Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcp123 | Hacker News Reader

Don't tear apart the details of what the author wrote. Just squint your eyes, and you know he's dead right. This is exactly the kind of storytelling that was missing from Tuesday's keynote. Steve always started with WHY before he got to the WHAT or the HOW. Tim Cook was shaking his fists in triumph after doing nothing but showing some over-produced video that showed some cool camera angles on the watch. Not a word about why it should exist, or what it changes about your life. WE DID IT! WE MADE A WATCH! WOOO! My jaw dropped. Very tacky. Too self-congratulatory.

View on HN

Frankly, I'm glad Cook is not trying to imitate Jobs. Imagine if Cook had gone on stage and followed the script jiggly wrote. It would have come off completely insincere. Sincerety is why Jobs was great, and it's why Cook is great. He doesn't BS us, as Jiggity seems to want.

But the thing is, no matter what Apple does people will complain. There's always another way that they could say would have been better. If Apple had released only one watch model, in black, then people would complain about how they would never wear a black watch.

No, this is exactly the kind of spin we've seen from people after every Apple keynote, going back to the late 1990s. Steve Jobs was not immune. It's just now that he's dead, they have a new "it's cause Jobs is dead!" rationalization.

This is just a warm over of the standard issue "iPod is lame", "iPhone needs a 'real' keyboard", "iPad is just a big iPod touch", "the iMac needs a floppy drive!" type complaint after every product introduction.

Again, you are missing the point. Steve identified the insight (the WHY) behind a product before he introduced the details and design. Cook & team skip all the important foreplay. It makes the products feel less Apple-y, less inspired, and simply, more like everyone else's. I love Apple and will keep buying their phones, the watch, and Macs. But for some of us, the company is also part of the products.

While this is partially true, you need to remember that about half of the pitch here seemed to be that this item is fashion. Fashion typically isn't "pitched" as a solution to "problems" (right? runway?). Thus, Apple found itself in a very delicate balancing act between showing off this device's capabilities and appealing to our rational capacities while not going overboard and establishing it as something in a line of succession to Mac, iPhone, iPad with traditional, as you call it, foreplay. The device had to spend a lot of time speaking for itself, as good fashion does.

Are you using a sockpuppet?

It seems to be way too obvious to be malicious, but gcp123 and GCPCo are the same guy.

Why use two nicks in one thread?

I highly doubt that HN would not detect upvotes from another account on the same IP, especially not across logouts.

Try pitching your startup to investors in the style of Tim Cook, see how far that gets you. Then you'll get it.

>>Try pitching your startup to investors in the style of Tim Cook, see how far that gets you. Then you'll get it.

It would work if you were Tim Cook. But you aren't.

That's what people mean when they say, "you have to find your own voice." Tim Cook has found his. He simply needs to change the content of what he is saying. I think if he explained the importance and significance of the iWatch more forcefully, it would have been a better presentation. But that has nothing to do with style.

Tim Cook has a company with a decades long track record of successes behind.

A startup, by definition, does not.

"Foreplay"? Apple is a consumer electronics company, not a lover. You admit you'll buy their products regardless -- why should they make a point of titillating you?

They're a consumer electronics company selling high margin, high priced, niche products to people who care a lot more about aesthetics, image and feeling than the average consumer. They do need to titillate if they want to maintain their margins.

I don't think that Tim Cook needs to imitate Steve Jobs in order to make the product more compelling. My take-away from the article was that this Apple event focused too much on technical details and not enough on why people should want the product.

One bit that struck me was when the author pointed out that this watch now seems like a gadget for the geekier people, rather than something for everyone. That really could be, Apple has spent much time and money getting consumers excited about these events and, perhaps, squandered some of this excitement.

I am also not a big fan of choice. Sixty options sounds stressful to me, especially with something new that I've never really seen before.

He's right about the iPhone but not the watch. Jewelry is a completely different sector where individualization is not just nice-to-have but absolutely required. They would sell a few watches to die-hard fans if they didn't show "the 60", but they would miss the market they are trying to hit: people who wear watches. In effect, the ONE is the 60.

I'm not saying it was a perfect launch, and they may have gotten it right unintentionally, but they still got it right.

I totally agree with this ^. The key to wearables is to make them fashionable - to make them into something a lot of people want to wear, and want others to see them wearing.

Wearable devices are still very much on the fringe - mainly due to lack of style - and style is very individual. This watch, regardless of its somewhat indistinct purpose, will be able to appeal, on beauty alone, to a vastly larger group of people than it otherwise would if it were "the one."

I think what that guy and what I feel is that this is the first time Apple has made a product which is more fashion than function - if that's what you are suggesting. I feel that the watch is more function, and consequently should have been preceded with a Steve Jobs' "Why we need it".

Well, I was responding mainly to Jiggity's claims that this watch has no clear purpose, no "X" that everyone "NEEDS TO HAVE" - since it does seem to have somewhat indistinct function, it needs to sell itself mainly on fashion, and I would argue it will succeed at that.

What is "the 60" ?

Hint: this conversation is about the article.

But that's precisely a problem with the hardware and features and not the messaging. If they're not communicating a clear message about why it should exist, it's because they've failed to figure out a highly compelling reason why a watch that isn't a smartphone and has limited ability to operate independently of a smartphone, yet is bulky, has low battery life and costs $350-and-up should exist, other than "because it is beautiful and from Apple" (which is what the video was highlighting) or "because we need to grow our revenues to avoid disappointing Wall Street's now-crazy expectations".

I thought the fist shake thing was a subtle way to show he's wearing the watch. Every new product is introduced and shown for the first time in an interesting way.

iPod was in Steve Jobs' pocket the whole time.

iPhone was in Steve Jobs' pocket the whole time.

iPad was under the cloth on the table beside the armchair.

Mac Pro was elevated from under the stage.

Let's not forget the MacBook Air in the manilla envelope.

> WE DID IT! WE MADE A WATCH! WOOO! My jaw dropped. Very tacky. Too self-congratulatory.

Self-congratulator? Have you never watched an Apple release with Jobs? It starts off with a whole lot of "we sold X devices" and "we are opening new stores where most of you will never go."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com