“Hi, I’d like an iPhone.” “You want the cheap one or the best one?”
“What’s the difference?”
Boom. Employee explains the differences. People, on average, are blithering idiots these days, and that’s accelerating, but they’re still capable of comprehending this sort of thing.
Sounds like you’re underestimating their intelligence.
You are still giving an incomplete answer. You still need to have a name for 2 year old and 3 year old iPhones. They need to be clearly marked on the box and online store.
So how many people will be willing to buy an iPhone2013? Or iPhone 2014? That sounds horrible. Right now even casual users know the difference between an iPhone5 series and 6 series. That's powerful marketing. Now you just want to call it iPhone? Give me a break. No one wants to buy a phone with a old year attached to it. Do you think someone wants to go to a dealership and buy a brand new 2013 BMW? LOL.
You are grasphing at straws. Just stop. No one is confused about the iPhone lineup except you.
Thats the whole point of it, i think. Buying an iPhone 6 or 5S at the moment makes you think you are getting a year or 2 old phone. That doesn't seem to have stopped people. But if its just called iPhone, then the sales rep can explain that they are both brand new (as in the purchase date, not the release date) and say this one has a faster processor and better camera, but this one is cheaper. it *removes* the idea of age. This way has worked for years with iMacs and MacBooks. You just decide on specs based on price (your budget).
Apple actually tried this with the iPad 3. It was just called the iPad, but they didn't follow through on it, as they still kept the iPad 2 etc. So people started calling it the iPad 3. If they had gone across the board with all products, and followed through on it properly, it might have stuck.
And seeing as you brought cars into it , the 2013 BMW was called the 520 (example) and the 2016 is STILL called the 520 BMW don't name them the 525, 526, 527, 528 based on the release version. It was still a BMW 520 30 years ago. ( or 5-series if you want to take a broader view) The BMW 6-series is not an earlier/later version, its a totally different product.
Your fridge is not a WhirlPool 1, then 2, then 3. Your Nespresso machine is not V1 V2 V3, with V3 being faster, you can just buy "the latest" or the end-of-line previous one, thats cheaper. Why is the naming/version idea so ingrained into Tech products? Lets get rid.
Must go buy a Clock 3, its faster than Clock 2 ;-)
Your fridge is not a WhirlPool 1, then 2, then 3. Your Nespresso machine is not V1 V2 V3, with V3 being faster, you can just buy "the latest" or the end-of-line previous one, thats cheaper.
Why is the naming/version idea so ingrained into Tech products? Lets get rid.
Yeah, what Apple really needs is the naming schemes of other consumer electronics companies.
My Whirlpool is an AWM 366. That tells you everything you need to know be able to google it for your friend who's looking for a new machine.
Makes sense. But I think they also need to address the confusing naming schemes across all of their product lines.
What we have now is starting to echo the confusion that met consumers before Steve Jobs returned in 1997:
Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro
iMac 21.5" Retina 4k, iMac 27" Retina 5k, Mac Pro, Mac Mini
iPad mini 2, iPad mini 4, iPad Air 2, iPad Pro 9.7", iPad Pro 12.9"
iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus
iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle
Apple TV, The New Apple TV
Apple Watch, Apple Watch Sport, Apple Watch Edition
I think the main problem is the iPad and iPhone naming schemes which is confusing for new customers. But the fact that there seems to be no naming convention between product categories makes navigating the various options less than simple - ironic for a company traditionally thought of as consumer friendly.
Apple is much more like the Apple it was before Jobs returned to it. It's apparently run by the same kind of thinkers as back then, though maybe modified slightly in having established some kind of refocused public image. The MBA attitudes are diversification, which Jobs curtailed when he returned because it was wasting Apple resources on products failing to be market leaders. At some point, today's Apple will probably burn off its second Jobs era accomplishments and need another Jobs... which isn't likely to come along. Most people don't seem to care that much about details and consumer ease of use at the same time. Especially not corporate leadership types.
Is this a joke ?! If not this is just another example of extreme ignorance from AppleInsider...
