Apple clearly wants its new watch to be more than just a cool gadget. It’s no coincidence that Tuesday’s event falls in line with New York Fashion Week, a time of the year when the world’s top designers look for new tech to accessorize their outfits.
Journalists and prominent figures in the fashion industry were invited alongside the usual tech press to the Apple Watch’s unveiling. The fashion world’s initial reactions are mostly positive, but some question the device’s appeal to women.
After interviewing people in the fashion industry, Reuters said, “Many praised the ‘Apple Watch’, priced from $349 when it debuts next year, for its clean aesthetic, but some bloggers and editors said the watch had a masculine aura, which would limit its allure to parts of the style-conscious crowd.”
“It’s not pretty,” one female fashion director told the publication. “It’s very future techno as opposed to feminine sexy.”
“The Apple Watch will be a status symbol to carry”
“The Apple Watch will be a status symbol to carry,” said Eric Wilson, fashion news director for InStyle Magazine. But he also said that its design is “generic in the sense of its flexibility and individualization” and that it’s “a very masculine watch.”
The comments about a lack of femininity are interesting given that Apple’s Industrial Design group led by Jony Ive consists of several women.
It’s clear to fashionistas that Apple’s design respects the heritage of watch making, regardless of whether both genders will find its look appealing.
“Strangely enough, the visual appeal is almost retrofitted to the traditional language of the analog Swiss-made timepiece,” said Vogue Contributing Editor Sarah Mower. “It’s a watch that looks like a watch.”
“Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands”
Traditional watch aficionados have plenty of good things to say about the Apple Watch too. “Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches, and those details add up to a really impressive piece of design,” said Benjamin Clymer in HODINKEE, one of the most widely read wristwatch publications in the world. “It offers so much more functionality than other digitals it’s almost embarrassing.”
One way Apple is trying to offer more choice when picking a watch is by selling two screen sizes at 38mm and 42mm. “I tried them both on, and they both worked perfectly on my wrist,” wrote Clymer in a hands-on post. “They didn’t exaggerate the options and make one decidedly male oriented at 44 mm and a girly equivalent at 35 mm or the like. Any man, woman, or child could pull off either size with ease.”
Photo: Leander Kahney/Cult of Mac
Clymer when on to say how the Apple Watch “pays great homage to traditional watchmaking and the environment in which horology was developed.”
Those who aren’t watch aficionados may have been puzzled by Apple taking so long to demo astronomy features, such as seeing when there’s a full moon, in its watch Tuesday. But according to Clymer, the focus on the world above our heads is Apple’s way of nodding to the history of timepieces. “The fact that Apple chose to develop two faces dedicated to the cosmos shows they are, at the very least, aware of the origins and importance of the earliest timekeeping machines, and the governing body of all time and space – the universe.”
But what do the Swiss watchmakers Jony Ive said were “fucked” think about the Apple Watch? The president of Patek Philippe told The Financial Times that, “It is not part of our world,” whatever that means. “Ultimately you are talking about a $349 watch that will have to be constantly upgraded as the technology gets outdated. This timepiece has a shelf-life, unlike a Swiss mechanical watch, where people are investing in craftsmanship and heirlooms that can be passed down to future generations.”
Alex Heath is a journalist who works for Tech Insider. He’s the former co-host of The CultCast. He has been quoted by the likes of the BBC, KRON 4 News, and books like “ICONIC: A Photographic Tribute to Apple Innovation.” He lives in Lexington, Kentucky. If you want to pitch a story, share a tip, or just get in touch, additional contact information is available on his personal site. Follow him on Twitter.
26 responses to “Fashion world gawks at Apple Watch, but questions feminine appeal”
Meanwhile, the head of Tag Heuer says the Apple Watch is too feminine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11088667/Apple-Watch-too-feminine-and-looks-like-it-was-designed-by-students-says-LVMH-executive.html
Haha. This guy’s comments are all over the map. It has no “sex appeal” because it’s too feminine? That makes no sense. And yet, even though it’s too feminine, it looks just like every other smart watch (NONE of which look too feminine).
Obviously this guy is just getting defensive because his watches are in the precarious middle range that could actually be hurt by the Apple watch.
the Apple watch is sort of feminine looking for a man, but not cute enough for a female. It should have been round. It looks like a toy or some sort of “gadget”.
