All I saw with the preview frame were future belts, handbags, shoes and watch straps...
-K
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.
Jony Ive Says Apple Watch Hermès Doesn't Make Apple 'Exclusive'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All I saw with the preview frame were future belts, handbags, shoes and watch straps...
-K
So the fact that almost half of all americans have an iPhone would maybe, just maybe suggest that a) they ain't exclusive and b) they are are common as cow sh#t On a farm...
Well I've says it happened a year ago before the Watch, so it likely didn't happen that way.
But here's the thing about that scenario ... Just like the nameless Swiss watchmakers who created the movements for Hermes designs in the past, Apple is relegated to second fiddle here, as the company that makes the movements for the Hermes smart watch. The only difference between this and the pre-2012 mechanical watches that were outsourced, is that Apple's trademarks actually appear somewhere on the watch, and packaging, albeit secondary to Hermes branding.
And I don't have a problem with any of that, necessarily. But it does reflect a major change in how Apple is both marketed and perceived. To the Hermes customer, they likely don't care what's on the inside of the watch, as long as it's branded Hermes. And that's a major compromise for a company who prided itself on creating the hardware and software as a unified solution, refusing to share the stage with anyone. In fact I predicted Apple was this committed to the fashion angle of the watch since the beginning, and even I'm surprised they went to this length to ingratiate themselves into that world. The closest example of this previously was the Power Computing Mac Clone years in the 90s -- and even then Apple was still the star of the show, wanting little to do with the inferior hardware being produced under that arrangement. In this case, Apple is actually putting a third party, who had nothing to do with the design of any aspect of the Watch, prominently on the product.
And there's likely one more compromise here -- I doubt Apple had any input into the band designs Hermes created for Apple's Watch. I say this because the Hermes cuff, while fashionable in some circles, is horribly out of place against the simple but elegant lines of the Watch. Just look at all of the bands Apple designed, each one beautiful, simple, elegant; even the casual Sports bands. But by co-branding, Apple has been co-opted as endorsing that design, whether it meets their often draconian, exacting standards, or not.
I see your have your priorities and goals straight in life.
Even so, I fail to see how a woman would ever get "excited" over an Apple Watch, regardless of the wrist band. Most women don't like techie toy stuff, particularly as jewelry substitutes and let's face it, a watch is ONLY meant to be jewelry. The fact it tells time is irrelevant to it's appeal to a woman. Rather if you want to attract a (let's face it shallow) woman by impressing her with "things", instead, put on an Armani suit, drive up in a Corvette or Porsche and come out with a Rolex on and the gold digger type, at least will be ALL OVER YOU.
Now maybe if you're a guy and you want to attract another guy, you could probably impress with an Apple Watch. For instance, Tim Cook can probably get away with wearing an Apple Watch for a couple of different reasons. First of all, he's not looking for a woman so he doesn't have to worry about the nerd factor. Guys are impressed by Apple Watches and so Tim's all set! Two is that he's already well known to be rich and owns a tech toy company so it's expected he support his product regardless of whether the product is classy or not.
I maintain you might as well get the base watch for $550 because the only girl you're going to impress with an Apple Watch on your wrist (save for the 0.01% of women that like tech stuff) is the inflatable type.
Of course, real women that aren't just impressed by money and "bling" really won't care that much what's on your wrist (but you better have other things going like charisma and/or intelligence), but I'm going by this idea that it's worth spending 250-750 extra for a high-end leather wrist band over the regular leather one (more compared to the base sport band). Longevity doesn't come into play because the Watch will be out of date in a year or less for as long as Apple sells this thing and that's because it's redeeming features aren't style, but FUNCTION and that function will change massively over time. Frankly, if you only want the watch to tell time and look good, a used Rolex is by FAR a better choice, particularly to impress the shallow women that are attracted to such things.
Yeah, but what kind of lifestyle? If you're going to Comicon, you're probably OK wearing an Apple Watch. If you're going to a 5 star restaurant, not as much....
