Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

Live Blog here:

http://live.theverge.com/tim-cook-d11-liveblog/

the Interesting stuff:

Q: What do you want from Samsung?

Tim: Well, I'm not negotiating this evening. I don't like it any more than I did last year. But I don't like copying. This is a values thing.

Walt: Let's talk about control. There's a lot of talk about open versus closed. Facebook did Facebook Home, which hasn't done very well. Eric Schmidt said it's great, it's fine. I understand that they came and talked to you about it, and Apple wouldn't let anyone take over the lock screen. Your keyboard and your recognition, predictive typing and all that stuff, hasn't kept pace with Android. They allow other people to make that technology, third parties can give you a choice. Have you given any thought to a little bit less control?


Tim: Yeah, of course. On the general topic of opening up APIs, I think you'll see us open up more in the future, but not to the degree that we put the customer at risk of having a bad experience. So there's always a fine line to walk there, or maybe not so fine.

Tim: We think the customer pays us to make choices on their behalf. I've see some of these settings screens, and I don't think that's what customers want. Do some want it? Yes.

Tim: But you'll see us open up more.

Walt: So there'll be some features you'll let third parties do?

Tim: Yes.

Kara: But there still is a sense, and Wall Street is sensitive to this, that's there's been an unprecedented downfall of the stock. And you have competent rivals now.


Tim: We've always had competent rivals. We fought against Microsoft, still fight against Microsoft in the PC space. We fought against hardware companies that were viewed to be incredible hardware companies, like Dell. But we've always suited up and fought. I don't see that different today.
Tim: Maybe 15 years ago we were in a different place because we were worried about going out of business.
Tim: Our north star is always on making the best products. The best phone, the best tablet, the best PC, the best MP3 player.

Kara: So the outside perception doesn't bother you? It exists, and it's not false, I don't think.

Tim: If you look at the stock, it's been frustrating. Frustrating for investors and all of us. This too is not unprecedented. The beauty of being around for a while is you see many cycles. You guys have seen many cycles — you've been around as long as I have.

Walt: So let's talk about products. Apple is generally perceived as a company capable of changing the game. You've done it 5, 6 times. It's been a while — the iPad mini was a really good move, but it's not a game changing product the way the iPad was.

Tim: It wasn't a new category — many people define innovation as a new category.

Walt: I'm not doing word games here. You need hits. It's been a while. Are you still that company?

Tim: Yes, we're still that company. We have some incredible plans that we've been working on for a while. We have incredible ideas. The same culture and largely the same people that brought you the iPhone, the iPad mini, the iPod and some who brought you the Mac, the same culture is there. I think we have several more game changers in us.

Kara: So let's talk wearables. Google Glass — what's your take on it?

Tim: There are some positives in the product. It's probably likely to appeal to certain vertical markets. The likelihood that it has broad appeals is hard to see.

Tim: I think wearables is incredibly interesting. It could be a profound area.

Kara: So glasses, clothing? Where are you interested?

Tim: I'm interested in a great product. I wear glasses because I have to. I don't know a lot of people who wear them because they don't have to.

Tim: I think from a mainstream point of view, glasses are risky.

Tim: To convince people they have to wear something, it has to be incredible. If we asked a room of 20-year olds to stand up if they're wearing a watch, I don't think anyone would stand up.

Tim: I don't think it has to be just that. I think other wearable ideas could be interesting. The sensor thing is exploding.

Walt: We are going to ask about taxes, but we want to talk about Android. You started the modern smartphone movement, and now you've seen Android swamp you in a big way in terms of units and carriers. How do you feel? This has happened pretty fast, maybe in the last 18 months.

Tim: Do I look at it? Of course. I don't have my head stuck in the sand. For us, winning has never been about making the most. Arguably we make the best PC, we don't make the most. We make the best music player, we wound up making the most. We make the best tablet, we make the most. We make the best phone, we don't make the most phones.

Tim: To assess the health, just like with your body, you take a number of measurements. You don't just have to look at usage — you could look at tablet web share in North America. iPad is in the 80s. IBM did a study on ecommerce in the United States and they looked at every mobile device and what was bought off of those, and it was shocking. There were twice as many ecommerce transactions on iPad than on all Android devices combined. All Android tablets plus phones.


