It's a joke even before looking at the price. "3D-knitted" WTF is that? Isn't all knitting in "3D"?
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?
> Is Apple expanding to the "luxury" fashion market?
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.
Lmao yeah I checked the domain after that. Cannot believe a person seriously wrote that. Inspired by the concept of a piece of cloth is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.
Sometimes I think they’re messing with us. This is more ridiculous than that monitor stand from a few years ago
No, you just aren’t familiar with the term. It has a specific meaning in the context. It’s this: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/100361 and it’s well known to customers familiar with the popular Issey Miyake label (which does something like $85 million in sales)
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.
You linked to something called “a piece of clothing” styled as A-POC.
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?
see my other reply. "cloth" is the correct one. and no I wouldn't use the original A-POC for a phone case (no one wants a piece of rigid fabric for a phone case). the construction has more to do with A-POC as it is made from one piece of material without seams while the pleated line has seams and is pleated. if you're curious you can see m.a+ for another spin on "one piece of material", where even shoes are made with one cut of leather
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"'
A–POC (A Piece of Clothing) and a piece of cloth communicate different ideas to most people. The MoMA article showed how the press release could have been written to be clear to anyone interested. And tech people should consider this in their writing.
"Cloth" is the correct one, sorry for not reading the link closely. I chose to share that one because of the illustrative photo, but they are incorrect in calling it "piece of clothing"
A–POC (A Piece of Cloth) and a piece of cloth communicate different ideas to most people. The Met article showed how the press release could have been written to be clear to anyone interested.
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
Ah ok thank you for the explanation, that’s actually super cool. At first it sounded like some ridiculous and unrelatable modern art stuff. Makes a lot more sense now.
It's not translated from Japanese, it's originally in English. "A-POC" for "A Piece of Cloth". It refers to garments sewn from a single cut of a ream of cloth. It was translated into Japanese as 一枚の布 which isn't any more meaningful, but the original trademark is in English.
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
Sure but the way his company translates "a piece of cloth" into Japanese has the same literal meaning. There's nothing more meaningful, it has the same exact meaning. My opinion is that it's chosen to be deliberately simplistic - what could be simpler or less expressive than a piece of fabric with fashion - because it highlights how much innovation in craft and resulting form results from the simple description taken as actually an extreme constraint: nothing but a single piece of cloth. And then when you perhaps think about it more, or see some of the work, you realize the complex ingenuity of it, in stark contrast to the simplicity of the phrase itself. That contrast enhances the impact by highlighting the gap between the humble description and the complexity of the result which nonetheless remains faithful to that simplicity.
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.
That use of quote marks is Japanese. It's used for emphasis, it gives the thing in quote marks an air of specialness like it's a fancy philosophical concept.
>Is Apple expanding to the "luxury" fashion market?
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.