Hey! Look at me! I'm Dick Tracy! Watch me talk into my watch! Whoa, check out my Pac-Man watch face. Now watch me play Angry Birds on it! Oh yeah, women DIG that stuff!
Apple, quite simply, is out of their league when it comes to this market.
I see your have your priorities and goals straight in life.
Even so, I fail to see how a woman would ever get "excited" over an Apple Watch, regardless of the wrist band. Most women don't like techie toy stuff, particularly as jewelry substitutes and let's face it, a watch is ONLY meant to be jewelry. The fact it tells time is irrelevant to it's appeal to a woman. Rather if you want to attract a (let's face it shallow) woman by impressing her with "things", instead, put on an Armani suit, drive up in a Corvette or Porsche and come out with a Rolex on and the gold digger type, at least will be ALL OVER YOU.
Now maybe if you're a guy and you want to attract another guy, you could probably impress with an Apple Watch. For instance, Tim Cook can probably get away with wearing an Apple Watch for a couple of different reasons. First of all, he's not looking for a woman so he doesn't have to worry about the nerd factor. Guys are impressed by Apple Watches and so Tim's all set! Two is that he's already well known to be rich and owns a tech toy company so it's expected he support his product regardless of whether the product is classy or not.
I maintain you might as well get the base watch for $550 because the only girl you're going to impress with an Apple Watch on your wrist (save for the 0.01% of women that like tech stuff) is the inflatable type.
Of course, real women that aren't just impressed by money and "bling" really won't care that much what's on your wrist (but you better have other things going like charisma and/or intelligence), but I'm going by this idea that it's worth spending 250-750 extra for a high-end leather wrist band over the regular leather one (more compared to the base sport band). Longevity doesn't come into play because the Watch will be out of date in a year or less for as long as Apple sells this thing and that's because it's redeeming features aren't style, but FUNCTION and that function will change massively over time. Frankly, if you only want the watch to tell time and look good, a used Rolex is by FAR a better choice, particularly to impress the shallow women that are attracted to such things.
Yeah, but what kind of lifestyle? If you're going to Comicon, you're probably OK wearing an Apple Watch. If you're going to a 5 star restaurant, not as much....
Hey! Look at me! I'm Dick Tracy! Watch me talk into my watch! Whoa, check out my Pac-Man watch face. Now watch me play Angry Birds on it! Oh yeah, women DIG that stuff!
Respectfully, I think you're wrong. I can't tell you how many women I've encountered that are raving about the Apple Watch Hermès. Now, they might be women you'd never associate with and dismiss offhand - and that's fair criticism. But I can simply report, anecdotaly, that this watch is hitting on all cylinders among young millennial women in areas like NYC or MIA where it will be sold.
And even though it's *only* $1100-$1500 depending on customization, there are young women who cannot afford it in those markets, who will desperately want them, that will be quite taken by a man wearing one.
I predict that this will primarily be given as a gift, rather than a direct purchase, and almost exclusively worn by women.
I came very close to ordering the Hermès because I liked the double buckle (flip open) wristband shown in this particular link http://www.apple.com/apple-watch-hermes/. In the end, I opted for the new ceramic version because it offers an advanced composition. Being four times harder than the stainless steel model and the color of white, micro abrasions that inevitably occur with both aluminum and stainless steel, the ceramic for the most part is impervious. Also, there's virtually no chance of corrosion caused by water which can occur with both aluminum and stainless. Unlike what Jony Ive said about the Hermès requiring the same amount of time to produce as a sports watch, this is not the case with the ceramic which requires considerably more time to manufacture.