Why don't you claim that it will be called Nextstep since that .nib extension of that file means "Nextstep interface bytestream".
OS X APIs (Application Programming Interface) are full of "NS" abbreviations, prefixes etc. yet OS X is called what it is, not Nextstep. That Mac abbreviation in the name of that file just signifies the Intel platform, not a commercial brand and never what OS X will be called. That is beyond divination !... Naming conventions in software engineering have nothing to do with commercial branding...
This is a really good point and I had it floating in the back of my mind as well. Saying "Mac OS" is like saying "not Windows". (sorry, Linux people)
Apple is much more like the Apple it was before Jobs returned to it. It's apparently run by the same kind of thinkers as back then, though maybe modified slightly in having established some kind of refocused public image. The MBA attitudes are diversification, which Jobs curtailed when he returned because it was wasting Apple resources on products failing to be market leaders. At some point, today's Apple will probably burn off its second Jobs era accomplishments and need another Jobs... which isn't likely to come along. Most people don't seem to care that much about details and consumer ease of use at the same time. Especially not corporate leadership types.
It's not anywhere near as bad as the 90s yet. Other than increasing the range of screen sizes in iPads and iPhones, the main difference in product range from the Jobs era is in not discontinuing the previous versions of a product but keeping them around to fill the lower price tiers. The MBA is clearly meant to go away — the Air name makes no sense vs. the 12-inch MacBook — but people have to stop buying it first.
Apple is much more like the Apple it was before Jobs returned to it. It's apparently run by the same kind of thinkers as back then, though maybe modified slightly in having established some kind of refocused public image. The MBA attitudes are diversification, which Jobs curtailed when he returned because it was wasting Apple resources on products failing to be market leaders. At some point, today's Apple will probably burn off its second Jobs era accomplishments and need another Jobs... which isn't likely to come along. Most people don't seem to care that much about details and consumer ease of use at the same time. Especially not corporate leadership types.
It's not anywhere near as bad as the 90s yet. Other than increasing the range of screen sizes in iPads and iPhones, the main difference in product range from the Jobs era is in not discontinuing the previous versions of a product but keeping them around to fill the lower price tiers. The MBA is clearly meant to go away — the Air name makes no sense vs. the 12-inch MacBook — but people have to stop buying it first.
By MBA, I was referencing masters of business administration, not MacBook Air.
I'm not convinced it's not as bad as the 90s. We have a luxury watch (arguably an iPhone mini, except that it requires an iPhone to be usable) and an automotive project. Until that second one plays out, it could go either way. But there is a lot of fragmentation in here, for example with how some Macs and iPads have retina and some don't, which is problematic for development.
Also, it might be worse than the 90s: the software is really not getting any focus (porting iWork back to the Mac after making an iOS port totally wrecked the "almost competition for Microsoft" level of features), and the GUI design of today's Apple has abandoned all the research Apple themselves pioneered and focused on following the flat fad (rather than leading by example and keeping usability as the top priority).
Interestingly, the name "Mac OS" originated as part of Jobs' loophole exploitation to get out of the 3rd party Mac licensing deal that was killing Apple's Macs on the market. "System [N]" was the original name.
"Mac OS X" was a direct numeric sequel to "Mac OS 9", but using a Roman numeral to suggest more sophistication, to establish a striking brand identity, and also referencing the UNIX at its core (it used to be the Mac OS X packaging included a "powered by UNIX" graphic on it).
Though prior to System 6, the releases weren't as hard-and-fast tied to major version numbers, as far as I know. (I didn't get started on Macintosh until System 6, in 1989.)
The version numbers were kind of confusing, in fact, because there were three of them for each release, and people would use any of the three to identify a system version. So System Software 1.0 was also known as System 3.1, as well as Finder 5.2 (the Finder changes usually being by far the most noticeable changes in those days). System Software 2.0 was System 4.0/Finder 5.4, and so on. It wasn't until System 6 that the version numbers got reasonably unified.
System 7 was the first one they ever marketed the hell out of a release number for.
