Not long after the Apple Watch’s big public unveiling last month, the actress Anna Kendrick expressed her feelings about the $13,000, 18-carat-gold Edition version via Twitter, saying we should all be “thanking Apple for launching ... the new gold standard in douchebag detection.” The wisecrack was retweeted and liked by tens of thousands, suggesting that Kendrick isn’t the only one questioning Apple’s recent image makeover.
With its move into the luxury accessories market, there’s no question that the tech company is courting a new customer: the one (or, more accurately, the 0.1) per cent. Yesterday, two weeks ahead of its wide release, pre-sales of the Apple Watch commenced at Selfridges in London, Galeries Lafayette in Paris and Isetan in Tokyo. All three style emporiums now have dedicated store-in-store boutiques that sell nothing but the Apple Watch (and, notably, none of its gadget-world “i” siblings). The Apple pop-up at Selfridges is, rather symbolically, situated in the Wonder Room, which also houses Chanel, Dior and other haute brands.
Operation Fashion World Takeover, as Apple’s effort might be dubbed, began, fittingly, during Paris Fashion Week last fall, when Anna Wintour and Karl Lagerfeld were among those who showed up at a party to toast and test the watch. That same month, Vogue published a 3,500- word profile of its creator, the notoriously elusive Apple designer Jonathan Ive. In it, the simplicity-obsessed Brit spoke of his latest creation as a beautiful object rather than a technological marvel. Last month, the first official ad for the Apple Watch, a sexy 14-page pictorial, was unveiled not in Wired or even Esquire, but in Vogue. The spread featured all three models of the watch – the standard, the sport and the gold-plated Edition version. It included no explanation of what the product might actually do.
And in yet another nod to the brand’s evolving identity, Apple is now training Genius Bar employees – those mop-topped millennials in the oversized blue T-shirts – to dispense not only tech expertise but styling tips to Watch customers. It’s a bold move, but it invites more than a few questions. For one, does anyone want to take fashion advice from someone who looks like they sleep on a futon? More broadly – and for all the shrewd positioning – will Apple’s foray into the world of high fashion stick?
Company co-founder Steve Wozniak expressed his doubts during a recent keynote address at the annual Automate/ProMat Show in Chicago, questioning the decision to court the luxury jewellery market when the brand’s identity had previously been so intertwined with upstart pluckiness. “It [doesn’t] seem like the company we started. That’s not the Apple that moved the world forward,” he said. And he’s half right. The Apple that has slipped into bed with the Annas and the Karls of the world is a far cry from the company that Wozniak and Steve Jobs started in Jobs’s parents’ garage. For that matter, it’s a marked departure from the “I’m a Mac” identity (think Justin Long in a hoodie) that typified Apple’s image just five years ago. Still, when it comes to wearable tech that will move the modern world forward, “Woz” (a self-proclaimed “gadget guy” with a fashionable left foot) is ignoring an essential part of the puzzle.
“It is so important for wearable tech to pass the fashion test,” says Jodi Goodfellow, founder of Toronto’s Startup Fashion Week, an annual event devoted to the convergence of technology and style. Goodfellow says tech companies are seeking benediction from the fashion community, partly to push past what has thus far been a ghettoizing image problem: “There’s a stigma still attached – that Star Trek stereotype.” For this reason, some of the most successful wearables so far (such as Tory Burch’s line of Fitbit jewellery or the Ringly collection, smart gemstone rings that would be covet-worthy even if they didn’t light up and vibrate when your iPhone needs you) have steered clear of the alienating, outer-space aesthetic. “The smart brands,” Goodfellow says, “are focused on making products that are appealing from a design perspective.”
To this end, Apple has always been ahead of the pack. There is the oftrepeated anecdote, for instance, about how Steve Jobs wouldn’t stand for even a circuit board that was visually unappealing. Even before the iPod/Phone/Pad revolution, Macs were sleek status symbols – the sort of technology one would leave out on a coffee table. Apple’s ability to project youth and stylishness has always been at the core of its success. With the Apple Watch, which is first and foremost an accessory, the aesthetic bar is higher than ever, however. Ensuring its appeal may explain the company’s decision to fortify its fashion ranks: Angela Ahrendts, Burberry’s former CEO, was brought on as senior vice-president of retail shortly after Paul Deneuve, ex-CEO of Yves Saint Laurent, was hired to oversee “special projects.” Most recently, Patrick Pruniaux, previously a VP of sales at luxe Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer, was brought on to help make the Apple Watch stand out in what will soon be a crowded category.
