10 ms·

Just some trivia (and an aside): The collaboration is with Issey Miyake. Steve Jobs black turtlenecks was Issey Miyakes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife

• nathan_compton 11mo ago
  The pants cost around 500 bucks? I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something. I usually buy cheap clothes and mend them and ten years for a pair of pants isn't unusual for me. I probably haven't spent $500 dollars on clothes in a year ever in my entire life (except maybe the year I bought a suit for getting married). I guess I'm just genuinely curious how you found yourself in the position of even contemplating $500 for pants.
  • NaomiLehman 11mo ago
    decent hand-sewn raw denim made in the EU/US jeans are minimum $500. and i'm talking non-designer. just fair wages and good materials.
  • cael450 11mo ago
    Yeah, that is wild. I can't imagine spending that kind of money on pants.
  • baggachipz 11mo ago
    I believe the word for it is "rich".
  • iamacyborg 11mo ago
    Pro-tip. You can buy them used for a significant discount to rrp.
  • flyinglizard 11mo ago
    Don't rule out until you've tried it. High end clothing (not just brand name, but real advanced stuff) is pretty amazing in how it makes you feel. I'm inclined to spend on anything I interact with, and clothes is pretty big interaction.
    • Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
      Sure, but you need to have a certain level of wealth before even considering it. $500 is a ridiculous sum for a pair of trousers. I've had €80 or €120 Levi's at one point when I had a bit more expendable income but they only lasted me two years. I'm back on affordable jeans now (when outside, when inside it's pajama pants all the way lmao), I think they're €30 or so. I'm sure the branded ones are "better" but is it to scale with the price? Are Levi's 4x as good as cheap ones? Are these Steve Jobs ones 16x as good?
      • NaomiLehman 11mo ago
        i don't think anyone is saying you should save up to buy $500 pants. you buy them if it's a rounding error of your bank statement
    • tavavex 11mo ago
      I wonder if there's an "ignorance is bliss" effect here that makes trying it not worth it for the average person. Think about it - to my knowledge, almost everyone spends ~0 seconds per day thinking about the comfort of their pants. But once you try something that feels as (allegedly?) supreme and heavenly as what you describe, you can't go back - you'll always feel that difference from now on, and now wearing something that you previously never paid any thought to would feel distinctly less comfortable. Kind of similar to how audiophiles train themselves to perceive the tiniest of flaws in the music they listen to and spend thousands of dollars to rectify those flaws, while everyone else keep ignorantly enjoying the flawed sound, not even being aware of the difference.
      • nathan_compton 11mo ago
        I try my best to remain ignorant of these sorts of things. I prefer my bliss.
  • ricochet11 11mo ago
    I once paid $1000 for some sneakers. I’m still regularly wearing them 7 years later. I’ve bought $50/$100 and they never last that long. It was an insane purchase at the time, done in a moment of jet lagged madness when my shoes fell apart in an airport. But over time it’s turned out to be a great investment. Smart, comfortable, well made.
    • lopis 11mo ago
      Which? I struggle to find any sneakers that last more than a couple years, while also avoiding the big brands.
    • jonathanlb 11mo ago
      As someone who is on the lookout for long-lasting durable products, what brand and model sneakers did you buy? How often do you wear these? I've heard that Common Projects are pretty good at a $400 retail price point, but it sounds like you got something else.
      • alejo 11mo ago
        I got a pair of Santoni’s leahther sneakers in 2017, for about $500. I still have them and while they worn out a bit, they are still nice. The most comfortable shoes I’ve ever owned. I remember describing them like “walking in clouds”. Never bought any of them and all the other pairs I got from different brands in the $200-$400 bracket have been awfully disappointing
      • wyre 11mo ago
        My understanding with Common Projects, is that if you are looking to spend $400 on a blank sneaker, they set the standard and have the most brand awareness, but now there are plenty of smaller brands making virtually identical sneakers with better materials and/or construction for the same price or less. Like with anything else, buying Common Projects you are paying for the brand (the subtle gold lettering on the side of their shoes).
      • lunias 11mo ago
        I got a pair of Common Projects Chelsea boots maybe 10 years ago now. I still have them, they're good shoes. I wore them all the time for the first year I got them. They don't make it into my rotation much now these days though. My most worn shoes now are: Guidi PL2, 11 by BBSxSalomon Bamba 2 high, Rick Owens "Vans", Rick Owens "Dunks", CCP Prosthetic Tornados, and Visvim Christo slides. Everything except the Bamba 2 highs is a replica and cost under $400.