It's also the first one that they charged for, IIRC. All the earlier releases could be obtained for free.
edit: I suppose I should include something on-topic for the thread. Okay, here goes. I'm not saying that Apple won't eventually drop the OS X moniker (it could happen; OS X has been around for quite a while at this point), but going by the name of a .nib file in an obscure corner of the OS is a truly ridiculous reason to assert that they will. It's not quite as bad as the LiFi thing the other month which was based on misunderstanding the internal structure of a file, but it's close. There are references to "Mac" and "MacOS" all over the developer files; this is neither new, surprising, nor indicative of anything special. This sort of "Bible Code"ing comes across to me as rather silly, IMO.
Apple is much more like the Apple it was before Jobs returned to it. It's apparently run by the same kind of thinkers as back then, though maybe modified slightly in having established some kind of refocused public image. The MBA attitudes are diversification, which Jobs curtailed when he returned because it was wasting Apple resources on products failing to be market leaders. At some point, today's Apple will probably burn off its second Jobs era accomplishments and need another Jobs... which isn't likely to come along. Most people don't seem to care that much about details and consumer ease of use at the same time. Especially not corporate leadership types.
With all due respect…what a load of horseshit.
The MacBook Air was introduced BY STEVEN P. JOBS in 2008, as a third portable product line alongside the existing MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. You know, the guy who curtailed diversification…back at a time when Apple was a few weeks from bankruptcy and selling roughly an order of magnitude less as many Macs as today, at vastly lower margins. [Edit: apologies — I didn't realise that you meant the degree, not the product line. I'm going to let this response stand, though.]
To get a good idea of this "diversification" vs. the simplification of product lines, take a look at the Macintosh Product Timeline here:
It was slightly expanded, from two desktops and two laptops to three desktops and three laptop lines. By Steve.
That's it.
And that's how it's stayed.
And just in case you're not seeing the pattern:
Three iPad lines — mini, Air, Pro.
Three iPhone lines — budget, last year's flagship, this year's flagship.
Okay, the iPod was up to four different lines (under Steve), but Tim Cook's Apple cleaned that up by letting the Classic finally die. Three iPod lines.
And, as has always been the case, those individual lines' models come in different sizes/speeds/capacities/colours.
Edit: Also, it's worth noting that when the Mac mini was first introduced, BY STEVE, the eMac was still available — making it four desktop lines at the time: Mac mini, eMac, iMac, and Power Mac G5.
Interestingly, the name "Mac OS" originated as part of Jobs' loophole exploitation to get out of the 3rd party Mac licensing deal that was killing Apple's Macs on the market. "System [N]" was the original name.
Actually, no. I believe you're confusing something there.
Mac OS was the name of the operating system while it was licensed.
IIRC, Steve killed the clones by renaming the next regularly scheduled Mac OS 8 update (8.7) to Mac OS 9, thus ending all existing licensing deals, which were based on OS 8.
So yes, ending the deal was achieved through a name change — but it was a version change, not the renaming from "System (n)" to "Mac OS".
The MacOS references have been around since the creation of OS X out of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. It's developer nomenclature that has hung around. The company and all its development was adamant [I was there] that MacOS is dead and the future in all incarnations is OS X.
It really stands for Operating System Ex, not Operating System 10. It's the reason they have OS X 10.x.x instead of OS 10.10.x.x.
MacOS Is dead.
Mac OS X did not stand for "Operating System Ex" as you like to say it. It was originally just Mac OS 10. They used the "X" as a marketing gimmick to make it seem so much bigger than just a version change (from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10). They knew they were putting Unix in it, a complete overhaul of the system itself. So, they went with the Roman numeral for 10 which is X. Then people started referring to it as Mac OX "Ex" (myself included), even though Steve kept referring to it as Mac OS 10.
Now, should they go away from the "X" that is there? I have no idea; I am a developer not a marketing person [in my best McCoy voice]! But it may be time to retire the 10-series and move forward with 11. My thinking is that it will not be this upcoming version, but the next one when they release iOS 11 (assuming in 2017), they may release MacOS 11 then as well. Just a thought.
I'm going to take Mr. Driftmeyer's side of this argument since he was actually working for Apple Computer at the time of the name's introduction.
