1. The point of moving away from 'Mac' or 'Macintosh' isn't that PC users hate that term. I couldn't care less; most who do are dumb-asses, and others just don't know better.
The point is that 'Macintosh' is a name that will be 20 years old beginning of next year. A computer trademark like that shouldn't hold this long. Assume Apple would have marketed the Lisa for home use, would you feel comfortable with a PowerLisa G4, an iLisa or an eLisa? I wouldn't.
2. If the idea of 'Xstations' is true, it most certainly (for me) isn't going to replace PowerMacs. It's going to be for workstations, i.e. much more high-end computers than the PowerMacs or Quadras had ever been. Quadro / FireGL graphics, prices well above $5,000 (maybe twice as much), possibly a special version of Mac OS X with less consumer stuff.
I think the PowerMacintosh II idea is a bit outdated; putting II or III after computer names reminds of the 80s, not of today.
One of the biggest mistakes that companies are making now is the thinking that they have to refreshen/reinvent/re-logotize their brand in fits and starts of grandeur that quickly subside leaving them with a shadow of their former prestige and image.
The most recent/troubling example of this has been UPS's shunning of their great, iconic logo done by the preeminent designer of his day, Paul Rand. They traded in their classic, beautiful, artful logo for a p.o.s. with a fckn' 3D gradient effect. The idiots.
Apple has revamped their logo recently, but with taste and restraint (and for obvious reasons) when they lost the rainbow.
But for apple to attempt to lose the "mac" from their title would be like McDonalds calling their fried rooster heads "el nuggets". It would be McStupid.
bring on the powermac G5, or powermac 970, or the Mac Force-5, but don't call it something generic and cheesy like "centaur" or "orion" or "Camembert"
How about the just call it the PowerMac G7 (seven as in 970). If people ask about the "slow" G4 they saw the other day, you can just say: "G4????? That's sooooo the 1980's."
Oh (forgot), and I'm 99.99% sure that the next PowerMac will indeed be called a PowerMac, and this time the Power moniker will be deserved. Few computers have as strong name recognition as the PowerMac, perhaps only the iMac, and Apple is not going to throw all that overboard. It has been underpowered compared to at least similarely priced wintel offerings in the past few years, but that memory is quickly going to fade away when the new PowerMacs greets the world with 64 times hello.
I don't like the X's in there at all. Just keep calling them PowerMacs and PowerBooks and iBooks and iMacs. Drop the eMac in a few years once LCDs get really cheap. Apple has already simplified their product line a lot since Jobs came in. The PowerMac series, AKA Spindler's List, was really bad. Having numbers MIGHT work if there were fewer digits. Note that many car companies have moved from many numbers to few numbers for a simpler name. Example: Saab 900 and 9000 are now the Saab 9-3. Saab only has two models, the 9-3 and 9-5, along with variations on them (convertibles, "sport" models, etc). Volvo has the S40, S60 and S80 for their three levels of sedans, a V40 and V70 for their station wagons, the C70 convertible, and the XC70 and XC90 SUV-wagons. What if Apple adopted a really simple naming scheme that went something like that? They could even keep Mac or PowerMac. I won't speculate on exactly how they'd use it as I'll only embarrass myself, but maybe that would work.
P.S. Chucker, please tell me you're joking when you say that "Performa" should be the new name for the PowerMacs! To anyone who has been with the platform longer than five years, the word "Performa" raises violent feelings within the heart. Perhaps the most infamous and stupid line of Macs, the consumer-oriented Performas succeeded in driving millions of people away from the Macintosh platform. Changing the name to Performa would be like christening your brand new oil tanker the "Exxon Valdez II." Believe me, the Performa name was far more shaming to Apple than the PowerMac name, which has really only been disappointing as of late. Besides, PowerMac sounds cooler anyway. Performa sounds like the name of some doofy older American car.
Anyway, no offense to you Chucker, I just noticed what you put and felt I had to point it out.