Anyway, I thought for sure the ceramic would be markedly lighter, but it simply wasn't the case. I mean, I could tell a slight difference in weight, but it was negligible. The sales guy who helped me was wearing a brand-new stainless model with a brown Apple leather buckle band ($149.00), and it looked sharp! He removed his leather band and placed it on the white ceramic, so I could get a visual feel for how it looks. Despite the young sales guys’ opinion, I found the combination to be quite attractive. The Hermès offers a taupe/gray color version band that I think would look equally cool. To have the ceramic with a Hermès band, I would have to pay a minimum of $349 for the basic Hermès leather band as an accessory. The one with the integrated flip open ‘double buckle’ would cost considerably higher. That particular band isn't even listed as an option yet, but my guess is it will retail for more than $500 alone. I'm well aware that the sports version (42mm) would be as functional as the Hermès so it just a matter of personal preference, dress code, and your activity level.
Apple Products consumer since 1983
Anyway, I thought for sure the ceramic would be markedly lighter, but it simply wasn't the case. I mean, I could tell a slight difference in weight, but it was negligible. The sales guy who helped me was wearing a brand-new stainless model with a brown Apple leather buckle band ($149.00), and it looked sharp! He removed his leather band and placed it on the white ceramic, so I could get a visual feel for how it looks. Despite the young sales guys’ opinion, I found the combination to be quite attractive. The Hermès offers a taupe/gray color version band that I think would look equally cool. To have the ceramic with a Hermès band, I would have to pay a minimum of $349 for the basic Hermès leather band as an accessory. The one with the integrated flip open ‘double buckle’ would cost considerably higher. That particular band isn't even listed as an option yet, but my guess is it will retail for more than $500 alone. I'm well aware that the sports version (42mm) would be as functional as the Hermès so it just a matter of personal preference, dress code, and your activity level.
Apple Products consumer since 1983
Last edited:
Somebody's a little insecure...I see your have your priorities and goals straight in life.
Even so, I fail to see how a woman would ever get "excited" over an Apple Watch, regardless of the wrist band. Most women don't like techie toy stuff, particularly as jewelry substitutes and let's face it, a watch is ONLY meant to be jewelry. The fact it tells time is irrelevant to it's appeal to a woman. Rather if you want to attract a (let's face it shallow) woman by impressing her with "things", instead, put on an Armani suit, drive up in a Corvette or Porsche and come out with a Rolex on and the gold digger type, at least will be ALL OVER YOU.
Now maybe if you're a guy and you want to attract another guy, you could probably impress with an Apple Watch. For instance, Tim Cook can probably get away with wearing an Apple Watch for a couple of different reasons. First of all, he's not looking for a woman so he doesn't have to worry about the nerd factor. Guys are impressed by Apple Watches and so Tim's all set! Two is that he's already well known to be rich and owns a tech toy company so it's expected he support his product regardless of whether the product is classy or not.
I maintain you might as well get the base watch for $550 because the only girl you're going to impress with an Apple Watch on your wrist (save for the 0.01% of women that like tech stuff) is the inflatable type.
Of course, real women that aren't just impressed by money and "bling" really won't care that much what's on your wrist (but you better have other things going like charisma and/or intelligence), but I'm going by this idea that it's worth spending 250-750 extra for a high-end leather wrist band over the regular leather one (more compared to the base sport band). Longevity doesn't come into play because the Watch will be out of date in a year or less for as long as Apple sells this thing and that's because it's redeeming features aren't style, but FUNCTION and that function will change massively over time. Frankly, if you only want the watch to tell time and look good, a used Rolex is by FAR a better choice, particularly to impress the shallow women that are attracted to such things.
Yeah, but what kind of lifestyle? If you're going to Comicon, you're probably OK wearing an Apple Watch. If you're going to a 5 star restaurant, not as much....
Hey! Look at me! I'm Dick Tracy! Watch me talk into my watch! Whoa, check out my Pac-Man watch face. Now watch me play Angry Birds on it! Oh yeah, women DIG that stuff!
Lol, it's this attitude that gives Ifans a bad name.
How can 200 million devices sold to all and sundry be classed as exclusive. .