R.I.P. Macintosh???

liquidr · November 3, 2005 2:59PM

With the much anticipated switch to Intel has anyone else considered the possible demise of the Macintosh moniker? It's a viable strategy, I think. Before Mac there was the Apple line and the Lisa. Why not a new moniker? I know the brand recognition is something that would be hard to let go of, also the sentimentalism attatched to the name.

Anyone else think that this might the right marketing move?

Maybe the Apple VI?

Any ideas of cool hypothetical names for the new line?

chris cuilla · November 3, 2005 3:13PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LiquidR

With the much anticipated switch to Intel has anyone else considered the possible demise of the Macintosh moniker?

No.

Quote:

Originally posted by LiquidR

It's a viable strategy, I think.

Not really. Apple has way too much invested in the brand.

Quote:

Originally posted by LiquidR

Before Mac there was the Apple line and the Lisa. Why not a new moniker?

Apple II (and III) were different hardware and software platforms. This is just a CPU change. Most users won't even notice.

Quote:

Originally posted by LiquidR

Anyone else think that this might the right marketing move?

Maybe the Apple VI?

Any ideas of cool hypothetical names for the new line?

No. No. No.

Sorry.

kim kap sol · November 3, 2005 3:32PM

I think the Mac moniker is attached to the software...not the hardware.

Else it would have left at the 68k -> PPC transition.

The only time the monikers changed was in huge changes to the OS. Mind you the OS 9 -> NeXT transition could have been considered huge...but the name didn't change. So I don't think a change of hardware which won't affect developers much is worthy of a moniker change.

liquidr · November 3, 2005 3:38PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

No.

Not really. Apple has way too much invested in the brand.

Apple II (and III) were different hardware and software platforms. This is just a CPU change. Most users won't even notice.

No. No. No.

Sorry.

I've already stated that such move would be difficult (implied impossible) due to sentimentality and brand recognition.

Do you really think most users won't even notice? In my experience most users of Macs notice they aren't on a PC (for the better), and all the things that entails. The switch to Intel will cause hicups on the software end for most and possible hardware hicups until the kinks are ironed out. I think we'll notice.

Ooh. Howabout the Granny Smith Line. How cool would it be to have a PowerSmith.

cubist · November 3, 2005 3:58PM

I think it's extremely unlikely. Of course the name "Macintosh" disappeared some time ago from the official names of products. They are "PowerMac", "iMac", "Mac mini", and "Mac OS X".

It would be a good strategy to avoid consumer confusion to introduce a new name variant, however. Then Intel-Mac software would be logoed so that consumers would know what to buy. My suggestion is to use "NextMac" (and "NextBook"), but it could be anything.

But eliminating the "Mac" part would certainly be going too far.

bulky cranium · November 3, 2005 4:00PM

Quote:

Ooh. Howabout the Granny Smith Line. How cool would it be to have a PowerSmith.

I like PowerGranny better!

kingofsomewherehot · November 3, 2005 4:09PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LiquidR

Do you really think most users won't even notice? In my experience most users of Macs notice they aren't on a PC (for the better), and all the things that entails. The switch to Intel will cause hicups on the software end for most and possible hardware hicups until the kinks are ironed out. I think we'll notice.

I think he was getting at the fact that the OS experience will look/act identical regardless of the chip. You could set a person in front of two machines (one PPC and one Intel) and if they are both running OSX, there'd be no way to tell them apart just by using Safari, Word, Mail, etc.

onlooker · November 3, 2005 4:32PM

Personally I like the Mac as the name of Apples Computer line. The iPod is it's own thing, but the Mac is the Mac. If they changed it I think it would be a bad move. The only reason to change something out of it would be the word power for it's pro line. Reasons: Power was attached to the PowerPC, but now it's more the scheme that is used for Apples line of Professional workstations, and laptops.

I say Keep the Mac. The name Apple is broad company name, one that is hidden within a broad range of technology, and should remain that way.

progmac · November 3, 2005 4:44PM

i don't think so. apple isn't going to come out with some computer with a different OS and call it george or whatever. I mean, if it uses Mac OS X, then it should be and will be a Mac. It's branding. It seems like about once a year there is a thread suggesting the possible replacement of Mac, but i just can't see it happening

mr. me · November 3, 2005 4:52PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kim kap sol

I think the Mac moniker is attached to the software...not the hardware.

Else it would have left at the 68k -> PPC transition.

