The only weak message is calling your 6th device "5". That's just pre-kindergarten levels of stupidity.
I know this quote has been beaten to death, but I'd also like to take a stab at it.
Barely any of the "mainstream" iPhone customers have a clue how many iPhones Apple has made. I'd wager more people would be confused by the apparent absence of of all odd numbers in the naming scheme than anything else. Can you imagine 4S, 6, 6S, 8, 8S 10..etc..etc. The mainstream customer doesn't care how many actual iPhone models have been made, and they have a very short-term memory. They just care that 5 comes after 4 and 6 comes after 5 and that's that.
The whole problem is in fact perpetrated by the "S" naming convention. If they had just named the 4S the 5 and the forthcoming iPhone the 6 and so on, the problem would be completely solved.
Anyhow..
However, to play devils advocate to the advertisers (in the article) insistence that the 'S' naming convention sends a weak message to consumers, I would say that perhaps it is the opposite. Perhaps the 'S' signifies to consumers that this isn't Apples beta version they're testing on you, but instead a tried and true iteration on the last product with beefed up speed...food for thought anyway.
The only weak message is calling your 6th device "5". That's just pre-kindergarten levels of stupidity.
I'm perfectly fine with the "S" monicker otherwise.
And if he weren't a complete idiot, he'd realize that the "S" models are no more "identical to last year's but better" than any other product from any other company.
This is a forum troll being paid to troll and disguising it as a job. "It looks the same; it must be the same phone" is crap we delete these days.
So what have you done with your life to date worth talking about? Ken has had a remarkable career in marketing and is worth listening to even if you disagree.
On the iPad topic, dropping the version number was about the most confusing thing Apple ever did.
Least confusing, and they SHOULD have done it on the iPhone, too. Is your complaint that because they still sell the iPad 2 the 'iPad' is somehow "less" than 'iPad 2'?
Instead of calling it a simple "iPad 4" they call it "iPad, fourth generation".
Just like every single computer Apple has ever made. What's the big deal?
Marketing name
Generation name
Common name
iPad
iPad
first-gen iPad
iPad
iPad 2
iPad 2
second-gen iPad
iPad 2
iPad 3
the new iPad
third-gen iPad
iPad 3
iPad 4
iPad with retina display
fourth-gen iPad
iPad 4
They dropped the number from the name, but it doesn't even have to be in the name. At this point they should just drop "the new", "with", and anything else from the marketing and just market the darn thing as "iPad". People will get it. They do for computers; what's so hard about the same for these?
People explicitly talk about their iPods by generation name. Regular people, not techies. Because they actually care enough about the product to do research about it. Have you seen any problem with that in the last decade? I think "iPod 10", "iPod nano 5", or "iPod shuffle 3" would have been far stupider than what Apple actually did, don't you? The "complaint" with names like this takes into consideration only brain-dead morons with more money than sense, buying a product on name alone "because it sounds better/higher/etc." I don't think any company wants to cater to that crowd.
The same could have easily been done for the iPhone, even though they sell three years' worth at once.
"I want an iPhone."
"How fast do you want it to be?"
The distinction then becomes one of power, not of age. And as the iPad has shown, even the "transition period" won't cause problems, since Apple can successfully sell a "higher number", older product at the same time as a numberless new one.
If only Apple had sticked the same simple principle for the GUI.
Huh?
Originally Posted by bulk001
So what have you done with your life to date worth talking about?
Please insert two credits and try again. "You're not a chef, so you can't critique cooking" isn't a rebuttal.
Originally Posted by jhende7
Barely any of the "mainstream" iPhone customers have a clue how many iPhones Apple has made.
I disagree with that, simply because most of the "mainstream" (whatever that means) customers of the iPod family know exactly what generation their device is. If you saw Apple call the next iPod nano "iPod nano 7", even though it's the 8th generation, all hell would break loose in the support realm. And some here would still claim that I'm "embarrassing myself" by contesting such a name choice.
The mainstream customer doesn't care how many actual iPhone models have been made, and they have a very short-term memory.
