Apple fans will never revel in the glory of another Stevenote. But an essay that imagines how Steve Jobs would have introduced the Apple Watch just might be the next best thing.
Lesson No. 1: He wouldn’t have called it the “Apple Watch.”
The brilliant essay, written by Jong-Moon Kim and simply titled “Steve Jobs Introduces the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch,” starts off with an insightful critique of Tuesday’s actual Apple event, which gave us our first real look at the iPhone 6 and the world’s new favorite smartwatch.
The first half of the rather lengthy essay is educational and certainly worth reading for anyone with a Mad Men bug or a general interest in advertising and marketing. It shows how Apple might have made a stronger case for the new, bigger iPhones and the Apple Watch, and packs loads of healthy constructive criticism (although it’s pretty clear Apple doesn’t need any help selling the iPhone 6).
However, the fantasy keynote script that follows will transport you back in time to when Jobs ruled the stage and Apple events seemed nearly as magical and laden with impact as a face-to-face talk with a burning bush on the side of a mountain.
What’s spelled out — and, perhaps most importantly, what is left unexplained — is very revealing. The language, the pacing, the sly nods and ingratiating humor … it all rings true.
The writer, an MIT computer science grad and Y Combinator alum who “is currently working as a founder at an unannounced startup,” according to his bio, perfectly captures the magic of the Stevenote, and I don’t want to spoil any of it by quoting it here. It makes a great weekend read.
Source: Jiggity’s Essays by Jong-Moon Kim
Lewis Wallace is the managing editor of Cult of Mac and author of our weekly newsletter, The Weekender.
He’s a San Francisco-based writer and editor specializing in technology and culture. He loves his iPhone, hates Siri, and appreciates any hardware that combines form and function.
Prior to Cult of Mac, he juggled words and ideas as culture editor at Wired.com, homepage editor at TechTV, news product manager at NBCi, copy editor at PC World, reporter at The (Hayward) Daily Review and editor in chief of EveryBody’s News in Cincinnati.
He earned a bachelor of general studies degree with a journalism certificate from the University of Cincinnati. While in school, he worked as the entertainment editor of The News Record and as editor in chief of Clifton Magazine.
He’s also a bass player, who’s recorded and performed around the United States with Those Darn Accordions, The Electric Boogie Dawgz and The Mad Maggies. When not writing, editing or laying down bass lines, he plays darts and serves on the board of the San Francisco Darts League.
28 responses to “Fantasy keynote shows how Steve Jobs would have sold us on Apple Watch”
actually, “WATCH” is a perfect name if you actually think of the person-person aspect of it.
“Oh, is that the Apple Watch?” or “What’s that on your wrist?… ” “It’s the Apple watch”
I wonder if people will ever get enough masturbating to the idea of WWSD (What Would Steve Do). Despite Cult of Mac’s writer extolling the virtues of the writer’s essay, so much of it is off to be laughable. We don’t know what Steve would have called the Apple Watch; it might very well have been the iWatch, but he called the set top box the AppleTV, didn’t he? So, strike one. Then there is that whole bit about “The fact that it also contradicts Steve Jobs’ original intent for the iPhone, “No one is going to buy a big phone”, squelches the voice of the product and makes it come across muddled and confused.” The problem here is that Steve was famous for saying that Apple wasn’t going to do something before they actually did it, or to be more precise, until Apple found a way to do it that the company felt was better for Apple and its customers. So, strike two. Then there is the critique of how these products were rolled out: “Apple: We have the perfect product that does X….You: OH MY GOD, I NEED THIS.” [Instead] We got: Apple: We have a product that does X, Y, Z and also A and B. You: Hmm, I guess I see how X might be useful. A and B are pretty cool too.” Wrong. Watch the ACTUAL keynote for the introduction for the iPhone in 2007, where Steve introduced the iPhone as THREE different things: “a widescreen iPod with touch controls,” “a revolutionary mobile phone” and “a breakthrough internet communications device.” STRIKE THREE. What is wrong with you people at Cult of Mac publishing rubbish celebrating rubbish?
Excellent post.
“I wonder if people will ever get enough masturbating to the idea of WWSD (What Would Steve Do).”