The only time the monikers changed was in huge changes to the OS. Mind you the OS 9 -> NeXT transition could have been considered huge...but the name didn't change. So I don't think a change of hardware which won't affect developers much is worthy of a moniker change.

This is really not correct. When Apple transitioned from the 68k to the PPC, the Macintosh became the Power Macintosh. However, this in no way diminished the fact that the Power Macintosh was and is still a Macintosh. There is no doubt that Apple will keep the Macintosh name after the transition to Intel. For it to do otherwise would confuse users. As has been demonstrated by Steve Jobs in public, by thousands of developers in private, and by people running pirated copies of the Intel version of MacOS X, an Intel-based Macintosh is still a Macintosh.

kim kap sol · November 3, 2005 5:43PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Me

This is really not correct. When Apple transitioned from the 68k to the PPC, the Macintosh became the Power Macintosh. However, this in no way diminished the fact that the Power Macintosh was and is still a Macintosh.

I think you and I both know that's what I meant.

ecking · November 3, 2005 10:03PM

It can't change, outside of boards like this most everyday people call them "Macs" and not apple at all. Plenty of people I know who nothing about computers know apple as "mac" even when it comes to the iPod they think that "those guys that created macs made that."

To most people the name apple and mac go hand in hand and sometimes mac is a more meaningful name to them.

To people it'd be like Coca-Cola no longer being refered to as Coke. You can't take away brand recognition like that.

xool · November 3, 2005 10:28PM

Sorry, the Mac and PowerMac monikers are here to stay. I for one am glad.

bobo28 · November 4, 2005 9:27AM

Come On! APPLE = MACINTOSH : GET IT ? Apple, Steve Jobs, One of the greatest marketing successes in history . Who really thinks that they would drop one of the most recognized and successful brand names in history? Especially when they are just about to associate in the minds of the mass market public with one of the others : Intel ! Even SBC is taking ATT's name , right? Did Ford get rid of Volvo? GM : Saab ?, BMW :Mini ? The Mac Platform, with it's OS is really processor independent, and history seems to indicate it is here to stay and grow for the foreseeable future. ( resent executive stock sales not withstanding)

cubist · November 4, 2005 10:14AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobo28

... Even SBC is taking ATT's name , right? Did Ford get rid of Volvo? GM : Saab ?, BMW :Mini ? ...

Actually, BMW does appear to have dropped the Austin marque; that makes me a little unhappy. And as an SBC customer, I am not happy at all with them changing their name to AT&T. AT&T was "the company that couldn't market eternal life." SBC changing their name to AT&T is like Toyota buying Ford and changing their name to Edsel.

sport73 · November 4, 2005 10:16AM

I think Apple has conceeded (for the better) that the 'Mac' moniker is a synonym for Apple Computer; third party applications list "Mac" support, not "Apple Computer" support; users refer to their machines (OS included) as Mac's and Mac OS X; and, MOST IMPORTANTLY:

Apple does the same: .Mac anyone?

I doubt we'll see Apple EVER rename the Mac. I just can't see them saying "ignore the name you know us by, get a new POWERDELICIOUS! Oh, and don't forget to sign up for .Delicious to keep your many Delicious devices in sync!".

It's silly to even contemplate.

jimbo123 · November 4, 2005 1:31PM

I think they will change he name power mac to pro mac.

progmac · November 4, 2005 1:45PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbo123

I think they will change he name power mac to pro mac.

now that's something i could see. it'd be a good switch-up and perhaps divide the pro/consumer lines a little more, so we can all get gouged for the price of a new 'pro mac' G5 with Aperature

jimdreamworx · November 4, 2005 2:55PM

Perhaps just drop "Power" and call it Macintosh, as any rememberance of that applying to 680x0 has long since gone.

I just hope the iPod doesn't get them thinking: "Hmm... Intel starts with "I"... iMacintosh!"

imiloa · November 4, 2005 7:22PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JimDreamworx

I just hope the iPod doesn't get them thinking: "Hmm... Intel starts with "I"... iMacintosh!"

i think it's already been done... iMac.

i can see them changing or dropping "power" from the pro models. given that power is a common noun, there's no need to. but obviously the name directly relates to the PPC architecture.

krispie · November 4, 2005 7:31PM

Worst thread... ever....

(Actually, sadly, it's not)

:-(

R.I.P. Macintosh???

Comments