  • nluken 11mo ago
    Different strokes for different folks. I'm a fashion lover but a fan of cheap cars, and I could equally say something similar about people who drive new luxury cars when there's plenty of reliable functionality to be had under $10k. There's a lot of craftsmanship that goes into nice clothes, and you can get way more expensive than $500. And fashion is a form of art in a way. What makes a painting worth thousands of dollars?
    • coffeebeqn 11mo ago
      I always have a hard time telling is it craftsmanship and superior materials or marketing
      • neom 11mo ago
        For clothes as a rule of thumb if you're not interested in doing a lot of research, items made in Portugal or Japan are more often than not priced fine enough, yes you'll pay some markup for a designer, but on average should last if you look after them.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  • reaperducer 11mo ago
    I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money Maybe he's amortizing them. He says they've lasted ten years, so that's $50/year. If they last another ten, that's $25/year. Oh, great. Now I've invented Pants-as-a-Service.
    • tonyedgecombe 11mo ago
      >Now I've invented Pants-as-a-Service. If you forget to renew then the zipper stops working.
  • kulahan 11mo ago
    $500 for something you might wear for a decade straight? A brand-new pair of Levis at JC Penny is gonna run you like $90 anyways. It's not that much more expensive. But also, quality has diminishing returns in basically every category. At the low end, it's extremely efficient to improve the quality of your product and charge a bit more. At the high end, you can't make any more inexpensive moves to set yourself apart, so you use higher end materials, fabrication methods, and workers.
    • embedding-shape 11mo ago
      > $500 for something [...] run you like $90 anyways. It's not that much more expensive. To be honest, I did abandoned school as quickly as I could and my math skills aren't that of my peers, but 5x times as much is pretty "much more expensive" for most people out there, not sure how someone can say else with a straight face. $100 vs $500 would easily be a "Can I eat properly the entire month?" decision for a lot of the population.
      • ethbr1 11mo ago
        Wrong comparison. The right comparison is "For people who can spend $500 on a pair of pants, what is the financial difference between $100 and $500?" For most of that subpopulation, not much.
    • Brendinooo 11mo ago
      > A brand-new pair of Levis at JC Penny is gonna run you like $90 anyways I'm seeing a range of around $33 to $60 at the moment, with other brands dipping under $30. https://www.jcpenney.com/g/men/jeans?id=cat100250010 https://www.jcpenney.com/g/men/jeans?id=cat100250010
      • kulahan 11mo ago
        Every pair on that page is ~$70, but some are on sale. I overassumed a little on inflation for them, I guess.
  • umpalumpaaa 11mo ago
    I never knew what a difference good pants can make. I usually just bought my pants from H&M/other retailers or Amazon. I usually bought what I considered good value pants for like $30-80. I then, out of curiosity, bought pants that were 2-4 times as expensive (~$150) and it really made a difference. I never really liked the pants I had… they never fit right… they felt very uncomfortable. The new pants I got about 2 years ago (the more expensive ones) were very very different. Very comfy. They also had a lot of nice features that I never knew I needed but that I now want by default… - A button that just "clicks". Most pants I usually owned had a traditional pants button. Those more expensive ones had buttons that just "clicked". Away goes the worry about a button falling off while you are on the go. - Pockets with hidden zippers: My pants have pockets and in those pockets are smaller pockets with a zipper. Perfect to store things that are small and easily lost. There are more "features" but those are the important ones. The most important feature is just the material that is used. I barely feel it. Also the company that makes those pants makes other things as well. I ordered a lot of cloths by now and the amazing thing is that everything they make fits me perfectly. I don't know how they do it… When I usually buy pants I have to try on like 10 pants to find one that fits. Even if I pick the "correct" size.
    • rootusrootus 11mo ago
      Alright, after that lead-in, you really need to tell us what the pants are.
      • umpalumpaaa 11mo ago
        It might be a well known brand to many folks – I am not sure since I am new in the US. My pants are all from Rhone Apparel.
        • rootusrootus 11mo ago
          Never heard of them. I'm always interested in a good value. I rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item, so if Rhone is decent then I may give them a try. Thanks for the tip!
  • onion2k 11mo ago
    I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something. I don't think Steve Jobs went shopping for pants. Nor do many of the people who buy this sort of garment. They either have an assistant who buys things for them, whose goal is to keep them happy and not blow a predetermined budget, or they go to a store and sit in a nice suite where a personal shopper suggests things to them. In either scenario the price of individual items probably don't even get a mention.