Tim: What I'm pointing out to you is that the market share isn't twice as much as all of these combined. But the usage is.

Walt: So what's your theory? People are buying Android products and putting them in a drawer? That's a serious question.

Tim: Globally I think there are a lot of phones that are called smartphones that if we got together, we'd call it a feature phone, and the user uses it like a feature phone.

Tim: I think you've got some tablets where they were bought and the experience isn't good and it isn't used very much. I look at my usage of the iPad and it's significant now. It's changed the game.

Tim: People don't say that about Android tablets.

Tim: No matter what business you're in, ultimately the customer is the judge. iPad has the highest customer satisfaction of any tablet. That's what we're about. Not winning awards, enriching lives. Not making the most.

Walt: There seem to be people that like a lot bigger screens. And then there seem to people that like things that are between phones and tablets, where there's a stylus. Does a large screen or a stylus, are those different enough?


Tim: At a macro level, a large screen today comes with a lot of tradeoffs. When you look at the size, but they also look at things like do the photos show the proper color? The white balance, the reflectivity, battery life. The longevity of the display. There are a bunch of things that are very important. What our customers want is for us to weigh those and come out with a decision. At this point we think the Retina Display is the best.

Tim: In a hypothetical world where those tradeoffs didn't exist, you could see a bigger screen as a differentiator.

Still live

 

[Anticitizen One]

Apple will kill the Xbox One

 

[LCfiner]

Regarding the lockdown of iOS

Tim: Yeah, of course. On the general topic of opening up APIs, I think you'll see us open up more in the future, but not to the degree that we put the customer at risk of having a bad experience. So there's always a fine line to walk there, or maybe not so fine.

So maybe some of our desires to have better app communication or digs into the OS might be coming around.

 

[Buckethead]

Walt Mosspuppet talks to Tim Cook at AllThingsD

 

[ComputerMKII]

He's right about Google Glass.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Spot on about google glass.

 

[Emarv]

Regarding the lockdown of iOS

Tim: Yeah, of course. On the general topic of opening up APIs, I think you'll see us open up more in the future, but not to the degree that we put the customer at risk of having a bad experience. So there's always a fine line to walk there, or maybe not so fine.

So maybe some of our desires to have better app communication or digs into the OS might be coming around.

Yeah. This has been the most interesting thing he's said tonight.

 

[CharlieDigital]

He's right about Google Glass.

Spot on about google glass.

He's wrong about Google Glass and they're about to be relegated to the pre-Jobs dark ages once again.

He believes that people won't want to wear glasses because they don't need to.

He's wrong.

He believes that glasses are like watches and that because young people don't wear watches, they won't wear glasses.

He's wrong.

He's salty. Very salty. Really, think hard. What is the next great iDevice? How will they drive software sales and app sales for the next 10 years? iPhone marketshare is already on the decline; how will they innovate to drive demand?

Within the next 5 years:

- Google will deliver augmented reality via Glass.
- Google will deliver self-driving cars.
- Google will deliver near-AI level interfaces to data.

What's Apple going to do? 5" iPhone? REVOLUTIONARY. Flat UI design? MUST HAVE TOTALLY ORIGINAL.

 

[Futureman]

There'll be all kinds of wearable tech and glass will be one category. So I think Cook is right in a way.

I don't really buy that Apple are innovators anymore as Cook says. Prove me wrong Apple.

 

[LCfiner]

Can't tell if charliedigital's post is satire.

If it is not, please post pictures of people (not models for press shots) wearing google glass instead of normal looking glasses. It's a profound difference.

 

[oatmeal]

He's wrong about Google Glass and they're about to be relegated to the pre-Jobs dark ages once again.

He believes that people won't want to wear glasses because they don't need to.



He's wrong.

He believes that glasses are like watches and that because young people don't wear watches, they won't wear glasses.



He's wrong.

He's salty. Very salty. Really, think hard. What is the next great iDevice? How will they drive software sales and app sales for the next 10 years? iPhone marketshare is already on the decline; how will they innovate to drive demand?

He's not salty.

When was the last great iDevice?

When was the last great anything else device? And not just a product that fits into the product type that Apple created?