Already taken. Apple was working on a super-pro PowerMac 9700 to replace the already awesome 9600, but they decided the G3 took precedence and they developed that instead.
Although if Apple decided to reuse the name and introduce a 9700 (or a new 9600 for that matter) I would be supremely interested. I've always loved the PowerMac 9600. It's just so cool.
Then why not just call it the PowerMac 970. Easier to say and points directly towards the processor that's being used. And when the 980 and 9800 hits the PM, they can use both PowerMac 980 and PowerMac 9800. But somehow, I still think Apple will continue to use the G* moniker \
Already taken. Apple was working on a super-pro PowerMac 9700 to replace the already awesome 9600, but they decided the G3 took precedence and they developed that instead.
Although if Apple decided to reuse the name and introduce a 9700 (or a new 9600 for that matter) I would be supremely interested. I've always loved the PowerMac 9600. It's just so cool.
I was aware of that, although the original was "Power Macintosh 9700". It was unreleased, so the only customers aware of the original would not be confused by the naming.
The original was essentially a 9600 with a G3. That is, you had the improvements of the G3's CPU, but with the mondo-expandability of the 9600. Might not the new Power Mac be worthy of the name "9700" then?
Yeah I thought you probably knew about the 9700... I found this article about it at AppleFritter. But that's basically the extent of my knowledge. Looks like it was either a G3 or a dual 604e (or it would have been, had it actually been produced).
As far as my idea about simple letters and numbers, I guess there could be the PowerMac D10, D20 and D30 for the first three models released... D for Desktop. iMacs would still be iMacs for the name recognition, and so would iBooks. PowerBooks could be the PowerBook P10, P20 and P30 and so on. P for Portable seems better than N for Notebook or L for Laptop. It would kind of give Apple a serious side for professional customers, while keeping their consumer products familiar.
The problem with those letters and numbers is that they start off simple. Then they rapidly degenerate into confusing chaos over time, as seen in the early to mid '90s. When Apple started with the old number system, it was originally only in a few models, the rapidly spread to the entire line. Also, creative pros arn't geniuses, and their feeble, sensitive minds need a very simple naming scheme. Otherwise they might write a letter to Apple, in which they try to sound angry but don't, because that's not in their nature. If Apple used "9700", then "9800", "9900", etc they would have to be careful about it, and dump it as soon as the "9xx" line of CPUs is discontinued.
Yeah, I was afraid it would snowball into something like that. When the first Power Macintoshes came out, it was just the 6100, 7100 and 8100. But it soon turned into weird-ass ones like the 4400, the 7220, the 6360, and the 7300 (which came out after the 7500 and 7600).
One thing they've done is made the names real simple since Jobs came back. The crazy Power Macintosh lineup turned into simply the Power Macintosh G3. The PowerBook lineup, consisting of the 1400c/cs, the 3400c, and the 2400c, got turned into the simple PowerBook G3. The Performa line was dropped entirely in favor of the one-size-fits-all iMac. I guess in some ways things got better and in other ways they got worse. I'd sure rather have an iMac when it was brand new than a Performa 6320 when it was brand new, even though the Performa has expandability which everyone has been calling for in a consumer machine for years now.
I believe Apple will stick with the same naming scheme as now. The next PowerMac will not be an XMac or an xMac or an X-station or whatever... it'll be a PowerMac. Perhaps they'll simply call it the PowerMac. Or the PowerMac G5. But I don't think it'll have the letter X in it, and I don't think it'll have more than one number.
I'd sure rather have an iMac when it was brand new than a Performa 6320 when it was brand new, even though the Performa has expandability which everyone has been calling for in a consumer machine for years now.
The 6200++ series with upgradable consumer macs is something I would like to see again in a cube-ish case design. Put in a decent processor, give it a nice design, a good base config and decent price. It would sell in heaps and loads. I'm sure Apple would sell a decent amount of flat panel cinema displays with them too, earning them some extra cash as their margins are better on the displays I think. Call it the cMac for consumer macintosh. Smack, and it would be a smash hit with consumers schools and offices.
