the watch. As I already said, it is not my favorite set of photos ever, but I appreciate that the effort was made to make the look of the watch more mainstream by presenting on the wrist of a popular celebrity.

Anyway I'm failing to see why we can't discuss or criticize the photo shoot and article without folks taking it so personally as if any of the people involved in its production were friends or relatives. I don't imagine any of them care if I liked or disliked any of it and that young actress could laugh all the way to the bank or cry on her resume at anyone who saw those photos and mistook her as brainless.

Speaking of the article, was I missing something or was that short listing of the watch's potential uses all there was? It seemed a bit brief to merit a cover, but then I am not familiar with that magazine.

I think it's sad that you, a woman I presume, have an issue with men speaking out against another man calling a woman a "brainless model". That guy wasn't making a cogent comment about the merits of the photoshoot or the article. He made a misogynist comment that needed rebuttal by more intelligent people. Granted, the first few were enough to get the message across but I, as a woman, am glad that so many people felt compelled to defend her. It speaks to an improvement in how men feel about women and their place in society. It boggles me that you would take issue with it. Maybe you are new here but it is regular business that most people don't read every single post before responding to an earlier one. For one, it's kind of a pain to have a reaction to a post, hold it to read through many more pages to see if anyone else said it before deciding to go all the way back to the original post you want to comment about and THEN make your comment. It just won't happen so you need to get over it.

How's that for commentary?

 

[5105973]

I thought I took great pains in an earlier post to point out that ANYbody, male or female would look a bit vacant if photographed slack jawed. I did note some irritation that it is most commonly female models and not males who are posed in this way.

I did not think the original post was attacking a woman per se but a cliche...that is to say a model posed in a very cliche manner to look vacant. Now I have seen plenty of male models posed to look vacuous in other ways. It's a hazard of the profession that the model is not necessarily there in all photo shoots to represent themselves as a human being but to be a living canvas against which a product is to be displayed.

It was my interpretation of the post, and you can certainly disagree with my take on it, that he or she was reacting to the cliche. Granted "brainless model" wasn't the kindest word choice. I would have worded it differently myself. I would not disparage an entire profession in that way.

And I am not and was not necessarily trying to defend that post anyway, but to discuss how the photo shoot did come up a bit short in representing the watch and the accomplished actress in the most flattering light.

I rather like your commentary. It was well written and to the point. I'm just sorry you mistake my intentions and are angry or disappointed in me. I'm not precisely new here but I'm not a regular frequent visitor either. I pop in when something exciting is going on in the world of Apple.

Oh sorry I failed to address the gist of your post. No I don't have an issue with men defending a woman against a sexist comment. I guess I'm just not used to the phenomena of what I've been referring to as dog-piling. I've seen it a few times now on this forum so I guess it's a regular occurrence here. I'm just not used to it. The few forums I've particpated in over the years are more heavily moderated against this. If it's not that way here, that's fine. I'll learn to adjust. No worries.

 

[newdeal]

I appreciate that Apple isn't taking the approach of saying "you need to spend $800 to be cool...all those fools who can't afford that are just posers."

I honestly am impressed that they're pushing the entry-level models as a real, fashionable choice. I wasn't actually expecting that.

OR maybe they are focusing on the sport bands because its one of the few choices available for edition buyers and they want to make the cheap rubber band seem cool so rich people don't question dropping 15k on a watch with a rubber band

 

[uid15]

A picture of a brainless model staring at the camera makes me want to go out and get an Apple watch.

"Brainless"? Wow, that's rather unkind. Who's getting paid multiples of tens of grands for looking beautiful? I bet it's not you

 

[Moopy Sac]

A picture of a brainless model staring at the camera makes me want to go out and get an Apple watch.

You mean the modern Mattie Ross, you misogynistic piece of shiat?

 

[uid15]

...

 

[HarryWarden]

She's actually an amazing actress, but ok.

Doesn't make her intelligent. As for her getting an Oscar nom, lots of young actors have gotten them only to see their career go in the crapper later on. An Oscar nom is all about politics anyway, not talent or else Clint Eastwood would have gotten one for American Sniper.

 

[laurim]

Doesn't make her intelligent. As for her getting an Oscar nom, lots of young actors have gotten them only to see their career go in the crapper later on. An Oscar nom is all about politics anyway, not talent or else Clint Eastwood would have gotten one for American Sniper.

Actually, being a good actor does require a certain amount of higher intelligence. Maybe not scientific-type intelligence but intelligence nonetheless. If you have ever seen a non-actor try to act, it's very obvious its a higher skill to be a believable actor.

Please, "American Sniper" for an Oscar? Let's hope "patriotic feel-goodiness" isn't the measure for winning an Oscar. The right wingers might think so but there's more to the Oscars than that. Or maybe Eastwood can win an Oscar for talking to an empty chair like a senile fool.

 

[KPOM]

Actually, being a good actor does require a certain amount of higher intelligence. Maybe not scientific-type intelligence but intelligence nonetheless. If you have ever seen a non-actor try to act, it's very obvious its a higher skill to be a believable actor.

Please, "American Sniper" for an Oscar? Let's hope "patriotic feel-goodiness" isn't the measure for winning an Oscar. The right wingers might think so but there's more to the Oscars than that. Or maybe Eastwood can win an Oscar for talking to an empty chair like a senile fool.

Lisa Kudrow, who played a "dumb blonde" in Friends has a 140 IQ. And Sammy Davis Jr was a "right winger" who JFK asked Frank Sinatra not to bring with him to the White House with him, but that's a different story.

 

[Keirasplace]

Lisa Kudrow, who played a "dumb blonde" in Friends has a 140 IQ. And Sammy Davis Jr was a "right winger" who JFK asked Frank Sinatra not to bring with him to the White House with him, but that's a different story.

"Right winger" in 1960 doesn't really mean the same thing then as now though. The center has been shifter way right in the last 50 years.

 

[HarryWarden]

Actually, being a good actor does require a certain amount of higher intelligence. Maybe not scientific-type intelligence but intelligence nonetheless. If you have ever seen a non-actor try to act, it's very obvious its a higher skill to be a believable actor.

Please, "American Sniper" for an Oscar? Let's hope "patriotic feel-goodiness" isn't the measure for winning an Oscar. The right wingers might think so but there's more to the Oscars than that. Or maybe Eastwood can win an Oscar for talking to an empty chair like a senile fool.

Spoken like a true, intolerant liberal. Because God forbid people enjoy a movie that isn't Anti-American like 99% of what comes out of Hollywood. People should either love the country they live in or go somewhere else. It only makes sense to leave somewhere you hate.

And Eastwood can take solace in the $346M Sniper made. Senile old fools could never direct a movie since that takes more intelligence than acting. And since he produced and starred in it, Bradley Cooper is a fool too according to you? Probably. Well, that fool is going to make upwards of $100M off the movie as he gets a percentage of the profits.