 

[Stumpokapow]

Regarding the lockdown of iOS

Tim: Yeah, of course. On the general topic of opening up APIs, I think you'll see us open up more in the future, but not to the degree that we put the customer at risk of having a bad experience. So there's always a fine line to walk there, or maybe not so fine.

So maybe some of our desires to have better app communication or digs into the OS might be coming around.

From my perspective, the only thing that would be majorly good for me would be able to swap some of the default apps for alternate default apps. I'd probably swap maps for Google Maps, I'd swap Safari for Safari with an ad blocker. Not sure if I'd swap any others, maybe.

I know a lot of other people are really big on alternate keyboards but I've never really dug them even on Android devices. That initial training/switchover period is something I guess I never really got over.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Can't tell if charliedigital's post is satire.

If it is not, please post pictures of people (not models for press shots) wearing google glass instead of normal looking glasses. It's a profound difference.

My cousin who wears actual glasses wearing contacts and fake glasses.

You're living under a rock if you haven't seen frames become just another accessory.

When was the last great iDevice?

When was the last great anything else device? And not just a product that fits into the product type that Apple created?

iPhone was the last great iDevice. Important for primarily changing the way we consume and interact with data and creating an entirely new way to sell software.

iTunes was revolutionary in how it changed user expectations when it came to the purchase and consumption of digital content.

 

[RedAssedApe]

Can't tell if charliedigital's post is satire.

If it is not, please post pictures of people (not models for press shots) wearing google glass instead of normal looking glasses. It's a profound difference.

lol same thought here when I saw Lebron and Bieber as his examples of common folk clambering for eyewear.

 

[giga]

My cousin who wears actual glasses wearing contacts and fake glasses.

You're living under a rock if you haven't seen frames become just another accessory.

It's an accessory, but not a ubiquitous one. Same for 20 somethings and watches. Tim acknowledged that they have some appeal.

 

[numble]

My cousin who wears actual glasses wearing contacts and fake glasses.

You're living under a rock if you haven't seen frames become just another accessory.



iPhone was the last great iDevice. Important for primarily changing the way we consume and interact with data and creating an entirely new way to sell software.

iTunes was revolutionary in how it changed user expectations when it came to the purchase and consumption of digital content.

He asked for photos of Google Glass and not normal frames, and you show him photos of normal frames?

 

[CharlieDigital]

It's an accessory

Exactly. It's becoming like any other piece of accessory and an opportunity to make a fashion statement.

This is also kind of ignoring that folks wear sunglasses all the time.

He asked for photos of Google Glass and not normal frames, and you show him photos of normal frames?

Sorry, missed his detail because it was all in lower case.

Look, when you give a limited release of Google Glass to a bunch of techies and nerds in a first pass, the results will be obvious. But why make the distinction of models vs. normal people? That's like saying if attractive people wear something, they will look good wearing it. Isn't that pretty obvious and a tautology in the first place?

This viewpoint that it's not fashionable or appealing also assumes that the hardware won't evolve and become smaller when it releases to the general public.

I find that a weak position to take because as it evolves, it could well be the case that it becomes small enough to be no different than any normal pair of glasses.

Edit: here, Google image search for normal people wearing glass:

 

[LCfiner]

My cousin who wears actual glasses wearing contacts and fake glasses.

You're living under a rock if you haven't seen frames become just another accessory.

.

I asked for shots of google glasses not just people wearing glasses, lol. But I guess you're serious, so, whatever. We're never going to agree about the potential success for a google glass apparatus. No point going into it further.

Also, I think I like it under this rock called "my 30s" where I don't know people who wear fake frames as an affectation.

 

[giga]

Exactly. It's becoming like any other piece of accessory and an opportunity to make a fashion statement.

This is also kind of ignoring that folks wear sunglasses all the time.



Sorry, missed his detail because it was all in lower case.

Look, when you give a limited release of Google Glass to a bunch of techies and nerds in a first pass, the results will be obvious. But why make the distinction of models vs. normal people? That's like saying if attractive people wear something, they will look good wearing it. Isn't that pretty obvious and a tautology in the first place?

This viewpoint that it's not fashionable or appealing also assumes that the hardware won't evolve and become smaller when it releases to the general public.

