Why isn't iCal called Calendar?
Maybe this is all just an issue of semantics, but of all the naming schemes that Apple has devised, iCal seems to work the least.
The iApps are in theory designed as ways of interfacing with digital media, creating a digital lifestyle. iCal, however, integrates not with the iLife collection, but with Mail and Address Book. So, shouldn't it be called Calendar. So, that would make the 'i' suite as one suite, and then Mail/Address Book/Calendar as another similarly named suite.
Just a thought.
The iApps are in theory designed as ways of interfacing with digital media, creating a digital lifestyle. iCal, however, integrates not with the iLife collection, but with Mail and Address Book. So, shouldn't it be called Calendar. So, that would make the 'i' suite as one suite, and then Mail/Address Book/Calendar as another similarly named suite.
Just a thought.
Comments
my guess anyway.
My guess is that the "i" has been hijacked to represent "easy to use", which makes sense until you realise that iCal isn't actually terribly intuitive to use...
Apple needs to tighten up what's "i" and what's not. iDVD? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Why is this so neat?
Say you are a memeber of a Mac Users Group. Various functions are instantly updatable, and also (I believe) changes on the main calendar will be reflected as well.
This makes things very interesting, if you use it properly.
Say all the people at work have their hours/schedules updated. Someone calls in sick, or arranges a vacation the next week... Poof... you can update at home to see how your schedule is affected.
iCal is one of the most 'internet ready' iApps on the Mac, if people use it as such.
iCal -- I'm not crazy about the name, incidentally, but there it is -- has a lot of interesting potential.
Thing is, it can only really come into its own when
(a) all Macs on the network are running OS X, and/or
(b) it's compatible with Entourage / Outlook calendaring
Only when at least (a), and at best (a) and (b) are true can it can be a really useful tool.
I imagine (a) will be easier than (b), but I won't be surprised if Apple is working on it for v2.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
From a hardware standpoint, 'i' signifies the consumer spectrum.
From a software standpoint, 'i' has always seemed to signify consumer interaction with digital media (even more so now that we have the iLife suite).
And my main point is, since iCal's main integration is with Mail and Address Book (as a theoretical PIM suite), shouldn't it be called Calendar then?
I know it's just a matter of semantics, but we don't have iMail and iAddy, do we?
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt"; target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt</a>;
found linked from this page:
<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/"; target="_blank">http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/</a>;
This seems so... incestuous...
<strong>My guess is Calender just doesn't sound cool....
It's also tricky to spell.
<strong>It works with .mac so that's the internet. Right?
Apple needs to tighten up what's "i" and what's not. iDVD? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole "i"-thing has just evolved.. "i" now means consumer, and therefore iDVD fits in.
iMac was/is also a consumer machine, and the "i" represented how easily it was to use.
<strong>
It's also tricky to spell.
oops!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />