The "PowerPC" name came from IBM to show that the processors were a derivative of the PowerRISC used in the RS6000 and similar machines. I think it's possibly an acronym. Apple probably has a license to use it from IBM in accord with their membership in the erstwhile AIM Group.
Altho the notebooks were called PowerBooks before they had PowerPCs in them, the PowerPC conversion was in progress at the time, so the use of "Power" on such un-powerful units was an instance of what Gerald Weinberg calls "the Bolden Rule", an intentional altho deceptive use of the "halo effect". Much like one might call the Mac Mini the "iPod Mac" even though it is not an iPod.
So inasmuch as the "Power" name does definitely indicate the processor architecture, for them to continue using it on new products would be bad in two ways: (1) deceptive to those who intended to purchase a PowerPC product, and (2) a "reverse halo effect" by associating the new machines with the old architecture. It would be similar to Apple calling a 7100, say, a "Quadra". They did not do so then, nor will they now, if they have any sense (or good legal advice).
The PowerBook 100 was released in 1991. Three years before the Power Macintosh 6100/7100/8100 line of desktops were released using the PowerPC 601, the G1 if you will.
Cubist, with all due respect, I can imagine the Apple engineers making the same arguments to Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs and getting a reply of, "Yeah, well who cares? It's a brand and we're going to keep it."...
You're probably right. Apple has no ethics anymore. This whole transition is all about Apple being just like everyone else.
I can't see Apple giving up such a widely engrained brand just because it's *technically* not accurate. Of course, using that argument they could just keep the Gx names going.
I can't see Apple giving up such a widely engrained brand just because it's *technically* not accurate. Of course, using that argument they could just keep the Gx names going.
Right. The G3, G4, G5 processors were only called that by Apple. To the manufacturers, they were the PowerPC 740/750, 74xx, and 970, respectively. And really, the Gn just ended up referring to the generation of the system as a whole. And as several people have pointed out, the PowerBook was called the PowerBook before anything had a PowerPC processor in it. (Does the ThinkBook have a ThinkPC processor in it?)
Apple has always struggled with product names to separate different SKUs within a model line. The old Quadra 630, 700, 800, 900 numbers were essentially meaningless, except to differentiate their supposed place within the lineup at the time.
Right now, they've got a pretty cohesive naming scheme in place. Power___ for the professional users and i___ for the consumers. To smooth the transition, they'll either need to come up with some other way of indicating the generation of hardware, or just stick with the same: PowerMac G6 featuring Intel Pentium IV or whatever.
Then again, Apple did recently file a trademark registration for "Mactel" didn't they...
Thanks, Clem Dickey, for tracking down that acronym.
Maddan's probably right, I can't see them changing PowerBook until they come up with something a lot better, but the Power Mac could be changed. How about Tower Mac?
I think if Apple registered "Mactel" (read this on a different thread I think), they may use that somehow.
Their naming scheme (I believe) is all going to depend on how many chipsets/motherboards they plan on implementing into their product line. For example if they plan on introducing many of Intel's products, they may use methods such as "i955" for the iMac w/ Intel 955 or "p955" for the PowerMac w/ Intel 955 - an easy transition from the IBM configuration to the Intel configuration. Frankly however this reminds me of Dell and other PC manufacturers, so this most likely won't happen, and could get them into legal difficulties.
I'm going to assume that Apple will stick with a minimal amount of boards/chipsets that they only need, rid themselves of the "power" prefix and come up with a creative one to describe the new boards. They've been using "power" for how long now? More than a decade right? They've changed a lot since then, to me it seems logical that they would drop the "power" brand during this revolution if you will, even though it has a sense of value to it.
Since Apple now is leaving PowerPC processors and going Intel, what are they going to do with the names PowerMac and PowerBook?
The current names were launched with the shift from the motorola 68k CISC processors to PowerPC RISC processors.
With the new shift back to CISC, will Apple invent a new naming scheme?
Yes, the first Intel-based Macs will be named...