I find that a weak position to take because as it evolves, it could well be the case that it becomes small enough to be no different than any normal pair of glasses.

The second part of my post is important too. Apple wants to make devices that have broad appeal. That's why Tim answered it the way he did. He doesn't see people wearing glasses unless they really need to. But he does acknowledge some markets have an appeal for it. I don't think that's unreasonable. Hardly salty.

 

[Treythalomew]

I wish Apple wasn't afraid to do drastic things with the core apps. There is zero reason Notes and Reminders should be two separate apps on iPhone and OS X. They've let other devs take over their stock apps but you usually lose a lot of functionality moving from a stock app to something third party.

They need to get back to innovating on the app and OS level or let the gates open enough for something like Google Maps to function the same as Apple maps.

Doubt anything is going to be happening anytime soon with their yearly iOS schedule and this year being a visual move.

 

[numble]

Exactly. It's becoming like any other piece of accessory and an opportunity to make a fashion statement.

This is also kind of ignoring that folks wear sunglasses all the time.

Sorry, missed his detail because it was all in lower case.

Look, when you give a limited release of Google Glass to a bunch of techies and nerds in a first pass, the results will be obvious. But why make the distinction of models vs. normal people? That's like saying if attractive people wear something, they will look good wearing it. Isn't that pretty obvious and a tautology in the first place?

This viewpoint that it's not fashionable or appealing also assumes that the hardware won't evolve and become smaller when it releases to the general public.

I find that a weak position to take because as it evolves, it could well be the case that it becomes small enough to be no different than any normal pair of glasses.

I hate futurists who argue about the future with someone in the present.

Someone tells you to evaluate a product that is out there, you evaluate based on its hypothetical evolved future.

People that found no mass appeal in a $599 4 GB, 256 MB iPhone OG in 2007 are not wrong because of the mass appeal of a $0-$200 iPhone available 5 years in the future.

Cook says Glass has limited appeal now, and it needs an incredible experience to get broad appeal. And it currently does not have an incredible experience.

 

[RibMan]

I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, but in my opinion, Google Glass is a great idea in the wrong form factor. Apple is in a prime position to release a computer for your body, so I really hope they deliver something incredible.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I asked for shots of google glasses not just people wearing glasses, lol. But I guess you're serious, so, whatever. We're never going to agree about the potential success for a google glass apparatus. No point going into it further.

Gave you plenty. You could have googled it yourself.

Also, I think I like it under this rock called "my 30s" where I don't know people who wear fake frames as an affectation.

It's happening. Sorry. I don't see the issue; at heart, it's just another form of accessorizing one's look nowadays.

The second part of my post is important too. Apple wants to make devices that have broad appeal. That's why Tim answered it the way he did. He doesn't see people wearing glasses unless they really need to. But he does acknowledge some markets have an appeal for it. I don't think that's unreasonable. Hardly salty.

Broad appeal? That's why I gave an example of Lebron and Bieber wearing fake glasses. Lebraon and Bieber are pretty broad to me in terms of market appeal.

A search of athletes in fake glasses or celebrities in fake glasses will yield tons of hits. Do I need to google that for you, too?

You guys seem to be projecting "I would not wear glasses" or "I would not wear fake glasses" to "No one who doesn't need glasses would wear fake glasses".

 

[giga]

Gave you plenty. You could have googled it yourself.



It's happening. Sorry.



Broad appeal? That's why I gave an example of Lebron and Bieber wearing fake glasses.

Showing two celebrities wearing fake glasses is not a legitimate example of broad appeal or ubiquitousness. You'll need to show me numbers where a significant portion of a population are wearing fake glasses. Only then will that argument have some merit.

 

[numble]

Gave you plenty. You could have googled it yourself.



It's happening. Sorry.



Broad appeal? That's why I gave an example of Lebron and Bieber wearing fake glasses. Lebraon and Bieber are pretty broad to me in terms of market appeal.

Maybe you should read the rest of the interview where he says a lot of companies will explore the space and try to solve the problem of providing an incredible experience. He is evaluating the product Google Glass as it exists today, not the category of the product. Like how you can evaluate that the iPhone OG at $599 on only 1 carrier in the world in 2007 has no broad appeal, but not be making a judgment call on the future of the product category.