And no they won’t, unfortunately. And yes, that write-up was utter trash. I’m glad Tim is busying himself with actually leading the company through better products and initiatives, than spending his time attempting to completely clone SJ’s mannerisms, style of speaking, and demeanour. The fact that he’s so obsessed over the keynotes, and not the products themselves (which he gives Cook zero credit for) is telling. Nevermind how awesome new software and hardware innovations like Yosemite, iOS8, Swift, Healthkit, Homekit, Touch ID, 64bit mobile cpus, iPhone redesigns, Apple Pay, etc are- he’s not Steve Jobs at the keynotes, so he’s useless.
A huge part of the problem with calling the Apple TV the “iTV” is that in Britain, there is a very long-extant company (launched in 1955) that provides commercial TV services called iTV Network. Apple would have had a terrible copyright and trademark time if they’d tried to sell the product in the UK named iTV, so it only makes sense to call it the Apple TV.
The essay is well done. Sure we don’t really know what Steve would have said. But in reading the essay it certainly sounded like a Jobs Keynote.
While I liked what was revealed this week, the keynote did lack some emotion and punch that I thought they had gotten back based on this year’s WWDC.
That punch that they got back was clearly because of Craig Federighi. Cook is not the best presenter, and the more I see of Phil Schiller, the more I don’t want to see Phil Schiller.
Totally agree. Less Tim and Phil, more Craig and Jaws. Sorry, some guys are not natural showman. Forestall was also good.
Craig is iOS/OSX software. He’s not going to go onstage and present stuff he had nothing to do with. Post Jobs, Apple presenters are usually the development team leads. And thats the way it should be. Its the most sincere.
I read the original article, and it was so extremely childish, self-righteous, and completely silly, written in such a “I know best what Steve would have done” manner. I agree with the previous commentator that it was absolute rubbish. It’s embarrassing that cultofmac would even link to it, let alone “brilliant”. It is anything but.
Steve Jobs is fucking dead. Does the writer REALLY want Tim Cook to spend all his time figuring out how to sound and act exactly like Steve? Really? Its a pretty disgusting notion. Tim Cook shouldn’t act like Steve because he isn’t Steve, and isn’t pretending to be him. Lets let go of that idiotic fantasy. Cook did a fantastic job in the keynote being Cook.
Every line in the “essay” could be ripped to threw with even the most basic common sense, but I’ll just pick out a few.
“The iPod launched with The One. The iPhone launched with The One. The Apple Watch launched with The Sixty.”
This statement shows the level of superficiality the author possess. A watch is completely different than any of those products, and I’m glad Apple realized that, honoured that, and didnt blindly follow a strategy that worked with products X, Y, or Z. A watch is a WEARABLE device. People by definition wear watches not because of function, but style. Apple treated this product with a deeper understanding than the author can hope to achieve. People DONT want to wear something on their body that obviously looks like a gadget. They DONT want to wear something that looks the same as the thing a hundred million other people are wearing. Cook and Ive understood this. The customizability is brilliant, and greatly increases the chance that Apple Watch will take off. The author is stuck in a kind of 1 dimensional thinking that is extremely dangerous to product development.
“but it’s certainly no iPhone launch.”
There will never be another “iPhone launch”, with or without Steve. Such a comparison is cheap and childish. With the technology we have today, nothing is going to be more significant than a computer you can put in your pocket, that replaces an infinite number of other devices. Nothing.
“Side note: I’m not a fan of Apple using its iconic Apple logo in its product names. It dilutes The Apple”
Good thing the Apple TV doesnt exist, and Steve didnt come up with the name. Oh, wait..
“Steve: Our team of smart engineers have come up with the perfect size.”.
Facepalm. So after they announced a couple years ago that 4″ was the perfect size, they’re supposed to state that AGAIN with a new size? That statement can only be excused once. You can’t change the “perfect size” and call it perfect again. Oh, and it seems the 5.5″ 6+ is selling like hotcakes. Whats wrong with choice? Although I dont love huge phones, I know a shitload of people that do, and Apple now has a chance to get them as customers. Multiple sizes does not dilute anything. Whats important is iOS.
“It comes in just one model. Stainless steel. It’s the sleekest watch you have ever seen in your life.”
