MKBHD's point is that this would have worked the way you describe it a decade ago, but is Apple's brand and fans the same as they were back then? At some point doing something like this just makes you look greedy and out of touch.
If Microsoft had tried to sell a "limited edition" zoom sock for $220 it would have produced a lot of mockery and no sales.
> but is Apple's brand and fans the same as they were back then
Yes Apple is still an up-market brand. You can be a luxury company that sells products that start priced in the middle while offering high end stuff that also sells very well... or better, iPhone 15 Pro Max was their top selling individual item last year, not the standard iPhone 15.
Having a subset of the influencer/trendmakers who buy only the high end stuff helps push up the brands popularity. Even if it's only more novelty stuff like this.
This 'sock' is a very loud fashion item that will show up in celebrity photos and youtube videos.
If Microsoft had tried to sell a "limited edition" zoom sock for $220...
That's the entire point, though. Microsoft can't do this.
This move only works precisely because Apple is not just a tech company anymore, but (as dmix also points out) a luxury/fashion brand.
The fact that Microsoft would fail is the proof. This isn't a "tech accessory" play; it's a "luxury brand" play, where the "ridicule" from outsiders (i.e., tech-focused people) is part of the marketing that signals exclusivity to the target audience (fashion-focused people).
True, but that doesn't make it any more ridiculous. It is exactly this 'exclusivity' vibe that has always turned me off from Apple as a company. It's just some gear, and instead they want you to believe it is a whole different world when you're using their devices. People even use it as a filter to determine each others' social worth.
Rory made an excellent remark about how Rolls-Royce stopped showing their cars at car shows and instead shifted towards private jets and yachts events.
As he put it - when you're shopping for a $100M yacht, a $2 car is almost an impulse buy.
Apple seems to be running out of steam. Xiaomi, "the Apple clone," is now releasing cars and XR devices. Meanwhile, it has been a while since Apple released a new product line. The last one was the Apple Vision Pro. With Apple Intelligence, they have shown that they can't "think different" anymore.
Sure, Apple will remain a trillion-dollar company for a long time, partly because its competition keeps shooting itself in the foot. Windows and Android are hostile towards power users and bloat the system with pre-installed apps, and they are both stepping on the gas.
But the real question is: how long can brand loyalty alone sustain the hype of new Apple products? And when will Apple stop being considered a "growth" company?
HN users will complain when a company tries to be all-consuming and unfocused then others deride them as uninspired when they are only focusing on a core business (which in this case still makes Apple endless amounts of money).
This is just some high fashion accessory they release, like a clothing company selling wallets on the side. It's not a big deal.
I don’t think people here understand the pricing for this market category. This is not a phone case or a container, it is a handbag/shoulder bag, which can go for $100-500+ (do not underestimate the long tail for this market). The prominent display of Issey Miyake branding is indicative that this is a foray into fashion. Whether it looks good, or whether the Apple Pocket will be fashionable, is an open question, but it would be stupid and brand damaging for Apple to price this item lower.
$1465: That's what a nylon+paper bag from Issey Miyake costs. Then the price of this cut-up sock makes sense: it's not an iPhone accessory, it's a luxury fashion item.
Let's consider strategy. There are two variables: P, the price, and Q, the quantity. Of course by reducing P you increase Q, and vice versa, so besides being dependent on each other, they have an inverse relationship. At some pair, PQ is maximized.
Apple knows this. So of course they did not set the price P to maximize Q. They set the price P to maximize PQ.
The question should be why P maximizes PQ. I submit that it is because of dopey articles that create a luxury effect around the product. I believe that if necessary, Apple would (and may even already) write and publish these articles themselves.
People make irrational purchases all the time and I don't really see a problem with that. What makes me wince is when people are trying to rationalize their irrational purchases, especially with strangers. Or when strangers seek to make them feel silly or bad about it.
(1) makes companies market (lie) more aggressively, because it ends up working out.
(2) makes prices irrational, because if a bunch of stupid people will buy your shit product, why would you care about the 1% who actually do their research?
(1) But that's how commerce works. Does a product sell? Okay sell it more.
(2) People who "do their research" aren't entitled to anything. Maybe they just won't buy it? Then it's not for them. I don't understand what "makes prices irrational" would even mean in this context. The right price is whatever maximizes P * Q.
(1) You don't see the problem with people who are better at manipulating and lying to others through deceptive advertising getting a bigger market share? That's just so obviously bad for society.