I don’t think that anyone has really made the definitive smart watch as yet. Devices like Moto360 and Lg G-Watch R looks like an actual watch. I think the next version of Apple Watch with nail the form and design.
“Clymer when on to say how the Apple Watch ‘pays great homage to traditional watchmaking and the environment in which horology was developed.’”
Alex. If you use AutoCorrect, you should disable the feature. If you do not, then there is a problem of a different type.
Goes to show that even great designers like Jony Ive need someone with vision like Steve Jobs to say NO every so often to keep them from getting lazy. Unfortunately Tim Cook leads by committee and thats the reason abominations like this watch exist. (or exist 6 months from now)
Who cares what fashonistas think? Sure they dump stupid money on shallow things but Steve jobs wore a freaking turtle neck, jeans and new balance shoes. He would be heart broken to see what Apple has become in such a short time.
I remember when the iPad was introduced, the comment sections were jammed full of similar dismissive statements (Interestingly, nobody ever admits to being one of those who disregarded the iPad’s potential in 2010). Will the Apple Watch succeed? Maybe – or maybe not. Your guess is as good as mine – but they’re both guesses. The market will decide and it’s going to take at least 2 years for an answer.
The real question is if you’ll conveniently forget that you dismissed it if it DOES succeed.
I’m not saying wearables are a bad idea, I’m an early adopter, I have had a Nike FuelBand on my wrist for 2 years and the Jawbone UP before that. So I am on board.
Success of a product doesn’t always mean its a good product.
Will Apple watch succeed and sell millions initially, quite possibly yes. That doesn’t mean its not a poorly designed or thought out device.
Watches are meant to give quick information at a glance. Time is a perfect example. Contextual notifications are another. Google wear seems to at least understand the vision.
Apple has fallen so far off the wagon they think people want to be able to browse their photos on a tiny watch. Honestly whoever though that was something that should be featured in a demo should be fired.
So I am left waiting another year and a half hoping Apple gets it together in the next generation, but I don’t hold out hope considering how badly they botched it this time.
What really irks me is there were some beautiful artist concept renders that really would have made an impression if Apple had gone in that direction.
A person would be able to Airplay those photos on AppleTV, so viewing photos is not just limited to the AppleWatch itself.
You could AirPlay those photos but they would be coming through your iPhone not the watch.
I’m certain the photos are not stored on the watch but are pulled from the iPhone or through bluetooth from iCloud. Without bluetooth range access to an iPhone the watch is essentially dumb.
What!!! Those Steve Jobs turtle necks were made by a prominent Japanese Clothing Designer. In this case you are 100% wrong! This watch is just Steve Jobs type of thing. Apple is approaching this perfectly. This is a wearable, not some geeks dream of a tech watch. It shocks me that they made this so Steve Jobs like. Just look at the hate geeks give it, and the love normal people give it. Just like all Apples new category devices.
I have no idea how you found that conclusion in this article. What exactly did Jobs need to say “NO” to? Making a watch that’s too “masculine”? I seriously doubt Jony Ive was sitting there thinking “we can’t make this thing too girly!”, and if only Jobs was still around we would also have a tiny Apple Watch made of pink diamonds or something.
Or would Jobs have said NO to making a watch that is true to the history and spirit of timekeeping, such that actual watch enthusiasts seem really impressed? That’s just absurd.
As for your dismissive statement that all “fashionistas” are shallow and that Jobs wouldn’t have cared because he dressed funny, that’s also absurd. Jobs was as obsessed with design as Ive (which is why design has always taken priority at Apple since Jobs’s return…see the disaster of the iPhone 4, when Ive and the infallible Jobs insisted on the metal band around the phone), and Jobs always talked about making technology “sexy”.
I’m guessing you’re one of those people who comments “this just shows how lost Apple is and how they can’t do anything right without Jobs” on every Apple related story, no matter what it actually says.
Tim Cook should have had the vision and conviction to say no to making a Watch and made something simple that became an integral part of your life.
It should be affordable and a device for everyone with several day battery life, with haptic feedback and biometric sensors, life and water proof and could tell the time. In other words a fitness band style device.