With the iWatch they showed off, you can just as comfortably wear it while jogging and hiking, as going to a wedding or a business meeting. The author’s myopic fantasy does not allow that. But hey, its THE ONE, so none of that matters.
I could keep going forever, but this article was a very frustrating, and frankly, nauseating read. He just copied and pasted lines from old keynotes to this one. Its lazy and not in the least insightful. And worse, much of the stuff sounds very similar to things Cook said. Also, for anyone with common sense, his reasoning is just plain wrong. I’m glad Apple is able to develop and progress its philosophies and thinking, unlike this author who is utterly incapable of doing so. In 2014, much of those lines and arguments would be cringeworthy, even coming from Steve.
for me the essay doesnt make sense in every point.
but more importantly it shows how Steve presented new products in his unique way.
his words were so simple, enthusiastic, down to earth and often funny.
everybody could relate to it and got involved emotionally.
The article certainly captures Steve’s style. So much so that I got chills at the end. But I don’t think it allows for the fact that Steve and his Reality Distortion Field made his decisions and logic completely unpredictable. He would definitely have made us much more excited about whatever they released than Tim Cook did. That’s for sure. But that was his thing, and it can’t be replicated. As for the “one model” theory, I’m not so sure even he could have kept the world convinced of that for this long – not with an iPhone in a size that didn’t suit half the population, and certainly not with the iWatch or Apple Watch. That most definitely needed to be customizable. Ironically, every other smart watch manufacturer tried to do the one model thing and failed horribly. If anything, Apple did do what Steve would have done, that is, be very un-Steve and make everyone think, “oh, this is Apple now”.
One personal note: I do think they should have kept the 4″ base model for the iPhone 6 and made only the 6 Plus bigger. Now there’s still half the population that won’t find it suitable.
Why do some persist in asking the question what would Steve have done? We all have our way of doing things. Tim Cook is no exception. Cook will be judge on how he leads Apple into the future. So far, I think he is doing a dam good job.
I don’t think we need to imagine what Steve Jobs would’ve done so much as figure out why his keynotes were so iconic, and the essay writer nails it. There’s a sense of wonder and childlike delight in his presentations that seems to be missing in many of the post-Jobs keynotes. Bringing back a sense of wonder is something totally doable.
I don’t think Steve jobs would have given the green light to the watch project.
the watch needs an iPhone to make it work, its just an accessory not a stand alone gadget. The iPad had books and magazines going for it.the iPhone is a phone. What can you really do with it that the other two can’t do, zilch. I can do all the heart stuff cheaper by just buying a heart rate monitor and using an app on my iPhone. I can tell time by looking at my iPhone. I can read email and books on my iPhone. So really what is the point of this thing. Its not a game changer unless some one has some brilliant piece of software to make me or anyone else want to buy it, for now it goes along the route of the segway and google glass. fun idea but totally useless except for rich kids who will get bored of it very fast.
“The iPad had books and magazines going for it.the iPhone is a phone. What can you really do with it that the other two can’t do, zilch.”
Ridiculous. You clearly have absolutely no imagination. The use cases for such a wearable are nearly infinite, and go beyond the scope of a device you have to hold to use. Just the “tapping” feature, which seems very customizable and subtle, will be huge. Fitness applications (huge). Wireless payments. Glanceable info. Thats just scratching the surface. 3rd party software will make this explode. History will prove you wrong.
well time will tell, but I’m betting no, Android has had its watch on the market much longer and no one is buying them. Same developers on android as Apple. I doubt there will be a killer app for it. its about fashion and most people are very finicky about what they wear.
“Android has had its watch on the market much longer and no one is buying them.”
Wow. Just wow. Thats the argument you choose to use on why the Apple Watch will be a failure. Because company X already has a shitty implementation on the market?
If Apple thought like you, he wouldnt have released the iPod, iPhone, iPad, or a a dozen other things. Apple has historically succeeded where others have failed, primarily through better execution. Using the mess that is the current smart watch market as “evidence” that Apple won’t succeed is beyond laughable. From what we’ve seen, the Apple Watch looks to be better executed on every single level. Your comment about developers is even worse. If you don’t believe that the Apple Watch will have more, and better quality apps from developers, than I don’t know what to say. Go use an iPad and an Android tablet, compare the available apps, and come back and use the “same developers” argument. The difference is night and day- because developers barely make money on Android.