That sounds like good evidence in the case for dropping numbers altogether. If they couldn't care less about how many there have been, why should they care about numbers in the name at all? Ah…
…I would say that perhaps it is the opposite. Perhaps the 'S' signifies to consumers that this isn't Apples beta version they're testing on you, but instead a tried and true iteration on the last product with beefed up speed...food for thought anyway.
I like this take, though you don't see many Apple analyst optimists.
No one on Earth would tell you that it makes sense to call the 6th model of a product running the 6th version of its software on the 6th iteration of its processor "5".
Were it an Apple competitor, it would be still be mocked "six months out".
Yes, it's quite embarrassing for me that everyone else seems to want to perpetuate stupidity. Maybe I should say, "2+2=5". That probably makes more sense, given the sheer lack of questioning the name.
I don't give a flying frick how successful the device is. That doesn't matter. People clearly don't have a clue why the name is a problem.
I don't understand… It's right there. And you're wrong.
That wasn't a "second version". It was the same processor with a better GPU. The same is true of the A6X.
You're held up on the name indicating which generation it is, as if the iPhone 5 meant "the 5th iPhone", which it doesn't, any more than the iPhone 3G meant "the 3rd iPhone" or "iPhone, 3rd Gen".
You think people would be more confused if Apple went from the 4S to the 6?
The number indicates the model, not the generation.
Personally, I'd wish the Apple would drop the numbering sequence and just call it the "iPhone (sixth generation)" or "iPhone (mid 2013") like they do for ALL THEIR OTHER PRODUCTS, so we don't end up someday with the iPhone 12S. Yikes.
Of course, their hands are slightly tied because they continue selling at least on older generation along side the current generation.
Maybe they should adopt a name sequence, a la OS X, like "iPhone Apollo (6th Generation)", but some other less dumb naming convention. Canines? Fowl? Reptiles?
It's actually rather honest marketing. iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
I'd rather have clear simple names like these than the ridiculous "One X", "Hero", "Legendary" or "no sorry this is the latest model but its model number is less than the one last year" that other manufacturers do.
You're held up on the name indicating which generation it is, as if the iPhone 5 meant "the 5th iPhone", which it doesn't, any more than the iPhone 3G meant "the 3rd iPhone" or "iPhone, 3rd Gen".
You've explicitly ignored the two models for which that was explicitly the case.
You think people would be more confused if Apple went from the 4S to the 6?
Nope. *shrug* In fact, I was all for that until the launch of the 3rd-gen iPad, after which I was for dropping numbers entirely.
The number indicates the model, not the generation.
Eh? They don't create multiple models of iPhone simultaneously, therefore model = generation. The 6th model of iPhone was the 6th generation iPhone.
Personally, I'd wish the Apple would drop the numbering sequence and just call it the "iPhone (sixth generation)" or "iPhone (mid 2013") like they do for ALL THEIR OTHER PRODUCTS, so we don't end up someday with the iPhone 12S. Yikes.
Exactly! They'll HAVE to do it at some point; why they didn't at the most logical time (the last one) is confusing. It's just going to get uglier from here on out.
Of course, their hands are slightly tied because they continue selling at least on older generation along side the current generation.
Ah, read my post above. That's moot! They don't have to worry about it.
The old "It won't work for the iPhone!" argument loses all of its… everything… when you mention that they've been doing it just fine with the iPod touch since the 3rd generation of that device. No one whines about that. They like to forget the iPod touch exists during that time.
Maybe they should adopt a name sequence, a la OS X, like "iPhone Apollo (6th Generation)", but some other less dumb naming convention. Canines? Fowl? Reptiles?
Marketing name: iPhone.
Internal name: iPhone (2015).
Just like every other hardware product they sell.
Originally Posted by kasakka
iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
Now we're getting into questioning the definition of "just".
It's actually rather honest marketing. iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
I'd rather have clear simple names like these than the ridiculous "One X", "Hero", "Legendary" or "no sorry this is the latest model but its model number is less than the one last year" that other manufacturers do.
For sure. Having numbered iPhones makes sense, but they'll have to drop the numbers eventually, when they decide it looks silly. I'm sure they'll go with another convention for their smartwatch.
OK, Mr. Segall: how many products have you developed and produced that sold >100,000,000 units?
Zing! Good one. So you're saying his comments are unqualified because he cannot walk the talk?