Tim: There are lots of gadgets in the space. I would say that the ones that are doing more than one thing, there's nothing great out there that I've seen. Nothing that's going to convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band or a watch or whatever to wear one. At least I haven't seen it. So there's lots of things to solve in this space.

Tim: It's an area that's ripe for exploration, it's ripe for us to get excited about. Lots of companies will play in this space.

 

[border]

People wear fake glasses because they are cool frames that looks stylish.

People do not wear fake glasses so that they can look like someone in a straight-to-video science fiction film.

 

[LCfiner]

Gave you plenty. You could have googled it yourself.

Yes, I could have. here I just did.

This is not the same as friggin Justin Bieber wearing fake designer frames. Not sure why you were implying that it is equivalent.

 

[Raitosaito]

People wear fake glasses because they are cool frames that looks stylish.

People do not wear fake glasses so that they can look like someone in a straight-to-video science fiction film.

Pretty much

 

[Zaptruder]

People don't *have* to wear glasses if they have bad vision.

They just want to, because the small inconvenience of wearing glasses is a damn sight better than the large inconvenience of having bad vision.

Now Google Glasses... well, it's like normal glasses - you'll be able to see things you couldn't without them.

If the things that you see have a sufficient value proposition, you'll wear them despite the inconvenience.


Of course that value proposition is variable dependent on the person - but the vast majority of people can be 'captured' by some sort of augmented perception value.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Yes, I could have. here I just did.

This is not the same as friggin Justin Bieber wearing fake designer frames. Not sure why you were implying that it is equivalent.

They are two parts of the same discussion.

Tim: I'm interested in a great product. I wear glasses because I have to. I don't know a lot of people who wear them because they don't have to.

1) People do not like to wear glasses. Which is Tim's assertion that he wears them because he needs them; the implication is that people won't wear glasses if they don't have to (in fact, he states it explicitly).

This is not true because it has been a trend now for quite a while. Even more basically, people have accessorized with sunglasses for a long time now so I think it's transitioning to becoming even more mainstream.

2) Because people are already willing to wear glasses if they don't need to, Tim's assertion is pretty blind to how eyewear is becoming just another accessory.

Tim Cook is completely off the point because it's plain as day that many folks will wear frames, even if they don't need prescription eyewear.

Showing two celebrities wearing fake glasses is not a legitimate example of broad appeal or ubiquitousness. You'll need to show me numbers where a significant portion of a population are wearing fake glasses. Only then will that argument have some merit.

How many do I need to show? I already showed my cousin as well. Do you need me to google that for you? Normal people wearing frames?

Walk down a New York street and you'll see it yourself. Trawl your facebook and if you have 20-something friends, you will see it. I mean it's like you're claiming I'm making up a fashion trend and it doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

He's wrong about Google Glass and they're about to be relegated to the pre-Jobs dark ages once again.

He believes that people won't want to wear glasses because they don't need to.



He's wrong.

He believes that glasses are like watches and that because young people don't wear watches, they won't wear glasses.



He's wrong.

He's salty. Very salty. Really, think hard. What is the next great iDevice? How will they drive software sales and app sales for the next 10 years? iPhone marketshare is already on the decline; how will they innovate to drive demand?

Within the next 5 years:

- Google will deliver augmented reality via Glass.
- Google will deliver self-driving cars.
- Google will deliver near-AI level interfaces to data.

What's Apple going to do? 5" iPhone? REVOLUTIONARY. Flat UI design? MUST HAVE TOTALLY ORIGINAL.

Both of those people look like idiots and are acting on a trend. They're not going to wear lensless glasses every day forever.

 

[demon]

I'll eat my own dick if Google Glass catches on in the mainstream.

My own dick.

lol

 

[ZaCH3000]

People wear fake glasses because they are cool frames that looks stylish.

People do not wear fake glasses so that they can look like someone in a straight-to-video science fiction film.

Not only that, but the glasses thing is a fashion trend. In ten years, the trend will be a dinosaur of an accessory in the fashion world.

His comparison to the watch sums it up better.

I'd be surprised to see Glass succeed. However, I'm eager to see how the marketplace reacts to such a product. Being wrong for me would be a learning experience, one that I look forward to. If I'm right, then I know my compass is working right.

