970 - compelling naming scheme

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
folks,



actually, people say the difference between g4 and 970 is as dramatic as the move from 68k to ppc.



Given that, what nameing scheme should apple comp. use in future cpu's/towers?



I think they should drop that entire gx matrix, because gx is widely recognized as slow and old technology.



Instead, they [appl] should adopt their MacOS X naming scheme, which I really like.



Imagine an apple tower called "Panther", or "Lion" or you name it. I also can imagine different "nameing sources", maybe names which come from "astro-physics". I give you one example:

"Apple Solaris", or "Apple Centaury" , go create your own fantasys;-)



That would create some mystery about apple.



PC Boy:

"Oh, what kind of computer do I see on your desktop?"



Mac Boy:

"Listen that machine is from outerspace, its an apple machine, its called "apple centaury".



What do you think, guys?



best
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
    a@rona@ron Posts: 201member
    Apple Centaury sounds too much like century. I can see the WinTel camp going off on the fact that our computers are "centuries behind theres". We could follow the Intel camp and name our chip and computer an inert gas... Apple Argon 970, or possibly since the Pentium was the 586 (hence the pent prefix) it could be Nano--- (for the 9 in 970) or Pent--- (for the G5, PentaGen maybe). So what does this prove? I'm no marketing major thats for sure...



    A@ron
  • Reply 2 of 53
    dobbydobby Posts: 796member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by A@ron

    We could follow the Intel camp and name our chip and computer an inert gas...



    Yeah.

    The New Powermac METHANE - it goes like Stink!



    Dobby.
  • Reply 3 of 53
    a@rona@ron Posts: 201member
    Actually methane is not a pure element like Xeon or Argon... but yes you got the humor I was typing into my post correct.



    A@ron
  • Reply 4 of 53
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    The rumoured 'X-Station'?



    Hmmm. But what would you call the 'Powerbook'?



    'X-Book'?



    I'm not seeing the Tower line changing its brand name. But the chip may get a name change. I wouldn't rule it out with all the negative connotations of the G4 line for the last several years.



    Powermac(h)64..? Somekind of ad' play on it at least.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 5 of 53
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Assuming they turn the G4 vs. 970 difference as as large as the 68k vs. PPC difference - which it technically isn't, but they could market it as such, let's look back at what they did.



    There was the Macintosh, in 1984. Later, Macintosh II was introduced, and from '91 on, various series - the PowerBook series, the LC series, the Performa series, Quadra and later Centris for certain models (Centris was re-named back to Quadra after a while).



    But when the PPC was introduced, there was the PowerMacintosh. POWER. It was the machine that was supposedly way faster than anything else out there, and they tried to make it sound and feel like that. The PowerMacintosh 8100/80 had twice as much MHz as the Quadra 840AV, making it look like a huge step straightforward.



    Of course, we know that there had been problems with 68k emulation vs. native code, and they didn't really disappear until well into Mac OS 8. But that's a different story.



    In a Fortune interview in 1996, Steve Jobs was asked what he'd do if I were to return to Apple. He answered that he wouldn't want to continue Macintosh, but rather do the next step. What he, I believe, meant was to get rid of the Macintosh trademark altogether. The computing industry develops multiple times as fast as the car industry. Macintosh is almost twenty years old - would you consider a Ford T modern?



    There has been speculation of whether or not the PowerBook will be upgraded to the 970, and if it will be (in addition to the Xserve - which should be a given! - and the PowerMac successor), it needn't reflect the platform brand change as well: it never contained 'Mac' in the first place. The 'Xserve' already is a step away from the Macintosh (not only in its target market, but also in the name in itself), and that's a sign. They could have named the 'Xserve' the 'Network Server 2002' - in memories of the Network Server series from the mid-90s, but they recognized the 'Xserve' should feel like something new.



    As should the new PowerMac. If they hadn't already used that name for a rather cheap-o consumer line, I'd suggest 'Performa' as a new brand name of the PowerMac. It's the machine for performing the professional's work.



    The 'iMac', 'eMac' and 'iBook' never really were creative names in the first place, and could quickly be changed.



    As to your suggested names, I believe 'Centaury' was used before for something else, although I don't really remember. 'Solaris' immediately reminds me of a certain UNIX OS...
  • Reply 6 of 53
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    i suggest :

    X-tower

    or better the X-station. Station usually means high end desktop computer. X-station will refer to a high end desktop computer running mac os X.



    Welcome to the X-station
  • Reply 7 of 53
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    You make some interesting points here about 'beyond' the 'Mac'.



    The 'Mac' is now the OS. When it first started. It was a machine.



    The machines needn't be called that these days. Especially if Apple is reaching beyong its traditional base...as 'X-serve' and 'iPod' suggest. These aren't...'Macs' as we traditionally know them.



    Perhaps it is time for something new. Especially if you're aligning yourself for a rebounding economy and growth.



    But would an 'X-Station' opposed to a 'Powermac 970' pull in new punters to the platform? Would it reduce the stigma in Wintel land associated with 'Mac' being in a hardware name ala '____(fill in blank)Mac'?



    Perception is something Apple will have to get around in its quest for growth.



    Branding as well staking out new territories is a part of that....along with all the other million and one strategies Apple needs to stop its marketshare dipping below 2%



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 8 of 53
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    You make some interesting points here about 'beyond' the 'Mac'.



    The 'Mac' is now the OS. When it first started. It was a machine.



    The machines needn't be called that these days. Especially if Apple is reaching beyong its traditional base...as 'X-serve' and 'iPod' suggest. These aren't...'Macs' as we traditionally know them.