I can wear my Nike FuelBand everywhere without thought its going to get damaged. When I am doing yard work, changing the oil, lifting weights at the gym. The watch is primarily a fashion accessory with limited utility designed for a limited audience, no wonder watch enthusiasts are impressed.
Steve Job’s signature turtleneck, 501’s, New Balance shoes and rimless glasses were carefully chosen for their function, comfort, simplicity and looks.
When being fashionable is made a priority you get neck ties and high heel shoes, what purpose do they serve other than to make you feel uncomfortable?
Dude, all you’re saying is “Tim Cook should have had the vision to make the Apple Watch 3 or 4 instead of the first generation.” Maybe Steve Jobs should have had the vision to wait until the iPhone 4 was ready (which, by all accounts, was what he and Jony Ive had always imagined from the beginning), but he wanted (and needed) to get the iPhone to market as quickly as possible to undercut the competitors. Which is exactly why the Apple Watch was announced before the Christmas shopping season, even though it won’t be available until early 2015. It’s a marketing ploy, but that’s exactly what Jobs would have done (the first iPhone was announced 6 months prior to release).
And again, you’re being dismissive of fashion in a way that makes you sound like a naive stereotype. “Oh, ties are meaningless, they just make you feel uncomfortable!” Well…no, actually. I wear ties all the time and I never feel uncomfortable in them. And I enjoy wearing them as a “fashion accessory.” I also like to wear a watch to work as a “fashion accessory.” I would never buy the Galaxy Gear or the LG smartwatch because they look like ugly hunks of tech attached to a plastic band. But the stainless steal Apple Watch with a metal (or black leather) band looks great, not unlike a nice Fossil or Skagen watch. Fashion matters, not because spending money on “frivolous” things is good, but because Beauty is a good thing. Beauty is important (and I use a capital B on purpose). No sane person would choose to live surrounded by ugliness if they had a choice. Not only is this an obvious philosophical truth, but it is exactly what drove Jobs. He saw the kind of functional, “just make something cheap that does the job” attitude that you’re expressing as a bad thing. That was Microsoft’s attitude. Jobs wanted to make something beautiful. His obsession with fonts is a great example. You might say, “who cares if the font style is perfect, just make something waterproof with 4 day battery life!” and Jobs would disagree. On the original iMac, Jobs wanted a CD slot with no tray, even though the engineers told him that it would make burning CDs impossible, because he saw the tray-less CD drive as more simple, elegant and beautiful.
Apple has chosen to release something beautiful…and yes, “fashionable”…rather than making some new version of a generic fitness band. And that’s exactly what Jobs would have done.
Honestly, you haven’t actually given any suggestions as to what Apple should have done instead. All you’ve said is “they shouldn’t have made a watch” and “my Nike band is great.” Good for you. Keep using the Nike band. Don’t buy the watch. Problem solved.
Your right on nearly every point you made.
Except the part where you think I was expressing “just make something cheap that does the job” I don’t know where you got that quote but it wasn’t from me and I don’t feel that way.
I’m a minimalist and I prefer to believe Steve Jobs was like me, driven by meticulous attention to detail, symmetry, simplicity, sophistication and the dislike of superfluous things, form and function in harmony. I think a band could have been all those things and be accessible to more people, though certainly less fashionable and therefore less profitable. In the end Apple is in the business of making profits and so far they have been doing a very good job of it.
Beauty is subjective and what I find to be uninspired and mundane someone else thinks is elegant and sophisticated.
In the end Apple has the resources to make the watch a fashion statement. Much like Dre did with the Beats brand, get enough watches on the wrists of celebrities and trendsetters and the people concerned with brands and fashion will want it and pay a premium for it.
It is my opinion the watch is currently a solution without a problem and not at all attractive so I won’t be buying it, at least not this generation.
That’s fair.
Ive is very overrated. He’s a toy designer who needs a strong critic.
But clearly Ive didn’t do his best for Cook, probably because he’s gunning for the CEO job.
Or he wouldn’t be heart broken. He might be proud.
As none of us are Steve Jobs, none of us knew him, we don’t know what he would think or not think. So perhaps out of respect for the man, stop pretending otherwise.
