New iPad adopts simple product naming Steve Jobs brought to Apple in 1997

13567

Comments

  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,161member


    It's an iPad...



    Those who are diffident about owning an iPad, can just buy some other piece of shit!



  • deletedelete Posts: 46member
    It's gotten to the point that because of the success Apple has had, the "Apple Press" declares almost everything they do as being a work of genius. I have no doubt that if Apple had chosen differently this article would be touting the "iPad HD" name as a brilliant decision.
  • 2oh12oh1 Posts: 465member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by isaidso View Post


    This will all quickly fade into the past and nobody will care.

    sheesh! ...The new antennagate.



    Exactly. Yes, this makes selling a used iPad a bit more challenging, and I won't be surprised if the next iPhone is just an iPhone (temporarily referred to as "the new iPhone" but... in the end, this simplifies the brand. And, really, it doesn't matter what we think. The decision has been made. When my iPad arrives on Friday, it's a new iPad and I'll be thrilled to get it.
  • isheldonisheldon Posts: 570member
    This current ridiculous naming of Apple products all started when the 2nd iPhone was named after a 3G network. That's why I expect we are being prepared for the end of iPhone numero/alpha nomenclature as well .
  • ezduzitezduzit Posts: 158member
    how about the iBoom mac boom box. i still own mine. plays ok.



    also a short marriage. the hPad. hewlett packard's short reltaionship with apple.

    must have sold 2 or 3. just kidding, but it was an advance notice from hewlett where

    even with apple they were going to tank.
  • isheldonisheldon Posts: 570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by isaidso View Post


    This will all quickly fade into the past and nobody will care.

    sheesh! ...The new antennagate.



    Well I certainly hope we're not in for another white lightbleedgate- I had to return 4 before Apple got it right. Ordered a black one this time - not taking any chances this time w poor product control.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    No... They'll call it the new iPad, again... they're exploiting the brand, not the model...



    People who own the best, don't need to specify the model... It's a Ferrari, Beemer, Rolls, "It's a Duesey", iPod, iPad...



    Brilliant... everything old is new again!





    Edit: 'course the real "Dueseys" had model mumbers and other attributions:



    Here is a 1933 Duesenberg Model SJ Phaeton ( Year, Make, Supercharged, J Model, Phaeton Body style:



    The car could do 100 mph in 2nd gear.








    That's a Doozey!
  • f1ferrarif1ferrari Posts: 223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    NEdit: 'course the real "Dueseys" had model mumbers and other attributions:



    Here is a 1933 Duesenberg Model SJ Phaeton ( Year, Make, Supercharged, J Model, Phaeton Body style:



    The car could do 100 mph in 2nd gear.



    But then again, many people who bought a Duesey bought only the rolling chassis from Duesenberg, and bought the body from a coach builder, such as Derham, Fernandez et Darrin, Franay, Gurney Nutting, Le Baron, Murphy, Rollston, Saoutchik, Walker, Weymann, or Willoughby.



    Thankfully, Apple doesn't do this. You buy an iMac, a MacBook Air, a MacBook Pro, now an iPad (and hopefully soon an iPhone) from Apple and Apple alone, without having someone else monkey around with it.



    Personally, I like keeping the naming uncluttered. It fits the Apple 'simple is better' motif. I just wonder if the 'old' iPads will be continually called the 'iPad 2', or if eventually they will become education only models, like the white MacBook was for the last year of its life.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


    It gets even crazier when Dell has a certain model number listed on their website... and a different model number at Best Buy... but they are the EXACT SAME MODEL...



    I'd say a bunch of chimps run the marketing department... but I don't wanna degrade chimps!



    That has always been the case with consumer electronics. The reason is so that consumers can't cross-shop for a better deal. Many major retailers get their own model, and so they don't have to match prices.



    Mattresses are the same way - the same mattress has different colored fabric and a different name at different mattress stores, even though the product is identical in construction.
  • bagmanbagman Posts: 349member
    (posted this earlier):



    Seems that the "new iPad" not to be called the iPad3 according to Apple, is actually a "Prequel iPad" which follows Hollywood's penchant for stretching out a winning series. Ergo: iPad1 - iPad2 (the sequel) - iPad (the prequel). What's next? Prototype iPad, In Utero iPad, Blastocyst iPad, or just: Steve Job's "Early Wet-Dream iPad? Possibilities are almost limitless!
  • deepkiddeepkid Posts: 96member
    Wasn't the iPod introduced in 2001? I remember buying it after 9/11 because I was scared into better enjoying life.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post


    Exactly. Yes, this makes selling a used iPad a bit more challenging, and I won't be surprised if the next iPhone is just an iPhone (temporarily referred to as "the new iPhone" but... in the end, this simplifies the brand. And, really, it doesn't matter what we think. The decision has been made. When my iPad arrives on Friday, it's a new iPad and I'll be thrilled to get it.



    It hasn't affected the ability to sell an iMac or MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, so why should it be any worse for the iPad?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    It is a bit confusing sometimes, having iMac (late 2010) and iMac (mid 2011), but it's better than all those embarrassing high-tech sounding names that the other manufacturers use (Bionic, Skyrocket, ...).