I guess you will not post anymore? By your own criterion, you are not qualified to criticized Samsung, Facebook, Google or any company. You are not qualified to make comments on software, hardware.
The only weak message is calling your 6th device "5". That's just pre-kindergarten levels of stupidity.
I'm perfectly fine with the "S" monicker otherwise.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">"you're looking for a 2013 model ? not a 2012S."</span>
And if he weren't a complete idiot, he'd realize that the "S" models are no more "identical to last year's but better" than any other product from any other company.
This is a forum troll being paid to troll and disguising it as a job. "It looks the same; it must be the same phone" is crap we delete these days.
TS -- you're way off base, IMO.
Ken Segall is a marketing expert -- someone whose job is to make people want what (in this case) Apple has to sell.
He has the bona fides!
The naming of a product is addressed to the non-techies out there who do not (necessarily) buy according to specs, looks, reputation... rather than the impression that they are getting the latest, greatest whatever.
Segall is saying that product naming should connote that -- and the dos y dos, allemande left: "ProductName n", "ProductName nS" in alternate years defeats the purpose... and Apple is missing an opportunity.
Also, I think you are out of line calling him a forum troll -- it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction... just because he says something with which you disagree.
Even from a standpoint of that not being a "name" for the device, it is. That it continues to do as well as it has been shows the "S" name doesn't diminish anything, and it's certainly not wrong to use that naming convention.
Nor has it been shown wrong to give arbitrary number names, though that doesn't make said names any more sensible.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Also, I think you are out of line calling him a forum troll…
You're right; that does need clarification. It's the same argument as those made by the Anti-Apple Brigade, wherein the phone is "the same" if the case doesn't change.
I probably should have put it in quotes or something.
The "new iPad" moniker seemed to signal a shift in naming for iOS devices, but the company never adopted it for the iPhone and appears to have dropped the practice with the fourth-generation iPad.
Depends on what you mean by "dropped the practice."
Yes, the latest iPad is called "iPad with Retina display," not "the new iPad."
But no, the numeral "4" isn't used in any iPad branding anywhere on Apple.com.
It appears only once in the Apple.com iPad home page and in the iPad overview page.
[SIZE=14px]There.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Is that a strong enough message?[/SIZE]
That is in fact how most people read it whether it has an 's' or a number attached. Anything that comes after 'iPhone' is secondary except when it it connotes 'new'. Most people would say 'I have an iPhone', and that really says it all. Rarely do you need to know more. The S means upgrade, and a new number means new iPhone. It's pretty simple. The question is whether keeping the same form factor is a good idea or not from a marketing pov.
It has been shown that people 'get' the concept of an upgrade an are happy with it. The iPhone 5 really does not need a redesign, let's face it, but we can all appreciate beefed up specs.
I don't think the Apple naming convention is perfect, but then again I don't think it is that important. People understand NEW, and UPGRADE.
"Tacking an S onto the existing model number sends a rather weak message," Segall writes. "It says that this is our 'off-year' product, with only modest improvements."
Wrong. It says, this is what the iPhone 4 or 5 et. el. would have been had we access to the faster processor, greater battery, more memory, better camera... You could say that 's' stands for the superior of the product we released last year...
His argument is that adding an S to the model number makes buyers PERCEIVE that no improvements have been made, not that the phones haven't improved. And I think he could well be correct: if the new model appears very similar to last year's, simply suffixing the name with an "S" is just going to reinforce the impression that it is a stopgap until the next round numbers model comes out, no matter what improvements have been made to the hardware.
If buyers perceive that nothing has changed... then that's their problem.
Apple's marketing kicks in and TELLS you all the stuff that have been improved.
Apple made sure that everyone knew that the iPhone 4S was quite an improvement over the iPhone 4
Faster processor, better camera, Siri...
I see what you're saying... that a person might not understand what an "S" model is.
Then again... Apple makes sure to highlight the improvements. It's kinda hard to ignore "It's the most amazing iPhone yet..."
The former Apple ad man also takes issue with Apple's apparent abandonment of the "new" naming convention it seemed to have adopted with the introduction of the third-generation iPad. The "new iPad" moniker seemed to signal a shift in naming for iOS devices, but the company never adopted it for the iPhone and appears to have dropped the practice with the fourth-generation iPad.