When you think about it, marketing the 970-based mac is the least of Apple's problems. In fact, there's so much pent-up demand that I think they should keep their powder dry: ship it in a godawful case with a silly/embarassing name.
That way, if they need to stimulate demand down the track, it will be easy to do so with a funkier case and cooler image.
For the case: hard to go past the original "molar" G3 AIO.
For the name: I'm thinking "Le Mac". The French thing will invite controversy, with Le Macs quickly becoming the computers of choice for Greenpeace activists, trade unionists, and sundry tree huggers. It's a big market!
Moreover, since "Le Mac" is "camel" backwards, the humps in the molar nicely rhyme with the nomenclature. It will be a pale brown: a neo-beige if you like. The single CPU model will be the Dromedary, and the dual CPU model will of course be the Bactrian.
Oh, and print ads for the high end models will read "Bactrian to the future".
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next!
When you think about it, marketing the 970-based mac is the least of Apple's problems. [...]
Objection. I stand for it. The name is quite an issue.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, apple should get rid of "Mac" and its derivats, because of its wildly ... er... widely unpleasend perception of underpowered cpus. Period.
An awfull lot of people (both, mac and pc users) always ask the same question: "What does the "Power" mean in Powermac?
Don't get me wrong. I agree "Powermac" has got a level of brand recognition other companies dream of, BUT what does that mean exactly? An utter bunch of nothing imho. If people virtually connect "Powermac" with "low power", "pricey antiques" and you name it, than brand recognition is definitly worthless.
Quote:
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next! [/B]
When you think about it, marketing the 970-based mac is the least of Apple's problems. In fact, there's so much pent-up demand that I think they should keep their powder dry: ship it in a godawful case with a silly/embarassing name.
That way, if they need to stimulate demand down the track, it will be easy to do so with a funkier case and cooler image.
For the case: hard to go past the original "molar" G3 AIO.
For the name: I'm thinking "Le Mac". The French thing will invite controversy, with Le Macs quickly becoming the computers of choice for Greenpeace activists, trade unionists, and sundry tree huggers. It's a big market!
Moreover, since "Le Mac" is "camel" backwards, the humps in the molar nicely rhyme with the nomenclature. It will be a pale brown: a neo-beige if you like. The single CPU model will be the Dromedary, and the dual CPU model will of course be the Bactrian.
Oh, and print ads for the high end models will read "Bactrian to the future".
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next!
lemac camel :
However a mac in french is a slang word who refer to a pimp.
Afterall, it is the 5th generation PPC. The move from G4 to 970 is more like a move from 601 to 604 (or possibly 620, we'll soon see what the 970 can do for sure) than like a move from 68000 to PPC. The 7400 series and the 970 have identical instruction sets, as far as I know.
I'm guessing that the 970-based professional machine from Apple will be called a PowerMac, or Power Macintosh.
Macintosh isn't like the name of a car. It's the name of a platform. Change it, and you will leave people wondering if it's compatible with a Macintosh.
It's a Power Macintosh because it runs on the PowerPC architecture. The 970 is a PowerPC.
You could argue that Apple should ditch the PowerMac name because the other definition of "power" has become almost ironic; but why abandon it for the very model that, for the first time in years, can actually make good on its name?
I could actually see Apple going back to "Power Macintosh" just because the extra syllables make it sound more formidable than the colloquial "PowerMac." But we'll see.
Comments
1. The point of moving away from 'Mac' or 'Macintosh' isn't that PC users hate that term. I couldn't care less; most who do are dumb-asses, and others just don't know better.
The point is that 'Macintosh' is a name that will be 20 years old beginning of next year. A computer trademark like that shouldn't hold this long. Assume Apple would have marketed the Lisa for home use, would you feel comfortable with a PowerLisa G4, an iLisa or an eLisa? I wouldn't.