(2) Suppose you need insulin to live, but it's suddenly become a meme to start snorting insulin and all the stupids make the price shoot through the roof. That's what stupid people "making prices irrational" looks like, and it happens with fads, or inferior products, or even allowing actual scams to be posted in online marketplaces. Happy smiles on paid actors should not be enough to make your product more appealing than your competitors', and yet the stupids will drive out of business people who don't engage in such pathological behavior.
My hypothesis is that irrationality is economically inefficient at a macro scale; dollars flowing through manufactured irrational purchases get centralized into Apple’s coffers to be directed via their inefficient centralized decision making.
This hypothesis of course may be false - maybe Apple is better suited to take those irrational dollars and deploy them more rationally.
I think the issue with the irrationality is that it isn't random. If some people made a mistake 20% of the time, completely randomly, when deciding between two products, it doesn't matter too much, and the dollars flow to the person who trembles less. However, humans can be exploited to make more mistakes. Gambling companies are a clear example, but I think run-of-the-mill advertising optimizes to be exploitative more than informative as well. Thus, all the dollars get sucked in by people who are actively anti-social, instead of those that offer a better product or make fewer mistakes.
The general public always mock companies who market to luxury markets, but that doesn't mean it's a bad business to be in or customers won't flock to it. This is nothing new.
That was released as a joke. Twenty years later and no longer released as a joke, Apple is showing they are still in touch with the sensibilities of the modern Apple customer.
People are so dumb! But, Apple has to make up for producing trash products and having to pay Google a cool billion a year cause their "Intelligence" is as dumb as their customers.
People can either immaturely complain fruitlessly or deal with the human condition and accept fashion is important to some, perhaps by profiting from the creation of fashionable novelty the market desires.
Screenshot this when the iPhone Pocket is the hot new product everyone must buy, but somehow I don't think these are even remotely in the same category. I don't think Ballmer laughing at the iPhone's price is in the same category as this or the wheels, somehow. Maybe I'm just not enough of a thought leader.
I’m not saying it’s going to be a hot new product that everyone must buy, I’m pointing out that “Apple product ridiculed online” is a completely meaningless non-event that it makes no sense to report on. It’s going to happen for excellent, incredibly successful products; it’s going to happen for bad products; and it’s going to happen to all the products in-between.
Except for all the young, fit people that want to track their workouts and health. Maybe the time of watches that just tell time has passed - I would argue even against that with the continuing existence of Swiss luxury brands - but watch as a small health monitor is still in full force.
And for sure people will buy it. I don't think there is a price point where some people would not buy it. Fashion doesn't make sense, it never has.
There is a great joke about this:
A woman rushes into Yves St. Laurent's studio.
"Oh Yves!" she cries, "you've got to help me, I'm in a panic, I have this gala coming up and I have no hat to wear"
Calmly, Yves walks to the nearest table, picks up some rolls of ribbon and starts draping them around the woman's head, and in 10 minutes flat he has made this fantastic creation.
She looks in the mirrow "Oh, Yves, you've saved me, how much do I owe you?"
He says "make it 2500 euros"
She starts yelling "2500 euros??? are you mad? for a bunch of ribbon?"
Calmly, Yves starts to unwind the ribbons spooling them up as he goes and when he's done he hands the woman the ribbons. "The ribbons, you can have for free."
Tangentially related: If only there were shirts and pants without stitching or seams of any kind. I murder clothing tags with obsessive vengeance. Microfiber, wool, and corduroy can burn in the ninth ring of the fiery underworld.
BBC trying to make a couple extra bucks with this ad after that oopsy with Trump. Coverage is coverage, veiled by mockery or not.
To people with bad taste who buy stupid garbage for thousands, such as any of the hideous big shoes of the last decade adorned with a fancy label, this is already on order.
Can't wait to hear the ATP hosts spend 45 min "not" glazing this thing like they do with every iPhone case
Ultimately, it's a fashion thing, it'll sell, I can't blame them for putting it out there, but I'd definitely wonder about any friends buying it
When the iPad came out in 2010, online commenters also ridiculed it. The jokes were so repetitive that people complained about them[0]
/r/technology is sadly not available from that day but the Internet was full of the same few jokes:
iPad?! More like maxipad amirite?
iPad? So they glued 4 iPod Touches together?
Lol, Apple making the same thing others already made but worse?!
Sadly, /r/technology on the day of the Airpods release is also missing. But I was able to find some threads on it soon after[1]
The thing of greatest value to most "netizens" (haha) is ridicule. They love dunking on stuff. In fact, even today if you go to reddit's front page you will almost certainly see a post from /r/clevercomebacks or /r/murderedbywords or so on and so forth.