 

[Cipherr]

Can't tell if charliedigital's post is satire.

If it is not, please post pictures of people (not models for press shots) wearing google glass instead of normal looking glasses. It's a profound difference.

Its a ridiculous request seeing as Glass isn't available for normal people yet.... So..... what the hell do you expect?


You can walk into a store and buy non prescription lenses and put them on. Glass isn't available at retail. The only people that have them are like 1500 beta testers and press + employees of the company.

In any case, every response reads just as expected. Cautious not to shit on the idea, but won't give any ground to those currently exploring it. While leaving the door open so when they make something thats clearly derivative or in that same line, they can use the "But we did it our way/right" line to sidestep the hypocrisy. You know... larger screens are 'blah' until we do it the 'right' way.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I'll eat my own dick if Google Glass catches on in the mainstream.

My own dick.

Start practicing yoga.

Not only that, but the glasses thing is a fashion trend. In ten years, the trend will be a dinosaur of an accessory in the fashion world.

I highly doubt it because it has an underlying parallel that is already used heavily as an accessory: shades.

More importantly, a large part of the population already needs prescription eyewear.

Frames will never go out of style.

 

[numble]

They are two parts of the same discussion.



1) People do not like to wear glasses. Which is Tim's assertion that he wears them because he needs them.

This is not true because it has been a trend now for quite a while. Even more basically, people have accessorized with sunglasses for a long time now so I think it's transitioning to becoming even more mainstream.

2) Because people are already willing to wear glasses if they don't need to, Tim's assertion is pretty blind to how eyewear is becoming just another accessory.

You ignore the rest of his discussion about needing a great product and saying there's a big future in the category. He is evaluating the product, not the product category. This would be obvious when he says nobody wants to wear watches, despite WSJ/NYT/Bloomberg confirming an Apple watch coming, and this falls along the same "declare current implementations horrible" MO that Jobs has had for years (nobody wants a cheap MP3 player, nobody wants to watch video on an iPod, nobody wants native apps).

 

[Zaptruder]

I hate futurists who argue about the future with someone in the present.

Someone tells you to evaluate a product that is out there, you evaluate based on its hypothetical evolved future.

People that found no mass appeal in a $599 4 GB, 256 MB iPhone OG in 2007 are not wrong because of the mass appeal of a $0-$200 iPhone available 5 years in the future.

Cook says Glass has limited appeal now, and it needs an incredible experience to get broad appeal. And it currently does not have an incredible experience.

It is sufficiently appealing to me now that I would be interested in picking one up at a $300-$500 price point.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think they look pretty alright. Not so intrusive that, that's all you're going to see; especially as I wear glasses.

In that sense, there's certainly a market there for these devices - although more likely than not, quite niche at this point (not dissimilar to any new market segment. Not dissimilar to smartphones or even cell phones before them).


But if there's a difference between our stance (yes, this technology is limited now) and yours (yes, this technology is limited now), it's the matter of certainty - that this market will take off in the future once the technology improves sufficiently to provide that mass market killer app.

So of course we'd be arguing in future terms - because you're doubtful that this market segment will take off, and while you don't believe it's out of the possibility, you're very skeptical. Your continued reference to the *if* of its success makes this much obvious.

 

[CharlieDigital]

You ignore the rest of his discussion about needing a great product and saying there's a big future in the category. He is evaluating the product, not the product category. This would be obvious when he says nobody wants to wear watches, despite WSJ/NYT/Bloomberg confirming an Apple watch coming, and this falls along the same "declare current implementations horrible" MO that Jobs has had for years (nobody wants a cheap MP3 player, nobody wants to watch video on an iPod, nobody wants native apps).

Except he basically explicitly says "no one wants to wear glasses unless they have to" in dismissing Glass

Tim: I'm interested in a great product. I wear glasses because I have to. I don't know a lot of people who wear them because they don't have to.

This is simply wrong.

 

[numble]

It is sufficiently appealing to me now that I would be interested in picking one up at a $300-$500 price point.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think they look pretty alright. Not so intrusive that, that's all you're going to see; especially as I wear glasses.


But if there's a difference between our stance (yes, this technology is limited now) and yours (yes, this technology is limited now), it's the matter of certainty - that this market will take off in the future once the technology improves sufficiently to provide that mass market killer app.