“It is not part of our world. Ultimately you are talking about a $349 watch that will have to be constantly upgraded as the technology gets outdated. This timepiece has a shelf-life, unlike a Swiss mechanical watch, where people are investing in craftsmanship and heirlooms that can be passed down to future generations.”
I have to agree with this. No technology product will ever be an heirloom (with the exception of a perfect working Apple 1)
I’m sure no parent will be handing down the AppleWatch to his children 30-50 years from now. It would be completely useless any way you look at it. Nobody is apprenticing in swapping out SoC chips and batteries.
I wonder if any watch with a battery becomes a cherished heirloom. For sure, the watch industry has nothing to fear from Apple.
Well, the ridiculous-high-end watch industry has nothing to fear. This isn’t a competitor with $5,000-$20,000 watches, obviously. But the middle range, the $100-$900 watches, will be in trouble. Not right away, since this first Apple watch won’t appeal to everyone. But in a few years Apple will have round faces and other design options, and the people who already buy $500 watches for fashion or status symbols will be tempted to go with Apple. No one uses a watch to tell time anymore, so as long as the next Apple watches look really good and do all sorts of handy things with your iPhone, they will definitely steal business from the mid-range watchmakers.
A swiss mechanical watch only tells time. When a device only does one job sure it will last longer.
But this is not that world. And all these old fogeys harping on the ways of the world that is passing us by need to figure that out and stop trying to keep things the same
The reactions to the Apple watch are amusing in being all over the map. That’s not surprising because the watch is all over the map — in the best way possible. The Apple Watch presents a great display in a completely clean way. Pure Apple. The “look” of the Apple watch is whatever you care to display. Reactions to the watch were mostly reactions to the “looks” Apple chose to feature. Some found them too masculine; some too feminine. One thing is clear: the Android fans who decry Apple’s lack of customization will have a tough time complaining here.
The most interesting feature was the one Apple glossed over: the biometrics. There are four (4) sensor ports facing the skin. The only metric Apple discussed was heart rate. That leaves three sensors unaccounted for, not to mention all the various functions those sensors can monitor. Apple’s hiring in recent months, for example, has revealed their interest in non-invasive monitoring of such functions as blood glucose. OK, that’s the second sensor. Two more to go.
It was interesting that medical organizations were absent. Part of the reticence was probably because the design wasn’t finalized. Part of it was probably to keep the competition guessing awhile longer. I’m betting the final announcement when the watch goes on sale will be another big event, featuring the medical organizations, with an emphasis on biometrics and communications, as well as all the others apps that are developed between now and then. It won’t be a pitch for hardware or software, that’s been done. The pitch will be based on showing actual uses. Some of Apple’s best ads are based on that.
Sorry but I wouldn’t count on those additional ports as you call them to be anything more than they already are, part of the heart rate sensors. Maybe sometime in the future, like 3-5 years there would be blood glucose but right now the technology is not ready.
Its not to say there aren’t additional sensors, one could be a moisture sweat sensor and another temperature which are metrics that can tell how much calories your are burning but if your expecting medical magic sensors your going to be disappointed.
I think that Apple is interested in including 3rd party medical devices to their Health Kit initiative like weight scales, blood pressure and glucose monitors.
I’m a big Apple fan and i’m looking forward to see this watch, BUT
The moment this watch got compared to regular mechanical, analogue watches was absurd! Just because it fits on your wrist, tells the time and is called a watch, doesn’t mean it shares the same qualities as a traditional watch. Qualities such as the mechanical craftsmanship and that it doesn’t require any charging (battery changing) for years. A lot of brands like Rolex make models in limited numbers, which makes them rise in value over time. A digital watch with iPhone-like functions, that has a limited battery life with technology and an appearance that will become antiquated over time, cannot be compared to a physical, analogue, mechanical object that can last forever in function and in style.
The president of Patek Phillipe summed it up better
“Ultimately you are talking about a $349 watch that will have to be constantly upgraded as the technology gets outdated. This timepiece has a shelf-life, unlike a Swiss mechanical watch, where people are investing in craftsmanship and heirlooms that can be passed down to future generations.”
what exactly is masculine or feminine. Are women only supposed to like thin, dainty, pink things.
perhaps they should go back to the kitchen, cleaning and having babies. Having a job is so masculine after all
I definitely agree with the president of Patek Philippe.