    Exactly. When you need to differentiate, you use the date.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by deepkid View Post


    Wasn't the iPod introduced in 2001? I remember buying it after 9/11 because I was scared into better enjoying life.



    October, 2001
  • waldobushmanwaldobushman Posts: 774member
    Steve Jobs wasn't around to dictate a name. Nobody at Apple could agree. It is that simple.



    Now, to put the best spin on it as possible, Apple has another version up it's sleeve sooner rather later, which will be worth a new name.
  • jkichlinejkichline Posts: 893member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrr View Post


    The thing about simple product names is that it is indeed confusing when you go to buy or compare prices.



    Are they selling this year or last year's model?



    A major problem with simple names for products like MacPro or MacBook Pro or now iPad is that when you try to buy a used one it is often impossible to know what you are really buying!



    You have to rely on unofficial names like Mac Pro (8 core) or Mac Pro (Early 2009) or Mac Pro (Mid 2010) all of which might have 8 cores in them. Confusing.



    Even worse is when you have to track down the model identifier like MacBookPro8.3



    I rather know straight off that it is a iPhone 4GS, or iPad2.



    This is a pain and NOT a good thing.



    Just go to the Apple menu --> About This Mac. You'll get all sorts of information like the processor speed, RAM, OS version and everything else to make an informed decision... and you didn't have to look it up on some archaic web site based on it's serial number-like "brand name"
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by delete View Post


    It's gotten to the point that because of the success Apple has had, the "Apple Press" declares almost everything they do as being a work of genius. I have no doubt that if Apple had chosen differently this article would be touting the "iPad HD" name as a brilliant decision.



    As I said above, the entire premise of the article is ridiculous. When Steve came back to Apple, the product names were NOT minimalist.



    Since Steve had been back at Apple, the product names have not been minimalist.



    No other current product name is minimalist.



    This is something new.
  • correctionscorrections Posts: 1,086member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacJello View Post


    I think calling it the iPad 3 would have been a perfectly simple and elegant choice. One of the problems the non-numbered name creates is that Apple now sells an iPad and an iPad 2, but the iPad 2 is older! Anyone who is completely new to the iPad or Apple products is going to find this odd, if not thoroughly confusing



    Well a) your opinion doesn't really matter does it? And b) why create confusion about the generation of the iPad and the generation of the mobile service - it's a 4G, 3G iPad device that also falls back to 3G? Customers don't need a number.



    The other downside to giving models numbers like that is that competitors can pull out a bigger number. When Sony released PlayStation 3, Microsoft skipped Xbox 2 and went right to Xbox 360 to "keep up."



    If Apple keeps numbering iPhones, it will have a 4G phone named iPhone 5. The 3G iPhone 4 was already a little confusing to some people, and iPhone 4's HSPA+ is technically (via the ITU) a 4G technology. So Apple is supposed to bridge the 3G/4G iPhone 4 and the new 3G/4G/LTE iPhone 5?



    Why not just call it an iPhone?
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post


    But then again, many people who bought a Duesey bought only the rolling chassis from Duesenberg, and bought the body from a coach builder, such as Derham, Fernandez et Darrin, Franay, Gurney Nutting, Le Baron, Murphy, Rollston, Saoutchik, Walker, Weymann, or Willoughby.



    You know your coach builders...



    In the 50s, a High School (Pasadena) friend's father was restoring a '29 SJ that had been owned by a president of Mexico -- we had [wet] dreams of driving that "beautiful behemoth" down to the beach... Sigh, used my '41 Chevy Coupe instead (153624)!
  • minicaptminicapt Posts: 219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


    Well a) your opinion doesn't really matter does it? And b) why create confusion about the generation of the iPad and the generation of the mobile service - it's a 4G, 3G iPad device that also falls back to 3G? Customers don't need a number.



    The other downside to giving models numbers like that is that competitors can pull out a bigger number. When Sony released PlayStation 3, Microsoft skipped Xbox 2 and went right to Xbox 360 to "keep up."



    If Apple keeps numbering iPhones, it will have a 4G phone named iPhone 5. The 3G iPhone 4 was already a little confusing to some people, and iPhone 4's HSPA+ is technically (via the ITU) a 4G technology. So Apple is supposed to bridge the 3G/4G iPhone 4 and the new 3G/4G/LTE iPhone 5?



    Why not just call it an iPhone?



    They were planning to call it the iPhone Bacon Sandwich, but someone noticed that Google was already using dessert names for Android.



    Cheers
  • f1ferrarif1ferrari Posts: 223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    As I said above, the entire premise of the article is ridiculous. When Steve came back to Apple, the product names were NOT minimalist.



    Since Steve had been back at Apple, the product names have not been minimalist.



    No other current product name is minimalist.



    This is something new.



    Really? Where is the number on the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, or iMac? Shouldn't they have several numbers or letters after their name by now, given all the updates since 2006, 2008, and 1998?
  • doctor daviddoctor david Posts: 819member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    As I said above, the entire premise of the article is ridiculous. When Steve came back to Apple, the product names were NOT minimalist.



    Since Steve had been back at Apple, the product names have not been minimalist.



    No other current product name is minimalist.



    This is something new.



    Your second sentence is correct. The rest your post is just making stuff up.
Sign In or Register to comment.