I've always associated the X in OS X with the X in NeXT, the operating system that spawned OS X, which contributed greatly to Apple's comeback. It would be a shame if the last vestige of this link we're removed before the current OS is replaced with the next ground-up re-written replacement.
I'm all for it. I have always liked MacOS the best. Simple, to the point, mentions the brand, and removes any ambiguity concerning the "X" pronounciation or meaning.
I don’t like the camelCasing of it, but I like the unification.
I did a mockup a while back of distinguishing watchOS, iOS, and macOS icons like Apple uses now (for the former two) with the macOS one being a widescreen rounded rectangle, but the image seems to have been lost in the forum transition.
Right now they use squares for both iOS and Mac OS; I just think it should be different.
If Apple released a non-touch version of iOS for general devices, similar to tvOS, but for a laptop or other non-touchscreen devices running a variant of iOS, what would that OS be named?
If Apple released a non-touch version of iOS for general devices, similar to tvOS, but for a laptop or other non-touchscreen devices running a variant of iOS, what would that OS be named?
If Apple released a non-touch version of iOS for general devices, similar to tvOS, but for a laptop or other non-touchscreen devices running a variant of iOS, what would that OS be named?
Currently? OS X. In future? Mac OS, or macOS, possibly — discussing that is really the point of this thread.
I've always been a stickler for calling it and writing it correct. "Mac", not "MAC".... and "OS X", not 'OSX".
Surprisingly, I'm totally okay with macOS. I think it fits the larger branding, but it does begin to conflict with the machines.... are we going to see "macBook Air" and "macBook Pro"? I guess when you look at the other product likes... Apple Watch, Apple TV, they get away with the different cases. There's no way they would lowercase the "a" on Apple, ever.
This would make more sense if they obscure all the version numbers and just refer to the versions by the California landmark for the year
More sense still if they split/kill iOS and just admit all the OS's are tweaked versions of the same core OS. So as well as the new macOS landmark, existing watchOS and tvOS we'd see padOS and phoneOS as separate entities. Maybe even add podOS to bring the smaller iPods into the family instead running their custom OS.
Comments
But if its just called iPhone, then the sales rep can explain that they are both brand new (as in the purchase date, not the release date) and say this one has a faster processor and better camera, but this one is cheaper. it *removes* the idea of age.
This way has worked for years with iMacs and MacBooks. You just decide on specs based on price (your budget).
Apple actually tried this with the iPad 3. It was just called the iPad, but they didn't follow through on it, as they still kept the iPad 2 etc. So people started calling it the iPad 3.
If they had gone across the board with all products, and followed through on it properly, it might have stuck.
And seeing as you brought cars into it , the 2013 BMW was called the 520 (example) and the 2016 is STILL called the 520
BMW don't name them the 525, 526, 527, 528 based on the release version. It was still a BMW 520 30 years ago. ( or 5-series if you want to take a broader view)
The BMW 6-series is not an earlier/later version, its a totally different product.
Your fridge is not a WhirlPool 1, then 2, then 3. Your Nespresso machine is not V1 V2 V3, with V3 being faster, you can just buy "the latest" or the end-of-line previous one, thats cheaper.
Why is the naming/version idea so ingrained into Tech products? Lets get rid.
Must go buy a Clock 3, its faster than Clock 2 ;-)
Yeah, what Apple really needs is the naming schemes of other consumer electronics companies.
My Whirlpool is an AWM 366. That tells you everything you need to know be able to google it for your friend who's looking for a new machine.
It's not anywhere near as bad as the 90s yet. Other than increasing the range of screen sizes in iPads and iPhones, the main difference in product range from the Jobs era is in not discontinuing the previous versions of a product but keeping them around to fill the lower price tiers. The MBA is clearly meant to go away — the Air name makes no sense vs. the 12-inch MacBook — but people have to stop buying it first.
I'm not convinced it's not as bad as the 90s. We have a luxury watch (arguably an iPhone mini, except that it requires an iPhone to be usable) and an automotive project. Until that second one plays out, it could go either way. But there is a lot of fragmentation in here, for example with how some Macs and iPads have retina and some don't, which is problematic for development.
