AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New iPad adopts simple product naming Steve Jobs brought to Apple in 1997
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New iPad adopts simple product naming Steve Jobs brought to Apple in 1997 - Page 2

post #41 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

This will all quickly fade into the past and nobody will care.
sheesh! ...The new antennagate.

NameGate? Will there be one about the Retina Display on the iPad? PixelGate?

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply
post #42 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:44pm
It's an iPad...

Those who are diffident about owning an iPad, can just buy some other piece of shit!
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #43 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:49pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:49pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:52pm
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 .
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:53pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 132
3/10/12 at 4:55pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:09pm
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!
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:09pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:13pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:22pm
(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!
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:28pm
Wasn't the iPod introduced in 2001? I remember buying it after 9/11 because I was scared into better enjoying life.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:38pm
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
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:40pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:41pm
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"
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:44pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:45pm
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?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:52pm
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)!
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #59 of 132
3/10/12 at 5:57pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 132
3/10/12 at 6:10pm
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?
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 132
3/10/12 at 6:12pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 132
3/10/12 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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)!

My father loved Duesenbergs, and he passed much of his knowledge on to me. It amazed the both of us that people would but a chassis, and have a body custom built and installed to complete the car. In my opinion, there have been few cars that can match a Duesey in sheer style, beauty, and opulence, all rolled into one vehicle.

Unfortunately, we were never able to restore anything except a couple of Edsels, some 1950s Buicks and a 1971 Monte Carlo.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 132
3/10/12 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

My father loved Duesenbergs, and he passed much of his knowledge on to me. It amazed the both of us that people would but a chassis, and have a body custom built and installed to complete the car. In my opinion, there have been few cars that can match a Duesey in sheer style, beauty, and opulence, all rolled into one vehicle.

Unfortunately, we were never able to restore anything except a couple of Edsels, some 1950s Buicks and a 1971 Monte Carlo.

I had '50 Buick... Easy to work on... Put the crank in the DynaFlow ports on either side, turn, and you could lift the hood off the car... Then just crawl in, sit on top of that big straight eight and work under the hood

God that thing did rattle when lumbering down the road! I owned a '53 MG TD at the same time... Alternating between driving the two is what made me schizo
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #64 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:04pm
Some ppl thought (for some reason) that the iPhone 4 and/or 4s was 4G phones and some bloggers said the name was misleading. Now, calling the new iPad, iPad 3 could give the impression that is 3G and calling it 4G would be bad because wi-fi only is not 4G.
HD or RD would be better suit but.... Let's just called iPad
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

agreed

I still cannot get over the Sprint Samsung Galaxy S II Epic Touch 4G

I genuinely thought you were joking when I read that. It's troubling is that you weren't joking! I just looked it up....
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:09pm
I know this is not how it went down, but in my perfect world Apple did this to give everyone a big middle finger wanting the "iPhone 5."
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

This will all quickly fade into the past and nobody will care.
sheesh! ...The new antennagate.

It is odd what importance the name of the new iPad should take. I was mildly surprised at the number of rumor/news topic that were spawned regarding the possible name during the run-up to the release of the product.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:11pm
This all reminds me of a discussion that took place about two years ago: "I think they (Apple) are stupid for calling their new tablet iPad ..."
The rest is history
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:19pm
[deleted]
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Geeks love complexity. You know that a company is run by geeks when they have 137 different smartphone models listed on their website. The thing is, when you have 137 different models, or even just 10 for that matter, the names you pick for them will not matter anymore. Consumers will not bother to distinguish between your 137 different models, they'll just say "let me see the Samsung". So if you think a snazzy name for your 46th smartphone model is going to help sell it, forget it.

Just one more reason why Apple is just running circles around their competitors.

the Motorola RAZR sold like crazy because it actually HAD a name. Nokia was releasing the 9999 or the 8120 or the 5150 or the 2112 or the OU812 or whatever at the time. Naming a model instead of just giving it a number was novel once, but it did help w/ sales.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarofclay73 View Post

I know this is not how it went down, but in my perfect world Apple did this to give everyone a big middle finger wanting the "iPhone 5."