So what would he suggest after "New", New New, Newer New, Next New???
"New" as a model name is never going to create a long lasting series.
That it continues to do as well as it has been shows the "S" name doesn't diminish anything, and it's certainly not wrong to use that naming convention.
Nor has it been shown wrong to give arbitrary number names, though that doesn't make said names any more sensible.
Agree. You want the 2013 iPhone? Well it's probably going to be called the "5S." Whatever.
I just think it's slightly awkward to keep using the same number for 2 years, adding an "S" suffix in the 2nd year.
The "S," to me anyway, implies a variant on a theme. Like the Porsche Carrera 4 and Porsche Carrera 4S.
They are both current year cars, and they're sold side by side, but the "S" is faster and costs more.
But I think it would be equally awkward if Apple had called the 3GS the "4," for example.
Because the "S" odd-year models are essentially higher-performance variants of the previous year's non-S model.
Maybe it would make more sense to call the iPhones "the 2013 iPhone," "the 2014 iPhone," etc.
It would eliminate all confusion over the model year of each phone. And it would make the current
model even more appealing. Because really, who wants last year's phone?
The problem with attaching a model year to each iPhone is that Apple has only ever released iPhones in the
second half of the year. That "2013" model year will only be current for a few months before calendar year
2014 rolls around. It shortens the shelf life of the branding. Going back to the auto industry, this is why there
are already 2014 cars on the road even though 2014 is almost 9 months away. To give each model year a
longer perceived shelf life. The last remaining 2014 Taurus at your Ford dealer won't be "last year's model"
until 1/1/15, almost a year and 9 months from now. Makes it easier to sell the last few cars of a model year.
But would Apple move iPhone release to the beginning of the year just to stretch each model's "freshness"?
Extremely doubtful.
Balancing all this is the fact that most US customers are on 2 year contracts and won't update their iPhones
every year anyway. So no, there's not a massive difference between an iPhone N and iPhone NS. But
there's a huge difference between an iPhone N and iPhone N+1 and between an iPhone NS and
iPhone (N+1)S. There's little or no pressure on Apple to make odd year phones vastly better than even year phones.
On the iPad topic, dropping the version number was about the most confusing thing Apple ever did. Instead of calling it a simple "iPad 4" they call it "iPad, fourth generation". In daily usage, people will call it the iPad 4 anyway, but then the "new iPad" is only the iPad 3. If only Apple had sticked the same simple principle for the GUI.
They have to drop the numbers at some point - and it seems to be fine with MacBooks and iMacs - you don't see "MacBook 5" or "iMac 6" - it's just MacBook and iMac. The simplest and easiest in my opinion is to let the name be the name with the release timing indicating the specific model, just like the do with their computers.
They don't send a "weak" message they send an accurate message. An "S" version of the iPhone is traditionally a relatively minor upgrade. This guy seems to like to over-market things which disappoints customers.
I personally don't havea problem wi the "S" nomanclature. It's fine. I think of it like the auto industry does with cars. You have the Porche 911, then the 911GT, then the 911GTS. Same car but better internals. Nobody complains about that?
The model "s" come in a lot of cars too. Like Audi, dodge has the "RT" badge. Same goes with the Mustang. You have the base, and the GT. Chevy sometimes uses the "SS" badge.
It pretty clear to the customer who knows nothing about technology or marketing, and is able to associate the "s" model as the better one.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The only weak message is calling your 6th device "5". That's just pre-kindergarten levels of stupidity.
I know this quote has been beaten to death, but I'd also like to take a stab at it.
Barely any of the "mainstream" iPhone customers have a clue how many iPhones Apple has made. I'd wager more people would be confused by the apparent absence of of all odd numbers in the naming scheme than anything else. Can you imagine 4S, 6, 6S, 8, 8S 10..etc..etc. The mainstream customer doesn't care how many actual iPhone models have been made, and they have a very short-term memory. They just care that 5 comes after 4 and 6 comes after 5 and that's that.
The whole problem is in fact perpetrated by the "S" naming convention. If they had just named the 4S the 5 and the forthcoming iPhone the 6 and so on, the problem would be completely solved.
Anyhow..
