One-of-a-Kind Products Designed by Jony Ive and Designer Marc Newson Sold Off at (RED) Auction

[captain cadet]

There's way too much self-congratulatory attention to Apple design the last couple years. I think Steve must have kept a lid on things and now that he is dead people have been taking a lot of liberties. Apple doesn't have the class that they once did. The design of their products has gone downhill a lot. iOS7 would have never been approved by Steve. None of the current iPods would have been approved by him. The quality of OSX has even gone downhill, as I have had far more issues with it on my Retina MBP in 1.5 years than I did in all the rest of my 8 years of using Macs put together.

It's all just very disappointing. Seeing a company lose what was great about it. All for ego. That's how things appear, at least. This "Designed by Apple" and all the talk about the individual people who work within the company. It's just low class. The products aren't as good as they used to be, yet instead of working on that, you've got all this other kind of famous celebrity brand name designer crap.

Apple, get your act together if it's at all possible. Maybe it isn't without Steve. Maybe you guys needed him to make the right decisions. But you gotta try, because things are coming apart.

I agree that apple has lost its edge. Look at iOS 7. Personally I love it but I do miss the gloss sometimes. It feels a little to different. The text can be hard to read (for example on a white background) but i still think apples leading,
Fine they might not be as good under Cook as Jobs but my iPad 3 is still kicking backside when it comes to other new android competors. The screen is good and iWork works just as well - for someone who uses there iPad more of a laptop I haven't smashed it, I have dented it and it still works.
A friend has a android tablet (Samsung) and it works ok but it been broken before and needed to be fixed.
The surface is good design wise but is rubbish when you turn it on thanks to windows rt. Try pressing the save button in word - I realy struggle thanks to big fingers. Also look at their App Store - empty and confusing to use!
Apple I find has sadly lost some of its touch but yet I feel the products are much better than their competitors both design wise and how you interact with it.

 

[Freida]

Oh, please. Ever since Hoop Dreams didn't even get an Academy Award nomination, it was clear that Hollywood's whole process is highly political and inherently corrupt. Just read about the brain-dead flashlight voting that the Academy used to use. If you want to read about a real inside job, look at the massive corruption around the whole AA process.

Argo was a cute film, but it never ever should have been nominated for an AA. The events of this drama fail a fact-check. No thinking committee-member should have ever considered this fictional nonsense.

Thank you for that movie, I will check it out. )

However, I have 2 friends who vote for those nominations as one of them was nominated 3 times and won 1 and as far as I know he watches movies he is interested in and he watches his whole category. It's impossible to see all the movies as trust me, you get posted so many movies that it takes a whole box and to watch them all would be a non stop job. I used to weekend marathons when I was at his house as you get the privilege to see those movies when some are not even in the cinema or they are just about to come out. You feel "important" for few mins, its fun.
Anyway, I do agree, AA is political. That is why all political movies come just before the nominations etc and usually around xmas you have totally different material then around July. And yes, these days all you need is : racial movie, gay movie, corruption movie etc. and you have nomination almost guaranteed. That is what i don't like about it.

Anyway, I think this year belongs to Gravity as that movie is spectacular in many ways. What the director achieved is incredible. )

 

[phpmaven]

That table is seriously cool. I would love to have it myself.

 

[Kissaragi]

This obsession over what was designed (however you define the word) is stupid. With the Moto X, Google has a whole campaign around the tag line "designed by you". But basically all people can "design" is the color of the case. According to some people's narrow definition of the word "design" this would be false advertising by Google then, right? It's just silly.

I know its silly, i was just calling their bluff for once.

 

[reden]

Really good cause! good on them for all participating and wow those really sold!
I wish I had some one of a kind headphones, but I wonder if after use the wires will get loose like my ones...

People who buy them most likely don't use them. They're bought as art.

 

[oopl]

Where is the unboxing video?

 

[Wiesenlooser]

Actually a good point. i wonder in what kind of package these come in. Would be a surprise if the package wasnt designed aswell

 

[Technarchy]

A lot of the poorer underclass detest the rich. But given the chance, would jump at it in a heart beat! And so it goes...

What you're reading, that is negative, is really ill informed proletariat gobbledygook which is really masked envy.

I doubt anyone deriding the rich would turn down a tax free billion dollar check from the Gates Foundation.

 

[FloatingBones]

Thank you for that movie, I will check it out. )

You're welcome.