So of course we'd be arguing in future terms - because you're doubtful that this market segment will take off, and while you don't believe it's out of the possibility, you're very skeptical. Your continued reference to the *if* of its success makes this much obvious.

How am I doubtful? I'm posting Tim Cook quotes about how he thinks the category is ripe for exploration and for many companies to play in.

 

[giga]

They are two parts of the same discussion.



1) People do not like to wear glasses. Which is Tim's assertion that he wears them because he needs them; the implication is that people won't wear glasses if they don't have to (in fact, he states it explicitly).

This is not true because it has been a trend now for quite a while. Even more basically, people have accessorized with sunglasses for a long time now so I think it's transitioning to becoming even more mainstream.

2) Because people are already willing to wear glasses if they don't need to, Tim's assertion is pretty blind to how eyewear is becoming just another accessory.

Tim Cook is completely off the point because it's plain as day that many folks will wear frames, even if they don't need prescription eyewear.



How many do I need to show? I already showed my cousin as well. Do you need me to google that for you? Normal people wearing frames?

Walk down a New York street and you'll see it yourself. Trawl your facebook and if you have 20-something friends, you will see it. I mean it's like you're claiming I'm making up a fashion trend and it doesn't exist in the real world.

Hi. I can google ridiculous examples of celebrities with many different fashion faux pas and it wouldn't mean it is now ubiquitous or generally accepted.

Anecdotal evidence is hardly credible too. The majority of my friends are in their mid 20s and maybe 1% wear fake glasses on some occasions.

So again, try and find more concrete and legitimate arguments about how common this is among the general populace.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Hi. I can google ridiculous examples of celebrities with many different fashion faux pas and it wouldn't mean it is now ubiquitous or generally accepted.

Anecdotal evidence is hardly credible too. The majority of my friends are in their mid 20s and maybe 1% wear fake glasses on some occasions.

So again, try and find more concrete and legitimate arguments about how common this is among the general populace.

I mean if you don't want to accept it as a trend, that's fine -- up to you.

It's out there and celebrities and athletes are typically the vanguard of fashion and driving what's popular.

But even ignoring that, a large part of the population wears sunglasses and a large part of the population wears prescription eyeglasses. I don't even understand this viewpoint that people refuse to wear eyewear....

I mean, that's all frames are - eyewear. If you define eyewear as necessarily prescription, then that's where your thinking is flawed.

 

[numble]

Except he basically explicitly says "no one wants to wear glasses unless they have to" in dismissing Glass



This is simply wrong.

You ignored the rest of his discussion. His context is that it needs to be a great product for it to have broad appeal, and he doesn't see a great product. The context is not fashion. Again, this is the same Apple MO of declaring all current implementations unappealing. Steve Jobs was famous for saying nobody wants to watch video on an iPod, nobody wants a flash-based MP3 player, nobody wants a larger iPhone or smaller iPad. Cook is even saying nobody wants a watch when it's all but confirmed that they're making one.

Tim: There are lots of gadgets in the space. I would say that the ones that are doing more than one thing, there's nothing great out there that I've seen. Nothing that's going to convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band or a watch or whatever to wear one. At least I haven't seen it. So there's lots of things to solve in this space.

Tim: It's an area that's ripe for exploration, it's ripe for us to get excited about. Lots of companies will play in this space.

 

[Cipherr]

Hi. I can google ridiculous examples of celebrities with many different fashion faux pas and it wouldn't mean it is now ubiquitous or generally accepted.

Anecdotal evidence is hardly credible too. The majority of my friends are in their mid 20s and maybe 1% wear fake glasses on some occasions.

So again, try and find more concrete and legitimate arguments about how common this is among the general populace.

Im not sure what you are really asking him for Giga. Your first paragraph there shits on using celebrities as an example. But he posted realtives and others, your second paragraph pre-disqualifies all 'anecdotal evidence' in a way that basically means nothing he posts will pass your personal standard for showing that people do actually wear non prescription frames. Then your third asks him to bring you more data.