I don't blame them. When I was young, I too found this enjoyable for reasons that seem so alien to me today I cannot even comprehend why I did it. I, a Linux using child, called the IE and Windows users "Microserfs" in moments of great wit. Perhaps pg was right in that dunking is adaptive for those primarily seeking engagement[2]
That's not to say that anyone is wrong or right about whether some product is good. I thought the iPhone sock was some kind of joke release, but I've definitely passed the point where I know what appeals to the kids (six-seven skibidi). It's just that a gauge that always reads 1.0 on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0 is not a gauge that you can use diagnostically.
HN has systems to prevent voting rings. Yes, sometimes clickbait makes it to the front page here. Sometimes people just gonna to be baited, even on HN. But flags won out on this one and it spent only an hour on the front page.
The article mentions MKBHD calling it a "litmus test," but it's more than that: it's a "brand anchor."
This product's primary purpose is to generate this exact wave of online ridicule and media coverage (like this BBC article).
It makes Apple's other "expensive" accessories (e.g., a $129 FineWoven case) seem perfectly reasonable by comparison.
It generates millions in free PR, all centered on the theme of "Apple as an exclusive, luxury brand."
They aren't selling a sock for $230. They are selling the conversation around it. As others have predicted, it will sell out.
MKBHD's point is that this would have worked the way you describe it a decade ago, but is Apple's brand and fans the same as they were back then? At some point doing something like this just makes you look greedy and out of touch.
If Microsoft had tried to sell a "limited edition" zoom sock for $220 it would have produced a lot of mockery and no sales.
> but is Apple's brand and fans the same as they were back then
Yes Apple is still an up-market brand. You can be a luxury company that sells products that start priced in the middle while offering high end stuff that also sells very well... or better, iPhone 15 Pro Max was their top selling individual item last year, not the standard iPhone 15.
Having a subset of the influencer/trendmakers who buy only the high end stuff helps push up the brands popularity. Even if it's only more novelty stuff like this.
This 'sock' is a very loud fashion item that will show up in celebrity photos and youtube videos.
If Microsoft had tried to sell a "limited edition" zoom sock for $220...
That's the entire point, though. Microsoft can't do this.
This move only works precisely because Apple is not just a tech company anymore, but (as dmix also points out) a luxury/fashion brand.
The fact that Microsoft would fail is the proof. This isn't a "tech accessory" play; it's a "luxury brand" play, where the "ridicule" from outsiders (i.e., tech-focused people) is part of the marketing that signals exclusivity to the target audience (fashion-focused people).
You're both right. You're describing it from Apple's point of view, he's seeing it as a normal person who isn't one of the marks.
True, but that doesn't make it any more ridiculous. It is exactly this 'exclusivity' vibe that has always turned me off from Apple as a company. It's just some gear, and instead they want you to believe it is a whole different world when you're using their devices. People even use it as a filter to determine each others' social worth.
Spot on! It's exactly how you sell a $200 t-shirt. You put it next to a $900 t-shirt.
Rory made an excellent remark about how Rolls-Royce stopped showing their cars at car shows and instead shifted towards private jets and yachts events.
As he put it - when you're shopping for a $100M yacht, a $2 car is almost an impulse buy.
Apple seems to be running out of steam. Xiaomi, "the Apple clone," is now releasing cars and XR devices. Meanwhile, it has been a while since Apple released a new product line. The last one was the Apple Vision Pro. With Apple Intelligence, they have shown that they can't "think different" anymore.
Sure, Apple will remain a trillion-dollar company for a long time, partly because its competition keeps shooting itself in the foot. Windows and Android are hostile towards power users and bloat the system with pre-installed apps, and they are both stepping on the gas.
But the real question is: how long can brand loyalty alone sustain the hype of new Apple products? And when will Apple stop being considered a "growth" company?
HN users will complain when a company tries to be all-consuming and unfocused then others deride them as uninspired when they are only focusing on a core business (which in this case still makes Apple endless amounts of money).
This is just some high fashion accessory they release, like a clothing company selling wallets on the side. It's not a big deal.
I don’t think people here understand the pricing for this market category. This is not a phone case or a container, it is a handbag/shoulder bag, which can go for $100-500+ (do not underestimate the long tail for this market). The prominent display of Issey Miyake branding is indicative that this is a foray into fashion. Whether it looks good, or whether the Apple Pocket will be fashionable, is an open question, but it would be stupid and brand damaging for Apple to price this item lower.
$1465: That's what a nylon+paper bag from Issey Miyake costs. Then the price of this cut-up sock makes sense: it's not an iPhone accessory, it's a luxury fashion item.
https://www.ssense.com/en-th/women/product/issey-miyake/whit...
I used to love browsing SSENSE, trying to figure out fashion. I still don’t get it.
