Had to double check the date here. This really is indistinguishable from an April 1 post.
It's a crappy handbag, and it's just for a phone.
It looks like they had to use models to advertise it because they couldn't use "everyday people" in "everyday situations" to advertise because it looks like it would be garbage in that scenario.
Is Apple expanding to the "luxury" fashion market?
> Inspired by the concept of “a piece of cloth”
Sometimes I think they’re messing with us. This is more ridiculous than that monitor stand from a few years ago
edit: What are you disagreeing with? That's what I'm referring to. The Issey Miyake trademark, which the label uses as "A-POC" as an English acronym, and translates into Japanese only to explain it to the domestic market rather than as the trademark itself. I linked that MoMa article elsewhere in this thread
A more illustrative term might be more easily understandable, at the cost of elegance (in simplicity and constraint) and surprise (from your underestimation of the work based on its name). The term is branding.
BTW another reference is Maurizio Amadei's "One Piece" work. Here's an installation/artwork he did that makes it easy to understand: https://lucentement.com/blogs/journal/m-a-by-maurizio-amadei... He also has many products labeled "One Piece [X]" such as "One Piece Wallet" or "One Piece Boot", where they are made from a single piece of leather (never cut into multiple pieces) and with a minimal number of seams. He chooses a similarly simple term, "One Piece", with enigmatic effect.
... isn't any more meaningful than the English, it is exactly "inspired by the concept of "thing in quotation marks"
I think this article was originally written in English anyway (only the English one credits an author, who is not Japanese)
In tech we also use common words or phrases to trademark new ideas. It's not ridiculous or unusual. But it may be unfamiliar to you if you are not interested in fashion (common in these parts, as apparent in this thread) and fashion topics are easy targets for technical brothers.
See: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/185792 and https://us.isseymiyake.com/pages/apocable?srsltid=AfmBOopZJL...
(You can also see an archival garment in the Met article that closely resembles the iPhone Pocket btw)
and
> a piece of cloth
communicate different ideas to most people
but this product isn't for most people, it's for Issey Miyake's customer base. That's why this is buried as a newsroom update and the marketing is elsewhere rather than the apple.com front page
The article referred to ‘the concept of “a piece of cloth”’
I’m not sure they are the same thing at all. If you are going to invoke a piece of artwork wouldn’t you get the name right and reference it directly? Wouldn’t you also use the base concept that makes the art interesting instead of 3d knitting as well? Would you reference that it is specifically tied to the completely different pleated clothing line instead of A-POC?
The MOMA project seems not to be rigid fabric, but it is clear that the description there is not exactly canonical.
In any case the press release was worded so weirdly that it seems inevitable that only superfans would make the connection to a piece of art from the 90s, and the rest of us would just make fun of 'the concept of "a piece of cloth"'
> The design of iPhone Pocket speaks to the bond between iPhone and its user
Like it's a pet or something
Also I cannot help but read this in the voice of Jony Ive.
They've been flirting with it for a while, remember they made a $17,000 solid gold variant of the first gen Apple Watch (which is no longer supported lol), and today they sell luxury Hermès edition watches at a 2-3x premium over the regular titanium models.
I don't think the kind of people to spend $17K on a digital watch care that it's no longer supported - it's pocket change for them
Is it worth 10-20X the price of a normal strap? No, but it’s called disposable income for a reason.
Apple has been dealing in luxury fashion goods since at least the early 2000s.
You think they made computers look like that, with a circular mouse, because it was better? You think putting the charging port on the bottom of yet another mouse was about sharp product focus?
Apple sells what it does because it's a Lifestyle Brand.
You seem more eager to shit on this aspect of it than to understand something you’re unfamiliar with. Not that you need to become familiar with something you’re uninterested in, especially with luxury market products, but since you’re here talking about it and this isn't "Hater News"…
It does have higher production cost but the price of this item is priced for it being designed by Issey Miyake (not Apple) and sold as a luxury fashion item. If you want a cheaper strap they sell that too.
Like, if you were doing this as an April Fools joke post, what would you even change?
But I guarantee you that they thought long and hard on this, and have very good reasons for each and every aspect of the product. It is not half assed work. I don’t see a reason to take it as a joke.
Professional designers put out the Pontiac Aztec and the Apple puck mouse.
Can't you say that about basically anything?
I remember the iPod socks. Now make them bigger. Now stretch them out a bunch. Now make it look a little more like Borat’s speedo.
Now charge like 7x-10x what the iPod socks cost.
If the first place I had seen this was not a direct link to apple.com I too would’ve thought this was a complete joke.