However, I have 2 friends who vote for those nominations as one of them was nominated 3 times and won 1 and as far as I know he watches movies he is interested in and he watches his whole category.

My expectation would be that the nominators would be informed about movies that had gotten buzz through the reviewers. Siskel and Ebert (you know who they were, right?) gave the film two strong thumbs up. At the end of the year, they both awarded HD their #1 Film of 1994. Note: they were not talking about documentaries; they both called it the best film of the year. I would most fondly hope that would have given the nominators A Major Clue they should pay attention to this movie. It did not.

It's impossible to see all the movies

Of course. But that shouldn't apply to this film after the US's most popular reviewers had called it the best film of 1994. There was no excuse for the behavior of the 1994 AA documentary committee. For me, this was the point of time that I lost faith in the Academy Awards. Perhaps they could have restored it by apologizing for this oversight, but the Academy did nothing.

Anyway, I do agree, AA is political.

It's far worse than that -- it is corrupt. Nikki Finke has been quite explicit:

I can’t even blame Harvey’s usual Oscar tactics (paying Academy members to fill out their ballots, redoing voters’ kitchens and bathrooms…). Hollywood only has itself to blame for Harveywood and bringing Harv back from the brink of extinction. So when he turns into a monster again, just remember that I said, “TOLDJA!”

Anyway, I think this year belongs to Gravity as that movie is spectacular in many ways. What the director achieved is incredible. )

Agreed. We shall see. Some people were quite confident in 1998 that Saving Private Ryan would win it all. They failed to take into account the guy who did kitchens and bathrooms. Shakespeare in Love was a cute flick, but it never ever should have won.

I wonder if those Academy voters are reporting those kitchen/bathroom renovations on their tax returns. I also find it interesting that nobody seems to complain about the massive tax breaks that Big Film gets in the US. Irrationality seems to be a consistent part of this kind of conversation.

 

[PaulChowHK]

Yes, because their avarice and gluttony has damned them, regardless. Giving a bit of the excess they've accumulated (in exchange for gaudy trinkets) doesn't absolve them of that sin.

If they making their wealth without taking away the rights from other peoples then they will be blessed. If they getting wealthy by taking jobs, air, water, freedom from others they will paying for their sins.

 

[mpantone]

Are they tax deductible? They are buying items - regardless of where the profit goes - not donating directly.

Yeah, they're tax deductible. The beneficiary is a charity.

That's why they have charity auctions, dinners, events, etc.

A more effective way to donate to a charity is to transfer fully appreciated equities, but the people who get involved in auctions probably like the excitement/publicity of auctions.

If you want to donate discreetly, you'd opt for an equity donation.

 

[sheareb]

I reckon Gatesey bought the mac pro lol

 

[HardRain]

This is a disgusting generalisation.

Pretty accurate really.

 

[Muscle Master]

lol... I aint living right

 

[Swift]

This was not an auction

This was a charity auction, and it was very successful. Even such beautiful and unique objects wouldn't go for prices like this for people who aren't motivated by charity. It could motivate me to buy a many-thousands Mac Pro, but not a million. For the typical computer tower, even high-end, less.

 

[iPad Air]

Only the stupendously wealthy can afford to spend cash like this to buy one-off trinkets to impress their friends.
Good cause? Call me cynical, but isn't it the greed of the stupendously wealthy that causes the uneven distribution of wealth that leads to poverty and hardship in poorer parts of the world (devastation of rain forests for cattle raising, abuse of workers for cheap electronic manufacturing, private ownership of freshwater supplies etc).
The 'saintly' folk who bought these goods will no doubt get a massive tax break on these charitable purchases, and alleviate any guilty feelings (if they are indeed capable of such an emotion) connected with the origins of their income.

THE WEALHY ARE THE ONES WHO BIULD BUSINESS'S THAT PROVIDE US JOBS!! I guarantee that if YOU were as wealthy as some of these people, YOU would NOT be talking badly of wealthy people...tell me if I'm wrong. These guys work for this money...look at what Steve Jobs did. I AM NOT saying that all wealthy people are good people, riches tend to have a corruptible effect on people, but please consider the fact that the wealthy are not causing all the trouble in this world. The trouble in this world stems from morality issues.

 

[gnasher729]

Are they tax deductible? They are buying items - regardless of where the profit goes - not donating directly.

Think a little bit harder.