PowerMac 6100i
PowerMac 7100i
PowerMac 8100i
and will be available in your choice of Beige, Platinum, and Desert Sand Mica. For only $399 extra you will be able to get a "Mac Compatible" PowerPC add-in card.
I think they will keep the standard brand names of iMac, PowerMac, iBook and PowerBook. They are definitely too well established - it would be foolish to destroy all their branding efforts. (And a waste of money )
As for the G naming convention, they've stuck with that for years now. One can only hope they keep it - it's classy.
I'm sure they won't... but I hope that they start putting dumbo numbers after their computers.
Its still about the swtich... Apple seem very aware that they need the simpliest product line to allow intial intrigue and thus considering for switching. Its all well and good an Apple geek comparing ram's gb's and chipsets... but the normal world doesn' t really care. For apple, it's been simple.
i = entry level/students
power = pros
Then its just a case of generations and sizes. Its like ordering from a Mc Donalds Menu... and its the same world over!!!!
I'd imagine they'd want to keep a generation name as they have now... Maybe they'd tie it to the operating system?
Powerbook Tiger
Powerbook Leopard
etc
All part of the software hardware convergence! might put people off putting OSX on non apple machines to!!!
Keeping the "power" and "i" names makes sense, but I have no idea what to do about the "G" naming structure. Doesn't seem like apple can really keep it and replacing it seems difficult. Perhaps they'll just use the names of the intel chips. Not sure what intel's marketing names are going to be but for ex. PowerMac P5. Can't think of any better way to do it...
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
The "PowerPC" name came from IBM to show that the processors were a derivative of the PowerRISC used in the RS6000 and similar machines. I think it's possibly an acronym. Apple probably has a license to use it from IBM in accord with their membership in the erstwhile AIM Group.
Altho the notebooks were called PowerBooks before they had PowerPCs in them, the PowerPC conversion was in progress at the time, so the use of "Power" on such un-powerful units was an instance of what Gerald Weinberg calls "the Bolden Rule", an intentional altho deceptive use of the "halo effect". Much like one might call the Mac Mini the "iPod Mac" even though it is not an iPod.
So inasmuch as the "Power" name does definitely indicate the processor architecture, for them to continue using it on new products would be bad in two ways: (1) deceptive to those who intended to purchase a PowerPC product, and (2) a "reverse halo effect" by associating the new machines with the old architecture. It would be similar to Apple calling a 7100, say, a "Quadra". They did not do so then, nor will they now, if they have any sense (or good legal advice).
The PowerBook 100 was released in 1991. Three years before the Power Macintosh 6100/7100/8100 line of desktops were released using the PowerPC 601, the G1 if you will.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Cubist, with all due respect, I can imagine the Apple engineers making the same arguments to Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs and getting a reply of, "Yeah, well who cares? It's a brand and we're going to keep it."...
You're probably right. Apple has no ethics anymore. This whole transition is all about Apple being just like everyone else.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I can't see Apple giving up such a widely engrained brand just because it's *technically* not accurate. Of course, using that argument they could just keep the Gx names going.
Right. The G3, G4, G5 processors were only called that by Apple. To the manufacturers, they were the PowerPC 740/750, 74xx, and 970, respectively. And really, the Gn just ended up referring to the generation of the system as a whole. And as several people have pointed out, the PowerBook was called the PowerBook before anything had a PowerPC processor in it. (Does the ThinkBook have a ThinkPC processor in it?)
Apple has always struggled with product names to separate different SKUs within a model line. The old Quadra 630, 700, 800, 900 numbers were essentially meaningless, except to differentiate their supposed place within the lineup at the time.
Right now, they've got a pretty cohesive naming scheme in place. Power___ for the professional users and i___ for the consumers. To smooth the transition, they'll either need to come up with some other way of indicating the generation of hardware, or just stick with the same: PowerMac G6 featuring Intel Pentium IV or whatever.
Then again, Apple did recently file a trademark registration for "Mactel" didn't they...
Originally posted by cubist
I think [PowerPC is] possibly an acronym.
