It seems they deal in both. Why is it a problem when devices are fashionable? Granted, the iPhone 4 is no revolution; Apple seems to pull off one of those only every 5 years or so, and they still have 2 to go since the last one. But still, I have always seen Apple (and NeXT, and Pixar) as Jobs' way of saying: let's make things better, and when we run out of better, let's make something else.

I'm waiting for the hi-tech version of PETA to come out with the equivalent of a 'FUR IS DEATH' campaign.

I like the comparison to fashion (especially in terms of seasons: waiting for "next year's i_____" is typical), but it seems like once you get to that comparison, you should try taking fashion seriously.

Not that you do this explicitly, but likening things to "fashion" or "haute couture" is a fairly common way to disparage them. What could one say about the productions and negotiations of the fashion industry that might shed light on what Apple is doing? I'm wary of this kind of comparison only because it sounds like a precursor to light culture warfare—something that people working in games and new media should be sensitive to as recent/current victims of similar dismissal/disregard.

@Jeff
It's not necessarily a problem. I'm just seeking to understand how Apple's presenting itself and how it's being received. As for them dealing in both, I think we're at a point when high tech is being overturned by fashion, in much the same way that, say, textiles were. More to think about in that regard for sure.

@Ben
But if you go naked, you'll need to buy a chic accessory to hold that iPhone!

@Nick
You got stuck in the spam filter (sorry) or I'd have added this reply to the one above.

Anyway, I reread the article and I don't think there's anything implicitly or explicitly disparaging about the fashion-tech comparison, even if I agree that fashion is a common way of effecting disparagement. That critique usually arrives through critiques of conspicuous consumption. But as you point out, it's worth delving deeper into things, perhaps in a context other than a blog. In this context, I was interested in making an observation without conclusion nor (as much as it's possible) judgement.

But isn't it ok that their definition of change leans towards hyperbole? I mean, the ad world is filled with 99% BS. Why should Apple act any different?

Maybe because you feel its message is riding the coattails of previous ads whose claims of "change" were legitimate?

I'm probably missing the point. Sorry :(

Oh, I totally expect hyperbole in ads. But I also think that what "change" has meant for Apple has changed over the years, as it were. It used to refer to doing new things in new ways. Now it refers to getting a new thing.

But...doesn't the new thing allow you to do new things in new ways? Like, say, do on-the-fly HD video editing of a videophone conversation you just had while walking through Times Square, then upload the finished video through the pearly gates of cyberspace? I seem to recall something like that from the keynote. I'm not able to do that, at least not until Thursday. I don't follow fashion too closely, but if Mario Prada's latest line of clothes enables similar upgrades to affordance in their users, I will be at least mildly surprised.

In brief, while I understand that the incentive structure for academia rewards insinuations of false consciousness among the hoi polloi and specious overanalysis of every bit of semiotic flotsam to cross one's path, it seems that you might want to look for a simpler and less insulting explanation for why people might want to upgrade their iPhone every 18 months or so.

For instance, given that an iPhone owner has already agreed that paying $100 a month to maintain a pocket networked exobrain is a worthwhile expense, and given that the actual device presumably has lost battery life and undergone usual wear-and-tear, please explain why you would _not_ spend an additional $200 or $300 on a brand-new and considerably-improved device, especially given that you get to keep the old one as a backup (or sell it on ebay for almost the same amount to a jailbreaker without a phone plan.)

In short, what exactly is your empirical evidence here—other than the fact that someone with a new product used hype in their advertising, which given the commonsensical definition of information as "a difference that makes a difference," means that you managed to spend hundreds of words saying literally nothing? I mean, have you noticed that every year electronics get _cheaper_ and _better_, to the point where the iPad someone bought last month probably cost less in real dollars than the Atari 2600 I got for Xmas 1977? And this is in and of itself such a qualitative difference from high fashion as to make your comparison useless except for purposes of pure academic onanism?

Jesse,

This is a blog. You were really hoping for science?

There's no critique of false consciousness here. There's not even a value judgement about the utility or lack of utility of fashion in this post... just an invitation to consider it as a contributing factor, which I think it clearly is. Prada et al had to get the well-off to want to buy new clothes each season, and more "downmarket" designers had to adopt those principles for the middle classes. Apple's doing just the same for consumer electronics, and I think that's a fact worth considering.

I think you're right that an iPad seems to "do" more than a new shirt, but who's to say that there aren't functional improvements in fashion too, over and above their social function? After all, a lot (not all) of the "new features" of Apple's products are really more like re-tailorings than sweeping changes.

PS - The Atari sold for just more than cost in 1977, its retail price of $199 equalling roughly $699 in today's dollars. The $499 iPad is reported to cost about $260 to manufacture. In real dollars, that would have been something like paying $80 in 1977 to manufacture an Atari, and selling it for $99, which is roughly the equivalent of $350 in 2009. This is a complex comparison, because Atari sold the VCS at only a small profit, whereas Apple makes most of their profit from hardware sales. So your analogy is somewhat fallacious, but only because it doesn't compare apples to apples, so to speak. Is that enough empirical evidence for you, brother?