Let's name Apple's next notebooks?
I for one am confused as to what Apple might do about their next new formfactored, featured notebooks when it comes to naming. One obvious thing they could do is keep the names the same. However if they want to make it really clear that these are not just upgrades, that they are fully new books, they could and might change the names, even slightly.
So if Apple decides to change the names of the New MacBook's and the new MacBook Pro's here's my take on the situation;
1. MacBook = MacBook2
2. MacBook Pro = MacBook Pro2
What's your take on what the new names could be?
(if they do indeed change the names)
So if Apple decides to change the names of the New MacBook's and the new MacBook Pro's here's my take on the situation;
1. MacBook = MacBook2
2. MacBook Pro = MacBook Pro2
What's your take on what the new names could be?
(if they do indeed change the names)
Comments
Typically, Mac users distinguish between the models with descriptive names ("mirrored drive door" PowerMac, "sunflower" iMac), Apple's own in-house code names ("pismo" and "wallstreet" powerbooks) or the processors they use (G3 and G4 iBooks).
Apple will continue to call their pro laptop the MacBookPro, and we'll call the current one the MBPC2D to distinguish it from the MBPCD, and we'll call the next one the MBP+Intel moniker if it warrants it, or MBP touchscreen or MBP carbon fiber or whatever.
I agree with addabox, Apple will change names when the architecture behind their products are very different
...though I do miss Powerbook. I still haven't found a good reason why they switched.
If people are unsure of the company branding, it could be "Apple Powerbook" if you like.
To me, Macbook is a student's computer, Powerbook is the Man's Mac.
(Just kidding, of course, but the point remains.)
If Apple wants to get away from the Mac/Windows wars, why include "Mac" in the title? Apple is the company that makes all of these great products, so why not go back to the old standard when Mac was the operating system, not the name of the machine itself?
Apple went for a long stretch with just the monikers "iBook, iMac,Powerbook and PowerMac" to cover a lot of different models and form factors. The iMac soldiers on to this day.
Typically, Mac users distinguish between the models with descriptive names ("mirrored drive door" PowerMac, "sunflower" iMac), Apple's own in-house code names ("pismo" and "wallstreet" powerbooks) or the processors they use (G3 and G4 iBooks).
Apple will continue to call their pro laptop the MacBookPro, and we'll call the current one the MBPC2D to distinguish it from the MBPCD, and we'll call the next one the MBP+Intel moniker if it warrants it, or MBP touchscreen or MBP carbon fiber or whatever.
DITTO!
Moving to Mac on each computer made sense, IMO. While I liked the long-standing name PowerBook, unifying all of the computers with the Mac moniker was just good branding.
If Apple wants to get away from the Mac/Windows wars, why include "Mac" in the title?
Are you sure they want to get away from the Mac/Windows wars? If so, why did Steve have Bertrand on stage at WWDC to make fun of Vista? Granted it was pretty funny, but to me, that is perpetuating the wars (not that I mind it).
As for names, maybe Apple will take after Intel and call their next MBP the MacBook 2 Pro (a la Core 2 Duo)
...though I do miss Powerbook. I still haven't found a good reason why they switched.
If people are unsure of the company branding, it could be "Apple Powerbook" if you like.
To me, Macbook is a student's computer, Powerbook is the Man's Mac.
(Just kidding, of course, but the point remains.)
If Apple wants to get away from the Mac/Windows wars, why include "Mac" in the title? Apple is the company that makes all of these great products, so why not go back to the old standard when Mac was the operating system, not the name of the machine itself?
My suspicion is that Apple knows it will be bringing out an ever increasing number of products that "run OS X" but aren't Macs.
So all the old-school machines that run the familiar desktop environment in a reasonably familiar form factor get "Mac" in their name, to maintain a (somewhat artificial) distinction from whatever appliance palm-top things are to come.
For instance, the iPhone is pretty obviously "not a Mac", but what if Apple releases a 5"x9" tablet communicator thing that runs a variant of the iPhone interface? Is that a "Mac Nano"? It might be, but it would be kind of confusing if the UI was substantially different from what's running on the current iMac. So instead it gets called the "iTablet" and it runs OS X and it can do lots and lots of stuff but it is still not a Mac.
A Mac is a general purpose computer with a keyboard and a screen that runs OS X and uses Aqua or its progeny as the UI. It has a finder and a dock and a menu bar and apps run in windows. You'll know it when you see it because it will have "Mac" in its name. And then there are other devices.
Mac is being positioned as the 'marker' brand for a family of products: computers. iPod will cover another range of devices, iPhone another, etc, etc. Our little Apple is growing up. *snif*
My suspicion is that Apple knows it will be bringing out an ever increasing number of products that "run OS X" but aren't Macs.
So all the old-school machines that run the familiar desktop environment in a reasonably familiar form factor get "Mac" in their name, to maintain a (somewhat artificial) distinction from whatever appliance palm-top things are to come.