WOW you drank too much corporate Kool aid. Apple did not invent the MP3 Player the smart phone or the tablet. They do have one thing going for themselves that only google can match they create the software and hardware. Apple did improve the MP3 player because they could create SW to interface with the player and the computer. they used that philosophy to make all their products. There were a few smart phones on the market before Apple came along and found touch screen glass and an OS that could run on it, they miniaturized the computer. the iPad was no leap in invention it was just a big iPhone without the phone. the watch is a whole different gadget that you have to wear and after talking to my friends who work in tech we all agree it will not be a big seller, you would have to convince all your friends to buy one to get most of the features to work. there in lies the problem its for rich kids who will get bored with the technology. Also its fashion and people tire quickly of jewelry. its will be a small market item, just like segway and google glass is. Check back with me after they sell out the initial run of the watch and see how flat the sales become. Its a redundant product a toy at best.
I think you guys are overlooking the most important thing that made Steve Jobs a visionary. Steve Jobs liked to talk about design and materials, but that isn’t what really sold the devices he was pushing. If you really followed his early rise and fall, you see that having a better, easy to use product doesn’t guarantee you an instant win. Steve was about simplicity and making computing accessible to all, but where his genius truly lied is in realizing great devices don’t mean much without great software and software developers. The Mac was a software ghost town, Who wants a great computer with no software?? So, what was the first thing Steve did when he came back? He partnered with Microsoft. What sold the iPod, he created an online music store. iPhone was just a phone merged with an iPod, not many people cared about it, but what really pushed it was the introduction of mobile apps in the second and 3rd generation. So if the Apple watch really brings with it great apps and new ways for us to interact with information then it was exactly what Steve what have done. I’m sure he would have went with a round design though, but that’s just me playing WWSD.
The idea that developers don’t make any money on Android is just not true . if it was true you would see more Apple exclusive apps and there are really not any important ones. i work on both platforms for my clients there are things on Android that are not on Apple and vice versa. Lets see how many watches google actually sold and how many are being returned.There will be a big initial sale of Apple watches and then sales will go flat and people will put them in their drawer and two years later they are forgotten. The iPod was for music the iPhone merged the iPod and phone together. the iPad was a lager iPhone with no phone for books and magazines. the watch is for ?????
Actually, The official Google smart watch platform “Android Wear” just launched recently and they seem to be selling well. Samsung has had their own proprietary “GEAR” Branded Devices for over a year. Those are not “Android”, they only work with Samsung devices only , and word is they sold poorly.
“just the “tapping” feature, which seems very customizable and subtle, will be huge.” Providing all your friends buy the watch, ahh there is the rub.
As an insulin-dependent diabetic for 36 years (I’m now 63), I am looking forward to see what is developed for managing diabetes. If they can figure out how to make a real-time sensor for blood glucose levels, I would be the happiest man on Earth. You don’t have any imagination.
so the watch will stick needles in you. if there was a better way it would be out there already. I can image a lot of things and so can apple if the technology exists but sadly the watch will not be the medical device found on Star Trek. At best it can do a recording of your heartbeat. So if you have an irregular heartbeat then the watch is for you.
The first product form post Jobs era. The first product I don’t want to buy.
I better buy another classic watches for that money. That look better and need to charge/change battery once per 2 years.
Steve would not have made 2 phones, a square watch or made something called “Health Book”, he would have made 1 phone, a round watch and “Alternative Health Book”.
RE: the naming of the watch, lets not forget the Apple TV isn’t called the iTV it’s TV. Placing Apple in front of the product name is not new to Apple. I think the ‘iWatch’ name got overused so much before Apple were even able to announce it that it became boring the hear about, so choosing WATCH has refreshed it slightly.
Initially Steve hated the name ‘iMac’, so maybe the continuation of the ‘i’ was done reluctantly. Funnily enough I heard Tim refer to Touch ID as ‘iTouch’ in an interview accidentally before correcting himself.
It would be interesting to hear why Apple decided to call it WATCH’ refer than continuing with the ‘i’ prefix.