I think the appeal of high fashion is indivisible from class signaling.
People understand exactly, hence the fuss. Someone finally yelled loud enough that the emperor has no clothes. People are shocked.
It isn't a handbag. It isn't a shoulder bag. It doesn't look good. I won't be fashionable. It isn't a open question. It's a sock.
Let's consider strategy. There are two variables: P, the price, and Q, the quantity. Of course by reducing P you increase Q, and vice versa, so besides being dependent on each other, they have an inverse relationship. At some pair, PQ is maximized.
Apple knows this. So of course they did not set the price P to maximize Q. They set the price P to maximize PQ.
The question should be why P maximizes PQ. I submit that it is because of dopey articles that create a luxury effect around the product. I believe that if necessary, Apple would (and may even already) write and publish these articles themselves.
I think that inflating the perceived value of the good beyond rationality is one of the main objectives of marketing.
People make irrational purchases all the time and I don't really see a problem with that. What makes me wince is when people are trying to rationalize their irrational purchases, especially with strangers. Or when strangers seek to make them feel silly or bad about it.
I see a problem with it. It
(1) makes companies market (lie) more aggressively, because it ends up working out.
(2) makes prices irrational, because if a bunch of stupid people will buy your shit product, why would you care about the 1% who actually do their research?
(1) But that's how commerce works. Does a product sell? Okay sell it more.
(2) People who "do their research" aren't entitled to anything. Maybe they just won't buy it? Then it's not for them. I don't understand what "makes prices irrational" would even mean in this context. The right price is whatever maximizes P * Q.
(1) You don't see the problem with people who are better at manipulating and lying to others through deceptive advertising getting a bigger market share? That's just so obviously bad for society.
(2) Suppose you need insulin to live, but it's suddenly become a meme to start snorting insulin and all the stupids make the price shoot through the roof. That's what stupid people "making prices irrational" looks like, and it happens with fads, or inferior products, or even allowing actual scams to be posted in online marketplaces. Happy smiles on paid actors should not be enough to make your product more appealing than your competitors', and yet the stupids will drive out of business people who don't engage in such pathological behavior.
My hypothesis is that irrationality is economically inefficient at a macro scale; dollars flowing through manufactured irrational purchases get centralized into Apple’s coffers to be directed via their inefficient centralized decision making.
This hypothesis of course may be false - maybe Apple is better suited to take those irrational dollars and deploy them more rationally.
I think the issue with the irrationality is that it isn't random. If some people made a mistake 20% of the time, completely randomly, when deciding between two products, it doesn't matter too much, and the dollars flow to the person who trembles less. However, humans can be exploited to make more mistakes. Gambling companies are a clear example, but I think run-of-the-mill advertising optimizes to be exploitative more than informative as well. Thus, all the dollars get sucked in by people who are actively anti-social, instead of those that offer a better product or make fewer mistakes.
The general public always mock companies who market to luxury markets, but that doesn't mean it's a bad business to be in or customers won't flock to it. This is nothing new.
The iPod Sock was 2004. Fashion has always loved the 20 Year Cycle!
That was released as a joke. Twenty years later and no longer released as a joke, Apple is showing they are still in touch with the sensibilities of the modern Apple customer.
It's difficult not to be somewhat impressed by Apples ability to build a luxury brand with such loyal customers.
My technical brain say "who would want that" but my business brain says "maybe I should buy more AAPL"
They will seed in a few dozen influencers and there will be lines out the door
People are so dumb! But, Apple has to make up for producing trash products and having to pay Google a cool billion a year cause their "Intelligence" is as dumb as their customers.
People can either immaturely complain fruitlessly or deal with the human condition and accept fashion is important to some, perhaps by profiting from the creation of fashionable novelty the market desires.
Maybe this is a new low for the more regular consumer facing stuff, but this is hardly new for Apple. The $1000 wheels come to mind.
Apple were also widely ridiculed for the iPad (just a big iPhone), AirPods (everybody who wears them looks goofy), and Apple Watch (ugly square).
Screenshot this when the iPhone Pocket is the hot new product everyone must buy, but somehow I don't think these are even remotely in the same category. I don't think Ballmer laughing at the iPhone's price is in the same category as this or the wheels, somehow. Maybe I'm just not enough of a thought leader.
I’m not saying it’s going to be a hot new product that everyone must buy, I’m pointing out that “Apple product ridiculed online” is a completely meaningless non-event that it makes no sense to report on. It’s going to happen for excellent, incredibly successful products; it’s going to happen for bad products; and it’s going to happen to all the products in-between.
Apple Watch also that no one not a boomer wears watches any longer.