However, to play devils advocate to the advertisers (in the article) insistence that the 'S' naming convention sends a weak message to consumers, I would say that perhaps it is the opposite. Perhaps the 'S' signifies to consumers that this isn't Apples beta version they're testing on you, but instead a tried and true iteration on the last product with beefed up speed...food for thought anyway.
Originally Posted by zoffdino
On the iPad topic, dropping the version number was about the most confusing thing Apple ever did.
Least confusing, and they SHOULD have done it on the iPhone, too. Is your complaint that because they still sell the iPad 2 the 'iPad' is somehow "less" than 'iPad 2'?
Instead of calling it a simple "iPad 4" they call it "iPad, fourth generation".
Just like every single computer Apple has ever made. What's the big deal?
Marketing name
Generation name
Common name
iPad
iPad
first-gen iPad
iPad
iPad 2
iPad 2
second-gen iPad
iPad 2
iPad 3
the new iPad
third-gen iPad
iPad 3
iPad 4
iPad with retina display
fourth-gen iPad
iPad 4
They dropped the number from the name, but it doesn't even have to be in the name. At this point they should just drop "the new", "with", and anything else from the marketing and just market the darn thing as "iPad". People will get it. They do for computers; what's so hard about the same for these?
People explicitly talk about their iPods by generation name. Regular people, not techies. Because they actually care enough about the product to do research about it. Have you seen any problem with that in the last decade? I think "iPod 10", "iPod nano 5", or "iPod shuffle 3" would have been far stupider than what Apple actually did, don't you? The "complaint" with names like this takes into consideration only brain-dead morons with more money than sense, buying a product on name alone "because it sounds better/higher/etc." I don't think any company wants to cater to that crowd.
The same could have easily been done for the iPhone, even though they sell three years' worth at once.
"I want an iPhone."
"How fast do you want it to be?"
The distinction then becomes one of power, not of age. And as the iPad has shown, even the "transition period" won't cause problems, since Apple can successfully sell a "higher number", older product at the same time as a numberless new one.
If only Apple had sticked the same simple principle for the GUI.
Huh?
Originally Posted by bulk001
So what have you done with your life to date worth talking about?
Please insert two credits and try again. "You're not a chef, so you can't critique cooking" isn't a rebuttal.
Originally Posted by jhende7
Barely any of the "mainstream" iPhone customers have a clue how many iPhones Apple has made.
I disagree with that, simply because most of the "mainstream" (whatever that means) customers of the iPod family know exactly what generation their device is. If you saw Apple call the next iPod nano "iPod nano 7", even though it's the 8th generation, all hell would break loose in the support realm. And some here would still claim that I'm "embarrassing myself" by contesting such a name choice.
The mainstream customer doesn't care how many actual iPhone models have been made, and they have a very short-term memory.
That sounds like good evidence in the case for dropping numbers altogether. If they couldn't care less about how many there have been, why should they care about numbers in the name at all? Ah…
…I would say that perhaps it is the opposite. Perhaps the 'S' signifies to consumers that this isn't Apples beta version they're testing on you, but instead a tried and true iteration on the last product with beefed up speed...food for thought anyway.
I like this take, though you don't see many Apple analyst optimists.
You're held up on the name indicating which generation it is, as if the iPhone 5 meant "the 5th iPhone", which it doesn't, any more than the iPhone 3G meant "the 3rd iPhone" or "iPhone, 3rd Gen".
You think people would be more confused if Apple went from the 4S to the 6?
The number indicates the model, not the generation.
Personally, I'd wish the Apple would drop the numbering sequence and just call it the "iPhone (sixth generation)" or "iPhone (mid 2013") like they do for ALL THEIR OTHER PRODUCTS, so we don't end up someday with the iPhone 12S. Yikes.
Of course, their hands are slightly tied because they continue selling at least on older generation along side the current generation.
Maybe they should adopt a name sequence, a la OS X, like "iPhone Apollo (6th Generation)", but some other less dumb naming convention. Canines? Fowl? Reptiles?
It's actually rather honest marketing. iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
I'd rather have clear simple names like these than the ridiculous "One X", "Hero", "Legendary" or "no sorry this is the latest model but its model number is less than the one last year" that other manufacturers do.