    • kridsdale1 11mo ago
      Steve was a notoriously picky shopper and obsessed with details. In the biography it says they went without a dishwasher or something in his house for half a year because he could never be satisfied with the geometry or finishing. So his billionaire wife washed dishes by hand.
      • onion2k 11mo ago
        I don't doubt it, but I don't think Steve was out there browsing at Lowe's either. You can be very picky and still not shop the way the rest of us shop.
        • astrange 11mo ago
          Palo Alto has its own reality distortion field that makes billionaires pretend they're 1950s middle class families, so he probably did shop at Ace Hardware.
  • cons0le 11mo ago
    statistically, inheritance
  • walletdrainer 11mo ago
    > but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something. It depends on how much you earn. I don’t mind spending tens of thousands on Loro Piana cashmere because it’s really nice, but at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial. Keep in mind that HN is packed with people with salaries above $1M/yr and entrepreneurs with way higher income levels. A few years ago I too would’ve considered $500 for pants to be absurd, at this point I just go to a tailor and pay slightly more than that but save tons of time in the long term and always have perfect fitting pants. The time savings alone are tremendous, after getting a pair fitted properly I can just order new ones whenever I need without having to spend hours going through shops looking for the right pair of pants.
    • frmersdog 11mo ago
      In this job market, in this political environment, with Luigi Mangione a Bonnie-and-Clyde-tier folk hero, the bit you quoted was perhaps a clue to the lack of wisdom in humblebragging that you spend a family's annual food budget on 5 pounds of spun sheep keratin. I imagine that I will be the bad guy for pointing this out. (Perhaps even to myself, considering that there's certainly utility in rich people yapping incautiously about the reasons others might want to turn on an Enes Yilmazer video and figure out where the panic room is.)
      • walletdrainer 11mo ago
        This feels like Reddit leaking over a little bit. Let me remind you that this is a forum operated by a VC fund looking for people to give lots of money to so they can build billion dollar businesses. Those who succeed are routinely celebrated here, but actually discussing that money being spent rapidly becomes judgmental. Hard to reconcile it being super cool to build an unicorn (a cute term we’ve come up with to describe billion dollar startups which have made their founders tremendously wealthy), but somewhat disgusting to actually have or spend that money. News.ycombinator.com seems like the wrong place to complain about capitalism. FWIW I don’t even get a Silicon Valley salary, am not in any way extraordinary, but have spent 10+ years building 100+ small online businesses out of which none have been particularly successful (but in total the little streams add up)
  • mmooss 11mo ago
    They save you from buying 10 pairs at $100. They not only are durable, including not fraying, etc., but keep their form and color, and they have a beautiful form and color to begin with. You get what you pay for (if you buy the right $500 pants). Someone outside IT might say, why pay for a Macbook when you can buy a $100 Chromebook? Why use Vim or Emacs when you can use Notepad/TextEdit (though those all cost the same!).
    • rvba 11mo ago
      Someone in IT will probably say "why pay for a Macbook, which is a toy, without even real MS Office, when you can buy a chinese configuralble laptop for same price that will have 256gb of RAM and a 5090"
  • thrw045 11mo ago
    This is kind of getting into the weeds a little bit but for me and a lot of others luxury items can be fun to own. You can get an affinity for certain designers style, whether it's Gucci, Louis Vuitton or Balenciaga. The items are ridiculously expensive sometimes but it's kind of a tough line to balance because the fact that they cost so much make them more special. So how cheap should they be before they don't feel as special anymore? Is it all a bit irrational? I guess. There isn't a clear definitive defense for luxury items I think other than the feeling they can give. Some people can spend all their income on luxury items rather than other discretionary items because it's the most fun to them.
    • bigyabai 11mo ago
      > There isn't a clear definitive defense for luxury items I think other than the feeling they can give. Counterpoint: that is exactly what someone who charges $500 for a $5 pair of pants would want you to think. If you boil it down far enough, the principles you are describing are just inequality and luxury marketing.
      • thrw045 11mo ago
        While that is definitely at play there is a deep rooted instinct in humanity to show status and to have something that is worth a lot. It goes beyond just marketing, which is why it "works" economically. I think the luxury market serves a certain type of mindset that has been there since ancient egypt even. It would be nice to have a society where status didn't pay a role but there hasn't been a social movement that has crystallized what that would look like. I also think as a sidenote there is a difference between luxury and fashion. Fashion is about creativity and self expression, and for a long time, the luxury market was sort of the defacto place for creeativity rather than the cheaper labels that had more 'standard' clothing, at least where I live. That has changed a bit in the past decade though. I like both fashion and luxury, but I am conflicted about it too. For example in the luxury fashion world there is a thing called 'grails', which are essentially items that are difficult to get but are considered very cool looking in some way and so they become grails. A lot of people like the feeling of chasing and finally acquiring grails, so that's one aspect of it.