Yeah this is out of touch. They're definitely still popular, and besides, older generations exist and their product preferences are valid
Except for all the young, fit people that want to track their workouts and health. Maybe the time of watches that just tell time has passed - I would argue even against that with the continuing existence of Swiss luxury brands - but watch as a small health monitor is still in full force.
You're kidding, right? It's ubiquitous. I see it everywhere. It's almost unusual to see someone wearing a watch that isn't one.
Or the fugly Beats Pill... things.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/08/18/beats-pill-vear-returns...
And for sure people will buy it. I don't think there is a price point where some people would not buy it. Fashion doesn't make sense, it never has.
There is a great joke about this:
A woman rushes into Yves St. Laurent's studio.
"Oh Yves!" she cries, "you've got to help me, I'm in a panic, I have this gala coming up and I have no hat to wear"
Calmly, Yves walks to the nearest table, picks up some rolls of ribbon and starts draping them around the woman's head, and in 10 minutes flat he has made this fantastic creation.
She looks in the mirrow "Oh, Yves, you've saved me, how much do I owe you?"
He says "make it 2500 euros"
She starts yelling "2500 euros??? are you mad? for a bunch of ribbon?"
Calmly, Yves starts to unwind the ribbons spooling them up as he goes and when he's done he hands the woman the ribbons. "The ribbons, you can have for free."
The fashion version of the old "stick of chalk: $1. Knowing where to draw the cross: $1000" story.
I love this
That kind of Apple product is always ridiculed online by people who obviously never stepped into an Apple Store.
Why not? It may be stupid, but I'm buying it if material feels right to my skin.
Tangentially related: If only there were shirts and pants without stitching or seams of any kind. I murder clothing tags with obsessive vengeance. Microfiber, wool, and corduroy can burn in the ninth ring of the fiery underworld.
I remember when Apple was mocked over iPad.
I predict it will sell very well.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45885813
BBC trying to make a couple extra bucks with this ad after that oopsy with Trump. Coverage is coverage, veiled by mockery or not.
To people with bad taste who buy stupid garbage for thousands, such as any of the hideous big shoes of the last decade adorned with a fancy label, this is already on order.
Can't wait to hear the ATP hosts spend 45 min "not" glazing this thing like they do with every iPhone case
Ultimately, it's a fashion thing, it'll sell, I can't blame them for putting it out there, but I'd definitely wonder about any friends buying it
When the iPad came out in 2010, online commenters also ridiculed it. The jokes were so repetitive that people complained about them[0]
/r/technology is sadly not available from that day but the Internet was full of the same few jokes:
Sadly, /r/technology on the day of the Airpods release is also missing. But I was able to find some threads on it soon after[1]The thing of greatest value to most "netizens" (haha) is ridicule. They love dunking on stuff. In fact, even today if you go to reddit's front page you will almost certainly see a post from /r/clevercomebacks or /r/murderedbywords or so on and so forth.
I don't blame them. When I was young, I too found this enjoyable for reasons that seem so alien to me today I cannot even comprehend why I did it. I, a Linux using child, called the IE and Windows users "Microserfs" in moments of great wit. Perhaps pg was right in that dunking is adaptive for those primarily seeking engagement[2]
That's not to say that anyone is wrong or right about whether some product is good. I thought the iPhone sock was some kind of joke release, but I've definitely passed the point where I know what appeals to the kids (six-seven skibidi). It's just that a gauge that always reads 1.0 on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0 is not a gauge that you can use diagnostically.
0: https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/auwq1/im_already_tire...
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/51r158/no_apple...
2: https://x.com/paulg/status/1659156372427087874?s=20
A thing about the internet: if it makes people laugh it will be repeated many, many times.
The ipad jokes were about its name, not the product itself. See also the Nintendo Wii.
Indeed. But the jokes about 4 iPod Touches glued together were also repeated many many times and that is about the product itself.
Online ridicule is meaningless. People ridicule everything that goes on to be successful. They also ridicule everything that goes on to fail.
... or wait a couple weeks and get the identical item from AliExpress for £2.20
Fact: Most Hotels provide dedicated chairs for buyers of this product.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Because this 220 pounds for a cut-up sock article resonates with the HN community?
HN has systems to prevent voting rings. Yes, sometimes clickbait makes it to the front page here. Sometimes people just gonna to be baited, even on HN. But flags won out on this one and it spent only an hour on the front page.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45885813
Because this place loves outrage just as much as any other community. And it’s no fun to make fun of others in a thread that gets flagged and hidden.
Because clickbait gets clicks! That's what makes it clickbait, rather than just being some nonsense nobody clicks on.
Flag it if you hate it.