970 - compelling naming scheme
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
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
Comments
A@ron
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.
A@ron
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
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...
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
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
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
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.
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".
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
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...
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
the proverbial Windows BSOD gets renamed ChokedToDeathOnVomit (CTDOV)
On balance, unless the 970 is truly, truly, revolutionary, I think that I would stay with some varient of the 'Mac' name.
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.