    Perhaps it is time for something new. Especially if you're aligning yourself for a rebounding economy and growth.



    But would an 'X-Station' opposed to a 'Powermac 970' pull in new punters to the platform? Would it reduce the stigma in Wintel land associated with 'Mac' being in a hardware name ala '____(fill in blank)Mac'?



    Perception is something Apple will have to get around in its quest for growth.



    Branding as well staking out new territories is a part of that....along with all the other million and one strategies Apple needs to stop its marketshare dipping below 2%



    Lemon Bon Bon




    This is an interesting marketing analysis
  • Reply 9 of 53
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    Sending to General Discussion.
  • Reply 10 of 53
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    The ___Mac trick worked one last time with iMac, and that was five years ago. It only worked because the iMac's design came out totally unexpected (yet, in retrospect, was so obvious!). It had worked before for PowerMac because the PowerMacs were just that (in comparison to anything else for that price): powerful.



    I say death to the Mac platform - rename it to something else, loosen its boundaries. Mac OS X may continue to be named Mac OS X, which has already become one of the strongest UNIX systems, but the Mac as a hardware needs a new name.
  • Reply 11 of 53
    vox barbaravox barbara Posts: 2,021member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    ... Mac as a hardware needs a new name.



    Exactly, i guess that is the bottom line of my post.



    BTW, after nearly 13 years mac experience, i never quiete understood, why apple once decided to drop the name "apple" in there cpus.



    I almost always say: "I use an apple computer.", when i'm asked. Instead of: "I use a mac."



    I suggest the new cpus should contain "apple" in their name. E.g. "Apple Station", "Apple XStation", and all derivants of that nameing scheme.



    I want to run an "apple computer" instead of a "mac".
  • Reply 12 of 53
    Since "Macintosh" is an obvious play on the apple variety "McIntosh," perhaps a new iteration could use another variety of apple. Click here for a comprehensive list



    A couple of my favorites for a new name are:

    Braeburn

    Cortland &

    Gravenstein



    Although if one wanted to name a computer with a nod to someone at AI, they might go with the Jonathan or Mutsu varieties
  • Reply 13 of 53
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Macintosh, Powermac, and Powerbook have name recognition that other companies dream of. Quick, what does Dell call its laptops? What about their entry-level workstations?



    Getting rid of the "Mac" moniker because PC users hate it is stupid. They will hate Apple no matter what it's called, simply because it's not Windows.



    The PPC970-based towers will arrive, and they will be called PowerMacs, almost certainly Powermac G5s. It just makes sense.



    Also, Xstation might sound like a good name, but it's already taken. By IBM, no less...
  • Reply 14 of 53
    nah,



    i think the letter/number schemes are much cooler, and 'names' can get really cheesy



    compare:



    Ford: Taurus

    vs.

    Saab: 9-5

    Chrysler: LeBaron

    vs.

    Volvo: 940

    Chevy: Impala

    vs.

    Porsche: 911



    and so on
  • Reply 15 of 53
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    How about the Apple 'Chinney'?
  • Reply 16 of 53
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    I'd like to see "Mac OS X" simply become "OS X" with the release of Panther. Then, Apple can become one of those X-geared companies (they already have the XServe, and all this buzz about changing the PowerMac to "XStation" is pretty neato). I just hope this doesn't make people think Apple's trying to be "Xtreme," by grabbing bagel bites while pulling a 1080º off an Indy Nosebone grind, all while slurping Go-Gurt.
  • Reply 17 of 53
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    David St. Hubbins and Nigel Tufnell walk onstage during the SteveNote to announce OS XI (ours go up to eleven!)



    the proverbial Windows BSOD gets renamed ChokedToDeathOnVomit (CTDOV)
  • Reply 18 of 53
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    To be a bit more serious (than my previous post), I believe that a surprising amount of of research, thinking, hand-wringing and argument goes on in companies regarding naming decisions. There is the classic choice between maintaining brand-recognition vs. the lure of the 'new'. In Apple's case, I think that they have done quite a good job in combining both attributes by repackaging the 'Mac' name in new formats over the years. I think that they may want to continue this practice ('XMac' anyone?). On the other hand, some may see the practice itself as somewhat stale.



    On balance, unless the 970 is truly, truly, revolutionary, I think that I would stay with some varient of the 'Mac' name.
  • Reply 19 of 53
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    Yeah, "Mac" ain't goin' anywhere. PC users can go screw themselves if it "makes them so sick." They need to find something else to occupy their time (which I already thought was plenty occupied downloading service pack updates, trying to figure out where Windows Explorer sent all their files, and tracking down spyware).



    XMac sounds really awesome, but it's gettin' a bit close to a certain naming scheme employed by a not-so-friendly company that produces gaming boxes at a loss.



    The name, whatever Apple announces it to be, will be one of the more exciting things to be revealed. Perhaps we could change letters all together, abandoning the "generative" aspect of Motorola's lame processors. Or, since this is the first breed of a new CPU design based around IBM's POWER server CPUs, it could be the Power Macintosh II, just like the Macintosh II but reflecting a second evolution of Power Macs.
  • Reply 20 of 53
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    I realize that the jump from G4 to 970 is a huge deal, especially in the future with better iterations of said chip, but why would Apple want to shoot themselves in the foot by losing brand recognition by dropping the PowerMac and PowerBook names just because....Drop the G4, that will be enough. Just Apple PowerMac or Apple PowerBook with no silly Gx moniker.
Sign In or Register to comment.