For instance, the iPhone is pretty obviously "not a Mac", but what if Apple releases a 5"x9" tablet communicator thing that runs a variant of the iPhone interface? Is that a "Mac Nano"? It might be, but it would be kind of confusing if the UI was substantially different from what's running on the current iMac. So instead it gets called the "iTablet" and it runs OS X and it can do lots and lots of stuff but it is still not a Mac.
A Mac is a general purpose computer with a keyboard and a screen that runs OS X and uses Aqua or its progeny as the UI. It has a finder and a dock and a menu bar and apps run in windows. You'll know it when you see it because it will have "Mac" in its name. And then there are other devices.
I understand.
Basically, Apple is a squirrely little sucker. Just when you think you've got your hands around them, you find they are something (or somewhere) entirely different.
I understand.
Basically, Apple is a squirrely little sucker. Just when you think you've got your hands around them, you find they are something (or somewhere) entirely different.
They're doing a pretty good job of following the money.
The mainstream desktop segment has been fully commodifed, as Dell is learning to its sorrow. There's just no money there, without massive volume. "The middle" goes away and there is only premium (which is all Apple makes) and assembled for a buck Sri Lankan boxes.
The same thing is happening and will continue to happen to laptops. You'll either pick one up that is "good enough" for $100 or go shopping for some amenities. Hello MacBook!
But appliances..... whole new ballgame. There's no entrenched OS, there's not even a broadly agreed upon model for what they should do, or how they should be configured.
MS likes to talk about Windows everywhere, but to really put the power of modern computing in the palm of your hand requires some actual vision and creativity, not just a downscale.
The iPhone finally takes the wraps off what has been the plan for a while: reinvent post-computer computing. It's where we're headed, it's where the money is, and there isn't any Windows (of any merit). It's where Apple can go nuts with building the eco-system that makes Macs the best choice for all the people that are running Apple not-Mac things.
Apple went for a long stretch with just the monikers "iBook, iMac,Powerbook and PowerMac" to cover a lot of different models and form factors. The iMac soldiers on to this day.
Typically, Mac users distinguish between the models with descriptive names ("mirrored drive door" PowerMac, "sunflower" iMac), Apple's own in-house code names ("pismo" and "wallstreet" powerbooks) or the processors they use (G3 and G4 iBooks).
Apple will continue to call their pro laptop the MacBookPro, and we'll call the current one the MBPC2D to distinguish it from the MBPCD, and we'll call the next one the MBP+Intel moniker if it warrants it, or MBP touchscreen or MBP carbon fiber or whatever.
It's a very cumbersome scheme, though, having to use "unofficial" names just because Steve wants to keep the "official" names simple. Sort of makes me wistful for the pre-Steve (post-Steve? Inter-Steve?) days of the Powerbook 1400, 2400, 5300, PowerMac 7200, 8600, 9600, etc. At least that kind of numbering scheme made it fairly easy to keep track of which model is better, was made later, etc. A lot easier for someone not Mac-obsessed to figure out than, "Hmm, was Mirrored Drive Door before Quicksilver, and when was Sawtooth, before Digital Audio, wasn't it?" To be honest, I don't even remember what came after MDD. I'm pretty sure there was a final model of G4 before the PM G5, but this damn naming scheme doesn't make it easy to recall.
Apple went for a long stretch with just the monikers "iBook, iMac,Powerbook and PowerMac" to cover a lot of different models and form factors. The iMac soldiers on to this day.
Typically, Mac users distinguish between the models with descriptive names ("mirrored drive door" PowerMac, "sunflower" iMac), Apple's own in-house code names ("pismo" and "wallstreet" powerbooks) or the processors they use (G3 and G4 iBooks).
Apple will continue to call their pro laptop the MacBookPro, and we'll call the current one the MBPC2D to distinguish it from the MBPCD, and we'll call the next one the MBP+Intel moniker if it warrants it, or MBP touchscreen or MBP carbon fiber or whatever.
Spot On!!!
I for one am confused as to what Apple might do about their next new formfactored, featured notebooks when it comes to naming. One obvious thing they could do is keep the names the same. However if they want to make it really clear that these are not just upgrades, that they are fully new books, they could and might change the names, even slightly.
So if Apple decides to change the names of the New MacBook's and the new MacBook Pro's here's my take on the situation;
1. MacBook = MacBook2
2. MacBook Pro = MacBook Pro2
What's your take on what the new names could be?
(if they do indeed change the names)
Apple doesn't really do that, other pc manufacs maybe but not apple.
Just like cars all apple does is go "The New (blank)"
That way people understand it's from the same product family just a newer version.
iBook and Powerbook didn't change because intel procs were inside but because they wanted to remind people that they're all Macs no matter what's inside.
The current name will stay until what they do changes and apple simply gets tired of the name, or changes direction as a company or something.
I personally like the (apple logo) PRODUCT scheme, ala AppleTV. If the iPhone name doesn't stick, I think (apple logo) Phone would be just as cool. Not sure how that would translate to the other product lines like iMac, though.
Well it's quite clear when it comes to the iPhone, they want it to be way more than just an iPod, which is why I think they stayed away from the iPod name in its name. So if they do lose the iPhone name, I totally agree they'll call it (Apple)