Also, it might be worse than the 90s: the software is really not getting any focus (porting iWork back to the Mac after making an iOS port totally wrecked the "almost competition for Microsoft" level of features), and the GUI design of today's Apple has abandoned all the research Apple themselves pioneered and focused on following the flat fad (rather than leading by example and keeping usability as the top priority).
"Mac OS X" was a direct numeric sequel to "Mac OS 9", but using a Roman numeral to suggest more sophistication, to establish a striking brand identity, and also referencing the UNIX at its core (it used to be the Mac OS X packaging included a "powered by UNIX" graphic on it).
edit: I suppose I should include something on-topic for the thread. Okay, here goes. I'm not saying that Apple won't eventually drop the OS X moniker (it could happen; OS X has been around for quite a while at this point), but going by the name of a .nib file in an obscure corner of the OS is a truly ridiculous reason to assert that they will. It's not quite as bad as the LiFi thing the other month which was based on misunderstanding the internal structure of a file, but it's close. There are references to "Mac" and "MacOS" all over the developer files; this is neither new, surprising, nor indicative of anything special. This sort of "Bible Code"ing comes across to me as rather silly, IMO.
The MacBook Air was introduced BY STEVEN P. JOBS in 2008, as a third portable product line alongside the existing MacBook and MacBook Pro lines.
You know, the guy who curtailed diversification…back at a time when Apple was a few weeks from bankruptcy and selling roughly an order of magnitude less as many Macs as today, at vastly lower margins. [Edit: apologies — I didn't realise that you meant the degree, not the product line. I'm going to let this response stand, though.]
To get a good idea of this "diversification" vs. the simplification of product lines, take a look at the Macintosh Product Timeline here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Macintosh_models
It was slightly expanded, from two desktops and two laptops to three desktops and three laptop lines. By Steve.
That's it.
And that's how it's stayed.
And just in case you're not seeing the pattern:
Three iPad lines — mini, Air, Pro.
Three iPhone lines — budget, last year's flagship, this year's flagship.
Okay, the iPod was up to four different lines (under Steve), but Tim Cook's Apple cleaned that up by letting the Classic finally die. Three iPod lines.
And, as has always been the case, those individual lines' models come in different sizes/speeds/capacities/colours.
Edit: Also, it's worth noting that when the Mac mini was first introduced, BY STEVE, the eMac was still available — making it four desktop lines at the time: Mac mini, eMac, iMac, and Power Mac G5.
Actually, no. I believe you're confusing something there.
Mac OS was the name of the operating system while it was licensed.
IIRC, Steve killed the clones by renaming the next regularly scheduled Mac OS 8 update (8.7) to Mac OS 9, thus ending all existing licensing deals, which were based on OS 8.
So yes, ending the deal was achieved through a name change — but it was a version change, not the renaming from "System (n)" to "Mac OS".
I've always associated the X in OS X with the X in NeXT, the operating system that spawned OS X, which contributed greatly to Apple's comeback. It would be a shame if the last vestige of this link we're removed before the current OS is replaced with the next ground-up re-written replacement.
I did a mockup a while back of distinguishing watchOS, iOS, and macOS icons like Apple uses now (for the former two) with the macOS one being a widescreen rounded rectangle, but the image seems to have been lost in the forum transition.
Right now they use squares for both iOS and Mac OS; I just think it should be different.
Surprisingly, I'm totally okay with macOS. I think it fits the larger branding, but it does begin to conflict with the machines.... are we going to see "macBook Air" and "macBook Pro"? I guess when you look at the other product likes... Apple Watch, Apple TV, they get away with the different cases. There's no way they would lowercase the "a" on Apple, ever.
More sense still if they split/kill iOS and just admit all the OS's are tweaked versions of the same core OS.
So as well as the new macOS landmark, existing watchOS and tvOS we'd see padOS and phoneOS as separate entities. Maybe even add podOS to bring the smaller iPods into the family instead running their custom OS.