What data exactly are you looking for? What would qualify exactly? Do we just link the articles about it? Or the growing number of companies that seem to sell them? Or what? I almost find it hard to believe that you havent noticed the trend of horn rimmed hipster goggles. That shits everywhere. Especially with young people.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This is simply wrong.

So celebrities + random people on the streets of New York = most people now?

A product is ubiquitous when grandma is using it. Grandma probably uses iTunes or owns an iProduct. Grandma probably does not wear fake glasses. Grandma definitely doesn't wear Google Glass-style eyewear and wouldn't even if she had access to it right now.

 

[giga]

I mean if you don't want to accept it as a trend, that's fine -- up to you.

It's out there and celebrities and athletes are typically the vanguard of fashion and driving what's popular.

But even ignoring that, a large part of the population wears sunglasses and a large part of the population wears prescription eyeglasses. I don't even understand this viewpoint that people refuse to wear eyewear....

Have you been looking over my posts where I say that some markets have an appeal to it?

I don't even get how sunglasses and prescriptions got tied into this. That is obvious.

 

[CharlieDigital]

You ignored the rest of his discussion. His context is that it needs to be a great product for it to have broad appeal, and he doesn't see a great product. The context is not fashion.

You ignored the rest of his discussion where he explicitly states that one of the reasons he believes it will fail is because people won't want to wear eyewear if they don't need it.

See how that works?

Again, this is the same Apple MO of declaring all current implementations unappealing. Steve Jobs was famous for saying nobody wants to watch video on an iPod, nobody wants a flash-based MP3 player, nobody wants a larger iPhone or smaller iPad. Cook is even saying nobody wants a watch when it's all but confirmed that they're making one.

That's fine, but he's wrong on Glass and iWatch will fail (it will be pretty epic).

Have you been looking over my posts where I say that some markets have an appeal to it?

I don't even get how sunglasses and prescriptions got tied into this. That is obvious.

It's pretty easy to see that frames are the equivalent of sunglasses without the lenses.

Viewed from that perspective, it's not hard to see why it can be easily see as an accessory, much as sunglasses are even for those that don't wear a prescription.

In other words, people who don't wear prescription eyewear are already used to wearing eyewear as an accessory in the form of sunglasses.

Seems like pretty basic logic to me.

 

[giga]

Im not sure what you are really asking him for Giga. Your first paragraph there shits on using celebrities as an example. But he posted realtives and others, your second paragraph pre-disqualifies all 'anecdotal evidence' in a way that basically means nothing he posts will pass your personal standard for showing that people do actually wear non prescription frames. Then your third asks him to bring you more data.

What data exactly are you looking for? What would qualify exactly? Do we just link the articles about it? Or the growing number of companies that seem to sell them? Or what? I almost find it hard to believe that you havent noticed the trend of horn rimmed hipster goggles. That shits everywhere. Especially with young people.

My argument has always been that fake glasses are not ubiquitous. Ubiquitous in the way that people drive cars, use smartphones, and send text messages.

 

[Cipherr]

My argument has always been that fake glasses are not ubiquitous. Ubiquitous in the way that people drive cars, use smartphones, and send text messages.

Well there's a humongous rift between ubiquitous and trendy. And honestly, a lot of times, trendy precedes ubiquity. We have seen it happen in the electronics field a lot of times. Hell, text messaging itself was trendy before it was ubiquitous.

I was under the impression that he was just saying that non prescription lenses are a trend (they definitely are), not that they are ubiquitous (they most certainly are not).

 

[Guevara]

Some people may or may not wear glasses just for style, but either way Google Glasses look dumb on everyone. Fedora.0

 

[CharlieDigital]

My argument has always been that fake glasses are not ubiquitous. Ubiquitous in the way that people drive cars, use smartphones, and send text messages.

OK. But glasses and sunglasses are already ubiquitous. Folks wearing frames as eyewear only extends that percentage of the population that wears some form of eyewear, including corrective and non-corrective.

According to the Vision Council of America, approximately 75% of adults use some sort of vision correction. About 64% of them wear eyeglasses, and about 11% wear contact lenses, either exclusively, or with glasses. Over half of all women and about 42% of men wear glasses. Similarly, more women than men, 18% and 14% respectively, wear contacts. Of those who use both contacts and eyeglasses, 62% wear contact lenses more often.

http://glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html