2. If the idea of 'Xstations' is true, it most certainly (for me) isn't going to replace PowerMacs. It's going to be for workstations, i.e. much more high-end computers than the PowerMacs or Quadras had ever been. Quadro / FireGL graphics, prices well above $5,000 (maybe twice as much), possibly a special version of Mac OS X with less consumer stuff.
I think the PowerMacintosh II idea is a bit outdated; putting II or III after computer names reminds of the 80s, not of today.
The most recent/troubling example of this has been UPS's shunning of their great, iconic logo done by the preeminent designer of his day, Paul Rand. They traded in their classic, beautiful, artful logo for a p.o.s. with a fckn' 3D gradient effect. The idiots.
Apple has revamped their logo recently, but with taste and restraint (and for obvious reasons) when they lost the rainbow.
But for apple to attempt to lose the "mac" from their title would be like McDonalds calling their fried rooster heads "el nuggets". It would be McStupid.
bring on the powermac G5, or powermac 970, or the Mac Force-5, but don't call it something generic and cheesy like "centaur" or "orion" or "Camembert"
P.S. Chucker, please tell me you're joking when you say that "Performa" should be the new name for the PowerMacs! To anyone who has been with the platform longer than five years, the word "Performa" raises violent feelings within the heart. Perhaps the most infamous and stupid line of Macs, the consumer-oriented Performas succeeded in driving millions of people away from the Macintosh platform. Changing the name to Performa would be like christening your brand new oil tanker the "Exxon Valdez II." Believe me, the Performa name was far more shaming to Apple than the PowerMac name, which has really only been disappointing as of late. Besides, PowerMac sounds cooler anyway. Performa sounds like the name of some doofy older American car.
Anyway, no offense to you Chucker, I just noticed what you put and felt I had to point it out.
Introducing the Power Mac 9700. Helps businesses big and small, creative pros and hobbiests to get more done faster.
Power Mac 9700 (1.6GHz)
Power Mac 9700 (1.8GHz)
Power Mac 9700 (2.0GHz)
For Mac publications:
A new golden age: the Power Mac 9700.
Although if Apple decided to reuse the name and introduce a 9700 (or a new 9600 for that matter) I would be supremely interested. I've always loved the PowerMac 9600. It's just so cool.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Already taken. Apple was working on a super-pro PowerMac 9700 to replace the already awesome 9600, but they decided the G3 took precedence and they developed that instead.
Although if Apple decided to reuse the name and introduce a 9700 (or a new 9600 for that matter) I would be supremely interested. I've always loved the PowerMac 9600. It's just so cool.
I was aware of that, although the original was "Power Macintosh 9700". It was unreleased, so the only customers aware of the original would not be confused by the naming.
The original was essentially a 9600 with a G3. That is, you had the improvements of the G3's CPU, but with the mondo-expandability of the 9600. Might not the new Power Mac be worthy of the name "9700" then?
Barto
As far as my idea about simple letters and numbers, I guess there could be the PowerMac D10, D20 and D30 for the first three models released... D for Desktop. iMacs would still be iMacs for the name recognition, and so would iBooks. PowerBooks could be the PowerBook P10, P20 and P30 and so on. P for Portable seems better than N for Notebook or L for Laptop. It would kind of give Apple a serious side for professional customers, while keeping their consumer products familiar.
Barto
One thing they've done is made the names real simple since Jobs came back. The crazy Power Macintosh lineup turned into simply the Power Macintosh G3. The PowerBook lineup, consisting of the 1400c/cs, the 3400c, and the 2400c, got turned into the simple PowerBook G3. The Performa line was dropped entirely in favor of the one-size-fits-all iMac. I guess in some ways things got better and in other ways they got worse. I'd sure rather have an iMac when it was brand new than a Performa 6320 when it was brand new, even though the Performa has expandability which everyone has been calling for in a consumer machine for years now.