In March, the musician will.i.am announced that he will work with Gucci on a line of smart timepieces; Tag Heuer itself has paired up with Google for their entry into the smartphone Olympics. These alliances reflect the reigning sentiment that technology will enter our everyday lives in increasingly stylish ways. If the pairing of tech and fashion were enough to ensure success, however, the most stylish people you know would be viewing the world through Google-tinted glasses.
The 2013 launch of Google Glass probably loomed large in Apple strategy sessions. Like the watch, Google’s cutting edge computer-in-a-headset was poised to be the wearable-tech item to win over the world. One of the pre-launch public showcases took place at New York Fashion Week, where Diane Von Furstenberg models walked the runway in Google Glasses that coordinated with their teal and orange ensembles. DVF herself sported a pair and took a bow alongside Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Soon after, Von Furstenberg designed a collection of super chic frames. Ray-Ban, Oakley and Luxottica Eyewear were set to do the same. And then the project was put on ice indefinitely, a victim of global indifference and even ridicule.
“People needed time to adapt,” says Canadian retail analyst Sandy Silva, looking back on what is now colloquially known as the Google Glass fiasco. Silva says the product was too futuristic and unfamiliar to cross over from cool gadget to stylish accessory. She predicts that wrist-worn technology won’t be so hard for the public to swallow. “We all know what a watch is, so there isn’t that same need for an adoption period.”
Most industry analysts agree that, when it comes to the wearable-tech revolution, wristwear will lead the way. According to recent data from Integrated Device Technology, the wearables market will increase by 133 per cent this year alone; 89 per cent of those products will be wristworn – mostly smartwatches, along with bands and bracelets. IDT says the Apple Watch will be a significant market driver, although numbers can’t always predict public sentiment and sometimes fail to account for the psychological aspects of why we buy.
“Let’s face it – our phones are practically wearable tech already,” says Silva. These scaled-down computers have become not just habits but necessities, in many cases eliminating the need for watches. Nonetheless, people still wear timepieces (smart or otherwise) to reflect a sense of style and a point of view. It’s a conundrum that Apple designer Ive admits to struggling with – that is, how to create a mass produced, uniform object that still enables self-expression. Whether a range of strap and face options will be enough to satisfy fashionistas remains to be seen – and it may not even be the most crucial question.
While technology marches ever forward, fashion swings on a pendulum, which means that this spring’s fervour for tech-enhanced accessories could fuel next spring’s passion for antiquity. Already there are signs of a reactionary return to basics (the copy in a new ad for the highend German watchmaker Tutima reads “For men who don’t need GPS to know where they stand”).
“I’m just not sure about staying power,” says Anita Clarke, a Toronto writer whose blog “I Want – I Got” covers tech and fashion. Clark isn’t sure that Apple has pushed far enough when it comes to design (“Doesn’t it look a bit like they just strapped a band onto a nano?”) and also wonders about the appetite for high-end accessories that need to be replaced every year.
While Apple has so far kept quiet on its plans for future watches, the company’s reputation for phasing out early generations is well established. It’s a frustration that anyone who has tried to charge a 2013 iPhone with a 2014 cord knows all too well, and it also highlights an important distinction: We buy technology for now but expect high-end splurges to last a lifetime. A luxury watch in particular is a beloved artifact, the sort of accessory that is purchased to mark milestones and is often passed down between generations. When my dad died two years ago, I inherited his Cartier watch, which is a treasure, a gorgeous thing and a timepiece in that order. Truth be told, I’m not even sure that it keeps time (that’s what my iPhone is for).
It’s hard to imagine a person’s Apple Watch – which will remind us of appointments, hail our taxis and pay for our groceries – occupying the same sacred emotional space, assuming it stays around. “You’re not even going to be able to power them up in five years. They’ll just be sitting in somebody’s junk drawer like a first-generation iPod,” says Clark. “People will say, ‘Oh my God – why do you still have that?’