POWER was originally Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC - an acronym, albeit a clumsy one.
Maddan's probably right, I can't see them changing PowerBook until they come up with something a lot better, but the Power Mac could be changed. How about Tower Mac?
Their naming scheme (I believe) is all going to depend on how many chipsets/motherboards they plan on implementing into their product line. For example if they plan on introducing many of Intel's products, they may use methods such as "i955" for the iMac w/ Intel 955 or "p955" for the PowerMac w/ Intel 955 - an easy transition from the IBM configuration to the Intel configuration. Frankly however this reminds me of Dell and other PC manufacturers, so this most likely won't happen, and could get them into legal difficulties.
I'm going to assume that Apple will stick with a minimal amount of boards/chipsets that they only need, rid themselves of the "power" prefix and come up with a creative one to describe the new boards. They've been using "power" for how long now? More than a decade right? They've changed a lot since then, to me it seems logical that they would drop the "power" brand during this revolution if you will, even though it has a sense of value to it.
Power Mactel
iMactel
Apple Mactel 3.0Ghz
I don't like those and can't think of anything better.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
How would they effectively use the word "Mactel" in a name?
Power Mactel
iMactel
Apple Mactel 3.0Ghz
I don't like those and can't think of anything better.
Maybe the Mac Intensity
Originally posted by svin
Since Apple now is leaving PowerPC processors and going Intel, what are they going to do with the names PowerMac and PowerBook?
The current names were launched with the shift from the motorola 68k CISC processors to PowerPC RISC processors.
With the new shift back to CISC, will Apple invent a new naming scheme?
Yes, the first Intel-based Macs will be named...
PowerMac 6100i
PowerMac 7100i
PowerMac 8100i
and will be available in your choice of Beige, Platinum, and Desert Sand Mica. For only $399 extra you will be able to get a "Mac Compatible" PowerPC add-in card.
Welcome to the future...
Originally posted by concentricity
...For only $399 extra you will be able to get a "Mac Compatible" PowerPC add-in card. ...
That's great! With the $399 card you can run Altivec and Classic apps!
I don't like "Mactel" either. But I sure hope we don't see "iMac Extreme" :-P
Pretty Overdue Well Evident Replacement.
Xmac , Xbook and Xserve
of course a bit close to microsofts X-box....
Originally posted by svin
what about:
Xmac , Xbook and Xserve
of course a bit close to microsofts X-box....
yes maybe too close,
But, how about just changing the G in G4/G5 for another letter, that could be X:
PowerBook X1 (march '06)
iBook X1 (june '06)
Mac mini X1 (june '06)
PowerMac X1 (sept '06)
iMac X1 (jan '07)
iCube X1 (headless iMac) (jan '07)
XServe 01 (too many X for this one...) (june '07)
?
Originally posted by mjteix
yes maybe too close,
But, how about just changing the G in G4/G5 for another letter, that could be X:
PowerBook X1 (march '06)
iBook X1 (june '06)
Mac mini X1 (june '06)
PowerMac X1 (sept '06)
iMac X1 (jan '07)
iCube X1 (headless iMac) (jan '07)
XServe 01 (too many X for this one...) (june '07)
?
I posted the exact same thing a month or two ago and a couple of people disliked the idea. I do think that is the way to go though.
As for the G naming convention, they've stuck with that for years now. One can only hope they keep it - it's classy.
Its still about the swtich... Apple seem very aware that they need the simpliest product line to allow intial intrigue and thus considering for switching. Its all well and good an Apple geek comparing ram's gb's and chipsets... but the normal world doesn' t really care. For apple, it's been simple.
i = entry level/students
power = pros
Then its just a case of generations and sizes. Its like ordering from a Mc Donalds Menu... and its the same world over!!!!
I'd imagine they'd want to keep a generation name as they have now... Maybe they'd tie it to the operating system?
Powerbook Tiger
Powerbook Leopard
etc
All part of the software hardware convergence! might put people off putting OSX on non apple machines to!!!
f x