I believe Apple will stick with the same naming scheme as now. The next PowerMac will not be an XMac or an xMac or an X-station or whatever... it'll be a PowerMac. Perhaps they'll simply call it the PowerMac. Or the PowerMac G5. But I don't think it'll have the letter X in it, and I don't think it'll have more than one number.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I'd sure rather have an iMac when it was brand new than a Performa 6320 when it was brand new, even though the Performa has expandability which everyone has been calling for in a consumer machine for years now.
The 6200++ series with upgradable consumer macs is something I would like to see again in a cube-ish case design. Put in a decent processor, give it a nice design, a good base config and decent price. It would sell in heaps and loads. I'm sure Apple would sell a decent amount of flat panel cinema displays with them too, earning them some extra cash as their margins are better on the displays I think. Call it the cMac for consumer macintosh. Smack, and it would be a smash hit with consumers schools and offices.
That way, if they need to stimulate demand down the track, it will be easy to do so with a funkier case and cooler image.
For the case: hard to go past the original "molar" G3 AIO.
For the name: I'm thinking "Le Mac". The French thing will invite controversy, with Le Macs quickly becoming the computers of choice for Greenpeace activists, trade unionists, and sundry tree huggers. It's a big market!
Moreover, since "Le Mac" is "camel" backwards, the humps in the molar nicely rhyme with the nomenclature. It will be a pale brown: a neo-beige if you like. The single CPU model will be the Dromedary, and the dual CPU model will of course be the Bactrian.
Oh, and print ads for the high end models will read "Bactrian to the future".
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next!
Originally posted by boy_analog
When you think about it, marketing the 970-based mac is the least of Apple's problems. [...]
Objection. I stand for it. The name is quite an issue.
As someone else in this thread mentioned, apple should get rid of "Mac" and its derivats, because of its wildly ... er... widely unpleasend perception of underpowered cpus. Period.
An awfull lot of people (both, mac and pc users) always ask the same question: "What does the "Power" mean in Powermac?
Don't get me wrong. I agree "Powermac" has got a level of brand recognition other companies dream of, BUT what does that mean exactly? An utter bunch of nothing imho. If people virtually connect "Powermac" with "low power", "pricey antiques" and you name it, than brand recognition is definitly worthless.
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next! [/B]
Originally posted by boy_analog
When you think about it, marketing the 970-based mac is the least of Apple's problems. In fact, there's so much pent-up demand that I think they should keep their powder dry: ship it in a godawful case with a silly/embarassing name.
That way, if they need to stimulate demand down the track, it will be easy to do so with a funkier case and cooler image.
For the case: hard to go past the original "molar" G3 AIO.
For the name: I'm thinking "Le Mac". The French thing will invite controversy, with Le Macs quickly becoming the computers of choice for Greenpeace activists, trade unionists, and sundry tree huggers. It's a big market!
Moreover, since "Le Mac" is "camel" backwards, the humps in the molar nicely rhyme with the nomenclature. It will be a pale brown: a neo-beige if you like. The single CPU model will be the Dromedary, and the dual CPU model will of course be the Bactrian.
Oh, and print ads for the high end models will read "Bactrian to the future".
That's it, I've pretty much run this gag into the ground. Next!
lemac camel :
However a mac in french is a slang word who refer to a pimp.
Afterall, it is the 5th generation PPC. The move from G4 to 970 is more like a move from 601 to 604 (or possibly 620, we'll soon see what the 970 can do for sure) than like a move from 68000 to PPC. The 7400 series and the 970 have identical instruction sets, as far as I know.
Macintosh isn't like the name of a car. It's the name of a platform. Change it, and you will leave people wondering if it's compatible with a Macintosh.
It's a Power Macintosh because it runs on the PowerPC architecture. The 970 is a PowerPC.
You could argue that Apple should ditch the PowerMac name because the other definition of "power" has become almost ironic; but why abandon it for the very model that, for the first time in years, can actually make good on its name?
I could actually see Apple going back to "Power Macintosh" just because the extra syllables make it sound more formidable than the colloquial "PowerMac." But we'll see.