Originally Posted by Pendergast
You're held up on the name indicating which generation it is, as if the iPhone 5 meant "the 5th iPhone", which it doesn't, any more than the iPhone 3G meant "the 3rd iPhone" or "iPhone, 3rd Gen".
You've explicitly ignored the two models for which that was explicitly the case.
You think people would be more confused if Apple went from the 4S to the 6?
Nope. *shrug* In fact, I was all for that until the launch of the 3rd-gen iPad, after which I was for dropping numbers entirely.
The number indicates the model, not the generation.
Eh? They don't create multiple models of iPhone simultaneously, therefore model = generation. The 6th model of iPhone was the 6th generation iPhone.
Personally, I'd wish the Apple would drop the numbering sequence and just call it the "iPhone (sixth generation)" or "iPhone (mid 2013") like they do for ALL THEIR OTHER PRODUCTS, so we don't end up someday with the iPhone 12S. Yikes.
Exactly! They'll HAVE to do it at some point; why they didn't at the most logical time (the last one) is confusing. It's just going to get uglier from here on out.
Of course, their hands are slightly tied because they continue selling at least on older generation along side the current generation.
Ah, read my post above. That's moot! They don't have to worry about it.
The old "It won't work for the iPhone!" argument loses all of its… everything… when you mention that they've been doing it just fine with the iPod touch since the 3rd generation of that device. No one whines about that. They like to forget the iPod touch exists during that time.
Maybe they should adopt a name sequence, a la OS X, like "iPhone Apollo (6th Generation)", but some other less dumb naming convention. Canines? Fowl? Reptiles?
Marketing name: iPhone.
Internal name: iPhone (2015).
Just like every other hardware product they sell.
Originally Posted by kasakka
iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
Now we're getting into questioning the definition of "just".
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasakka
It's actually rather honest marketing. iPhone 4S was just a spec bump and the same will likely be true for 5S.
I'd rather have clear simple names like these than the ridiculous "One X", "Hero", "Legendary" or "no sorry this is the latest model but its model number is less than the one last year" that other manufacturers do.
For sure. Having numbered iPhones makes sense, but they'll have to drop the numbers eventually, when they decide it looks silly. I'm sure they'll go with another convention for their smartwatch.
The new iPhone.
There.
Is that a strong enough message?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, Mr. Segall: how many products have you developed and produced that sold >100,000,000 units?
Zing! Good one. So you're saying his comments are unqualified because he cannot walk the talk?
I guess you will not post anymore? By your own criterion, you are not qualified to criticized Samsung, Facebook, Google or any company. You are not qualified to make comments on software, hardware.
Unless the topic here is pimple-popping, so long!
TS -- you're way off base, IMO.
Ken Segall is a marketing expert -- someone whose job is to make people want what (in this case) Apple has to sell.
He has the bona fides!
The naming of a product is addressed to the non-techies out there who do not (necessarily) buy according to specs, looks, reputation... rather than the impression that they are getting the latest, greatest whatever.
Segall is saying that product naming should connote that -- and the dos y dos, allemande left: "ProductName n", "ProductName nS" in alternate years defeats the purpose... and Apple is missing an opportunity.
Also, I think you are out of line calling him a forum troll -- it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction... just because he says something with which you disagree.
Originally Posted by SockRolid
The new iPhone.
There.
Is that a strong enough message?
Even from a standpoint of that not being a "name" for the device, it is. That it continues to do as well as it has been shows the "S" name doesn't diminish anything, and it's certainly not wrong to use that naming convention.
Nor has it been shown wrong to give arbitrary number names, though that doesn't make said names any more sensible.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Also, I think you are out of line calling him a forum troll…
You're right; that does need clarification. It's the same argument as those made by the Anti-Apple Brigade, wherein the phone is "the same" if the case doesn't change.
I probably should have put it in quotes or something.
The "new iPad" moniker seemed to signal a shift in naming for iOS devices, but the company never adopted it for the iPhone and appears to have dropped the practice with the fourth-generation iPad.
Depends on what you mean by "dropped the practice."
Yes, the latest iPad is called "iPad with Retina display," not "the new iPad."
But no, the numeral "4" isn't used in any iPad branding anywhere on Apple.com.