  • I_dream_of_Geni 11mo ago
    Gee... And I thought $5 spent at Starbucks was outrageous...
• iamacyborg 11mo ago
  Big fan of the Homme Plisse stuff but I do wish it wasn’t polyester. It is a nice way to wear essentially a fancy pair of joggers while people assume you’re being somewhat smart though.
• thevillagechief 11mo ago
  I got excited until I saw they cost $600? Once in a while I'm reminded we exist in very different universes. Still trying to justify splurging on common projects 2 years later.
  • sincerely 11mo ago
    in my experience as a tech guy who got into fashion and then after several years went back to not caring: Sneakers are the product category with the least differentiation in value-for-money between the high end (especially designer, but also not-designer-but-still-expensive like common projects) both in terms of aesthetics and quality/durability. You're paying $300 more for a 10% better product. Jeans, outerwear, knits, boots, you can more easily justify that cost
    • theF00l 11mo ago
      As a tech guy who found an interest in design and ancillary fields recently, I am curious to know more. I assume leather, merino wool, cashmere do provide extra value. But other than that I have no knowledge. Eg why would 500 pants be better?
      • ZephyrBlu 11mo ago
        Material and cut/design. Material is not just about quality, but rarity or uniqueness. For example, japanese denim can get very expensive in part because it's very low volume. For dress pants, it might be a particularly interesting fabric. A lot of more expensive pants also have interesting designs or proportions that are very unique or hard to find elsewhere. There is a lot of cool stuff you can get for under $500 USD though, that is still pretty expensive. Some examples around that price range: - https://stoffa.co/collections/trousers/products/lavender-wool-plain-weave-extra-wide-single-pleat-trouser https://stoffa.co/collections/trousers/products/lavender-woo... - https://www.lemaire.fr/products/twisted-belted-pants-bl760-denim-indigo-u-23s https://www.lemaire.fr/products/twisted-belted-pants-bl760-d... - https://www.blueowl.us/collections/pure-blue-japan/products/ks-15oz-019-kasuri-15oz-slub-selvedge-denim-relaxed-tapered-fit?variant=40859251048506 https://www.blueowl.us/collections/pure-blue-japan/products/...
• booleanbetrayal 11mo ago
  I am wondering what you call consumption that feeds $499 designer margins on polyester like that, while so many people can barely afford to scrape by day to day.
  • shermantanktop 11mo ago
    Income inequality is a phrase that pathologizes what appears to be a universal truth. In all types of economic and political systems (after we left the forest, and probably while we were still in the forest), some people have been desperately poor while other people are not. What would be interesting is a single counterexample of sustained "income equality." That said, our current degree of inequality and the particular way it is distributed seems to be unusual and remarkable. But pointing to someone having a hard time is, IMO, not a critique of that.
    • booleanbetrayal 11mo ago
      Yes, yes ... It's the same as it ever was, only so much more so! Beyond just critiquing the disparity here, I feel like the psychology that treats capital in such a frivolous way, shifting it about already privileged pockets of society, rather than apply it to any sort of material good is rather abhorrent. That's just my take.
    • mrguyorama 11mo ago
      >Income inequality is a phrase that pathologizes what appears to be a universal truth. In all types of economic and political systems (after we left the forest, and probably while we were still in the forest), some people have been desperately poor while other people are not. What would be interesting is a single counterexample of sustained "income equality." There's actually tons of data. Almost every western country has a much better "Gini Coefficient" than the US. It isn't a universal truth. That's bullshit.
      • shermantanktop 11mo ago
        Says wikipedia: > The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 100, where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone has the same income). Meanwhile, an index of 100 implies perfect inequality (one person has all the income, and everyone else has no income). What country has the lowest Gini coeffecient value? Slovakia consistently tops the list. Who is the richest person in Slovakia? A reclusive billionaire named Ivan Chrenko. What about poverty? Per https://slovak.statistics.sk https://slovak.statistics.sk: > In Slovakia, 980 000 people were at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in 2024 In Slovakia, more than 980 000 people, i.e. approximately every sixth resident, faced poverty or social exclusion in 2024. Both the share and the number of people at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion increased year-on-year. Poverty indicators in Slovakia have been gradually deteriorating since 2020. On the positive side, the situation improved in 2 out of the 8 SR regions in 2024 and remained unchanged in one. At the same time, more than 20% of the population continued to face poverty in 3 SR regions. Of course the US is terrible and getting worse by this measure. My point is that nobody is great (the universal truth) - but I grant you that some are worse than others. In my view, inequality of all kinds is not an enemy to be defeated, it's a disease to be treated, knowing that it can never go fully away. It seems that most would rather treat it as a fact of life and do nothing while it runs out of control, or a heinous evil that must be eliminated. Neither seem like a practical approach.