Apple donated for example a red Mac Pro. Apple puts a value of X dollars on this. Apple can then deduct X dollars from tax because they donate the computer to the auction. Someone bought it for a million dollars. That person paid X dollars for the red Mac Pro, and one million minus X dollars goes to charity. The total going to charity is one million. Apple can argue with the buyer what the amount X is, but I'd assume that they don't value it very high.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, before the auction, Apple owned a computer of unknown value. After the auction, the computer has gone to a new owner, and a million dollar has gone to charity. So _someone_, either Apple or the buyer, can deduct a million dollars.

 

[iPad Air]

Not at all. It's absolutely true. Enslaving the working class and looting the world's natural resources to become obscenely wealthy is disgusting. Tossing a few coins back at charity auctions does not absolve the injustice.

ENSLAVING THE WORKING CLASS!! You have got to be kidding me. Tell me where/if you work? Ok now...are you free to quit and go somewhere else? Yes. Now then...are you enslaved?

"Looting the worlds natural resources".....Ahem, they are there for our benefit. TO USE THEM.

Pretend right now that you are wealthy....Man, you are disgusting. You have done a really disgusting thing becoming wealthy. You provided me a job in your company so that I can provide for my family, but you are really disgusting.

 

[nostresshere]

I recently cleaned up a bit and donated a bunch of stuff to Goodwill. In exchange, I got a tax receipt. What most of you are saying here is I could actually go out and buy stuff, and so long as the money supports a charity I can get a receipt for that too? Even if I'm getting something in exchange for my money already?

If you buy something from a charity, a chair for example, or a ticket to an event, here is how the tax side works.

You can write a check for a $1,000 if you want. But, you have to deduct the VALUE of the item before you take a deduction. So, if the item has a fair market value of $100, then you have a $900 deduction.

You do NOT get $900 back from Uncle Sam. You just reduce your total TAABLE income by $900. So, if in a 20% tax bracket, you save $180 in taxes. This assumes you are doing itemized taxes of course.

(write-offs work pretty much the same way)

People should not make tax statements unless they know what they are talking about.

 

[PlayRadioPlay]

Wouldn't Apple make way more than $970,000 if they made that beautiful Mac Pro available to the entire public instead of just ONE PERSON???

Dammit. I want one.

 

[patent10021]

They gave a million dollars, regardless if it was tax deductible or not. I think some people on this forum need to research how charitable deductions work. O' and btw they're not just for "rich" people....

I'd rather have a private charity have the money instead of the government just blowing it. btw it would be about a 300k tax saving and they paid out a 1m to get that.. (rough math)....

so they paid 700K to donate 1mill? Or how much goes to the gvt and how much goes to the charity? Who owns the charity? Apple? Corporate owners of the charities get tax breaks too right? I wonder how much of the mill actually gets to the people that need it?

 

[yaxomoxay]

And, for those that think they get a MASSIVE tax deduction, take a moment to understand the tax system.

Assume the buyer is in the 30% tax bracket. That means when he earned $4m last year, he gets to turn over $1.2m of his earnings to the U.S. Government.

If he bought the thing for $977,000 and then reduced that to 951,000 after taking out the value of the item and auction costs, he applies $951,000 as a charity deduction on his taxes. So, now, he only pays $914,700 in taxes to the feds. Massive deduction? Not really.

(yea, these numbers are very rounded, first $100k or so are at a different rate and he could have other deductions, etc)

No matter what, they have to pay that $, more or less, but with one major difference. If you give to a charity you control - at least in good part - where the $$$ go and the cause your $$$ will serve. If you pay the government you lose control, completely. Your $$$ might go paying the cure for cancer as it might go buying a land mine or a bomb that will be dropped on someone somewhere.

 

[scottsjack]

I agree that apple has lost its edge.

Also agree. Everything since the uni-body MBP has been less-functional due to being needlessly too thin (MBP Retina, mini, iMac), just plain ugly (iPhone 5/5S) or god-awful fugly (new Mac Pro). It is their almost flawless operation that keeps me coming back despite my objections to the goofy looks and lack of function.

 

[skottichan]

Wouldn't Apple make way more than $970,000 if they made that beautiful Mac Pro available to the entire public instead of just ONE PERSON???

Dammit. I want one.

Apple made $0.

They donated it to be auctioned, and that $977,000 went to a charitable organization.

They'll get a write off for the donation, but that's it.

 

[PracticalMac]

Move over Van Gogh.