It appears only once in the Apple.com iPad home page and in the iPad overview page.
It's the "4" in "$499."
It has been shown that people 'get' the concept of an upgrade an are happy with it. The iPhone 5 really does not need a redesign, let's face it, but we can all appreciate beefed up specs.
I don't think the Apple naming convention is perfect, but then again I don't think it is that important. People understand NEW, and UPGRADE.
Wrong. It says, this is what the iPhone 4 or 5 et. el. would have been had we access to the faster processor, greater battery, more memory, better camera... You could say that 's' stands for the superior of the product we released last year...
If buyers perceive that nothing has changed... then that's their problem.
Apple's marketing kicks in and TELLS you all the stuff that have been improved.
Apple made sure that everyone knew that the iPhone 4S was quite an improvement over the iPhone 4
Faster processor, better camera, Siri...
I see what you're saying... that a person might not understand what an "S" model is.
Then again... Apple makes sure to highlight the improvements. It's kinda hard to ignore "It's the most amazing iPhone yet..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The former Apple ad man also takes issue with Apple's apparent abandonment of the "new" naming convention it seemed to have adopted with the introduction of the third-generation iPad. The "new iPad" moniker seemed to signal a shift in naming for iOS devices, but the company never adopted it for the iPhone and appears to have dropped the practice with the fourth-generation iPad.
So what would he suggest after "New", New New, Newer New, Next New???
"New" as a model name is never going to create a long lasting series.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That it continues to do as well as it has been shows the "S" name doesn't diminish anything, and it's certainly not wrong to use that naming convention.
Nor has it been shown wrong to give arbitrary number names, though that doesn't make said names any more sensible.
Agree. You want the 2013 iPhone? Well it's probably going to be called the "5S." Whatever.
I just think it's slightly awkward to keep using the same number for 2 years, adding an "S" suffix in the 2nd year.
The "S," to me anyway, implies a variant on a theme. Like the Porsche Carrera 4 and Porsche Carrera 4S.
They are both current year cars, and they're sold side by side, but the "S" is faster and costs more.
But I think it would be equally awkward if Apple had called the 3GS the "4," for example.
Because the "S" odd-year models are essentially higher-performance variants of the previous year's non-S model.
Maybe it would make more sense to call the iPhones "the 2013 iPhone," "the 2014 iPhone," etc.
It would eliminate all confusion over the model year of each phone. And it would make the current
model even more appealing. Because really, who wants last year's phone?
The problem with attaching a model year to each iPhone is that Apple has only ever released iPhones in the
second half of the year. That "2013" model year will only be current for a few months before calendar year
2014 rolls around. It shortens the shelf life of the branding. Going back to the auto industry, this is why there
are already 2014 cars on the road even though 2014 is almost 9 months away. To give each model year a
longer perceived shelf life. The last remaining 2014 Taurus at your Ford dealer won't be "last year's model"
until 1/1/15, almost a year and 9 months from now. Makes it easier to sell the last few cars of a model year.
But would Apple move iPhone release to the beginning of the year just to stretch each model's "freshness"?
Extremely doubtful.
Balancing all this is the fact that most US customers are on 2 year contracts and won't update their iPhones
every year anyway. So no, there's not a massive difference between an iPhone N and iPhone NS. But
there's a huge difference between an iPhone N and iPhone N+1 and between an iPhone NS and
iPhone (N+1)S. There's little or no pressure on Apple to make odd year phones vastly better than even year phones.
They have to drop the numbers at some point - and it seems to be fine with MacBooks and iMacs - you don't see "MacBook 5" or "iMac 6" - it's just MacBook and iMac. The simplest and easiest in my opinion is to let the name be the name with the release timing indicating the specific model, just like the do with their computers.
They don't send a "weak" message they send an accurate message. An "S" version of the iPhone is traditionally a relatively minor upgrade. This guy seems to like to over-market things which disappoints customers.
The model "s" come in a lot of cars too. Like Audi, dodge has the "RT" badge. Same goes with the Mustang. You have the base, and the GT. Chevy sometimes uses the "SS" badge.
It pretty clear to the customer who knows nothing about technology or marketing, and is able to associate the "s" model as the better one.