• tacker2000 11mo ago
  Sorry but 500 eur for polyester pants? Not even cotton?
  • OJFord 11mo ago
    You misunderstand, it's 20EUR for the trousers; 480 for the name printed on them. (And why you even want a name/logo printed on them...)
    • walletdrainer 11mo ago
      Show me one Issey Miyake clothing item with a name/logo printed on it.
      • velocity3230 11mo ago
        https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/2025/11/introducing-iphone-pocket-a-beautiful-and-wearable-carrier-for-iphone/article/Apple-iPhone-Pocket-and-ISSEY-MIYAKE-sapphire-with-iPhone-Air_big.jpg.small_2x.jpg https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/2025/11/introducing-ip...
        • walletdrainer 11mo ago
          Not clothing
      • OJFord 11mo ago
        Ok, maybe they don't; plenty do. 480 for the licence to tell people about it then. Point is they're not 500-quality trousers, that's well into tailored cotton territory for a start, or you could buy better off the peg for much less.
        • walletdrainer 11mo ago
          This sort of pricing isn’t unusual even for no-name brands. Yes, you can get arguably nicer tailored cotton trousers at this price point. You will probably end up paying significantly more getting similar pleated trousers made by a decent tailor though. Better off the peg? I don’t know, these are a fairly unique product, With a quick look Google isn’t finding any particularly similar products at any price point. I have some friends in this space, even with margins like this it’s not an easy business to survive in. Those that do are generally doing something special, unless they’re really big names which Issey Miyake isn’t.
• sunnyps 11mo ago
  Have you tried Costco pants? They're pretty good.
  • qwerpy 11mo ago
    I had a coworker who lost a lot of weight and showed up at work one day wearing new clothes and looking sharp. The pants were from Costco. I have since gone and bought a few pairs of pants from them. They feel fairly high quality, made of sturdy and comfortable materials, and are wife-approved. And of course they are very inexpensive. I'm sure expensive pants have their benefits but no matter how much money I have, I will always baby expensive things, and it's very inconvenient to baby clothes (e.g. must be dry cleaned, can't use a washer or dryer, can't risk getting stains on it). There are good reasons why dads gets their clothes from Costco.
• silisili 11mo ago
  I always liked this story because they seemed to connect person to person. Sadly, Jobs died in 2011, and Miyake in 2022. I guess you could call this a small homage, but it feels different in that their founders are gone and it's just corp to corp dealings now.
• crossroadsguy 11mo ago
  I will look suspiciously at my Le Sel bottle after this collab.
• ireflect 11mo ago
  These ones, right? https://us.isseymiyake.com/products/hp56-jf362 https://us.isseymiyake.com/products/hp56-jf362
• m463 11mo ago
  I looked it up, and Issey Mikaye seems to have died in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issey_Miyake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issey_Miyake I wonder ... would jobs have approved? ... would issey miyake have approved?
  • bborud 11mo ago
    I'm pretty confident the answer on both counts would be "no". (This teminds me of a show I once saw where various design students were given the task to design things. Philippe Starck was the judge. One of the students made a iPhone cover and Starck almost blew a gasket. I don't remember exactly what he said when he saw it. But he pointed out that the iPhone itself was a beautiful design so defacing it with an ugly piece of plastic was just a horrific waste of resources. He also said something about objects having to deserve to exist -- though that was probably in a talk he gave at some point. Where he pointed out that his famous Alessi sitrus press was a good example of a pointless object that shouldn't exist. At least it looked good, but it was a pretty poor sitrus press).
  • ivirshup 11mo ago
    Since Steve's famous turtle neck was from Issey Miyake and he wanted everyone at Apple to wear an Issey Miyake vest as a uniform [1], I think he might have been into this. This is also the man who launched the iPod sock. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/10/1116769827/the-story-of-steve-jobs-and-issey-miyakes-friendship-and-a-nixed-apple-uniform https://www.npr.org/2022/08/10/1116769827/the-story-of-steve...
• victor22 11mo ago
  Who cares, Steve would have hated to sell a sock for $200, really makes you think how much they pay the chinese for the iphone
• butlike 11mo ago
  The brushstroke pants look really attractive