I personally believe that's exactly how it went down.

"Gosh, how stupid are our users, anyway? 6th model being named 5? Let's end this nonsense. It's embarrassing."
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
post #72 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:34pm
Apple has been naming a lot of products that change every year or so the same without a differentiating suffix for years. not all, but many.

i think it is smart marketing/branding. but it was also a big pain in the ass for customers. when you need to know, who remembers they have a "mid 2011 iMac" for example (which i'm using now). or an "early 2009" Mac Mini? and so on.

however, with Lion (or sooner?) you can at least get directly to the correct Apple support page for your particular hardware via "About This Mac/More Info/Specifications". i found that by accident ... most users don't know about it. Apple could make it a lot easier.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 132
3/10/12 at 7:54pm
It's the 2012 iPad. The (then) new iPad that was introduced in 2012. That's just about it.

I am truly puzzled that there's so much angst over something so trival.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 132
3/10/12 at 8:09pm
The iPod came out in 2001, not 1999.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 132
3/10/12 at 9:17pm
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....
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.

i do believe that this falls under the title of geek. The average person just wants it to work. And the iPad (generation 3) will follow. No put down intended. I know that the specs can be important but you don't need them all the time.

Just a thought. en
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 132
3/10/12 at 9:24pm
The key to Apple's greatness is that it considers the point of view of the customer.

Steve Jobs held in his hands prototype, pre-production, even finished products, and was not afraid to say "Not good enough; make it better before it is released." Apple sat on the phone and tablet for years until iOS was ready and worthy components were available to make the products work well and delight customers.

Microsoft pushes its operating systems onto customers' heads in ways that are both confusing and insulting. Vista was an abomination. Google rushed software into TVs and various set-top boxes and it disappointed. When Apple's TV finally arrives, it will work and be a pleasure to use.

The rationale behind the iPad name is simple. Decision makers at Apple asked themselves "if I was a customer, would this make sense?" Compared to the avalanche of choices with barely discernible differences one encounters when shopping for cell phones, PCs, TVs, cameras, etc., Apple's product presentation is sweet relief.

Because Apple product development is perfectionist, they can present their products simply rather than dissembling them to customers. The shocking thing is that other companies do not have the courage to follow their example.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 132
3/10/12 at 10:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarofclay73 View Post

I know this is not how it went down, but in my perfect world Apple did this to give everyone a big middle finger wanting the "iPhone 5."

I suspect that it wasn't the reason... But it was in the mix.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #78 of 132
3/10/12 at 10:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by m3m View Post

The rationale behind the iPad name is simple. Decision makers at Apple asked themselves "if I was a customer, would this make sense?" Compared to the avalanche of choices with barely discernible differences one encounters when shopping for cell phones, PCs, TVs, cameras, etc., Apple's product presentation is sweet relief.

It's also a way of keeping owners of older devices sweet as well. For instance, we have an iPad, but I don't need to qualify which one. It's an iPad, might be an older on, but it's still an iPad.

People who want the latest will always be happy that they have the latest, and older owners will feel less marginalised by owning an older machine. Everyone is happy.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 132
3/10/12 at 10:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

People who want the latest will always be happy that they have the latest, and older owners will feel less marginalised by owning an older machine. Everyone is happy.

Except the old owners who don't get iPhoto for absolutely no reason when their tablet was on the market less than a year ago.
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
Tallest Skil & Relic
"…AI is a private forum…" "Well, in that case, it's naked time…"
Reply
post #80 of 132
3/10/12 at 11:25pm
Let's revisit this topic in a year... after the next iPad is released... and we see what they name it.

/thread
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • New iPad adopts simple product naming Steve Jobs brought to Apple in 1997
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New iPad adopts simple product naming Steve Jobs brought to Apple in 1997