What ’s in a name ? When a product does n’t really have one , a whole lot . The retiring few weeks I ’ve had numerous conversations about two forthcoming Apple products — one that ’s been announced , another that ’s the subject of intense surmisal . aboveboard , I do n’t think the names that have been kick around about for these two product are even close to their truthful identities . In fact , I think therealnames for these products are decent here under our noses .
But first , some background . As you might have guessed , the two products I ’m talking about Apple ’s fit - top boxwood ( code - named iTV ) , and the much - rumored Apple cell phone ( generally send for the iPhone on the Internet ) .
When Steve Jobs previewed the iTV , he was careful to signal out that “ iTV ” was a name Apple was using internally , but that it was “ a product code name . We ’ve got to add up up with a final name when we introduce it . ” And yet in the intervening three months I ’ve go through dozens of people hold dramatic Internet debates about the deservingness of iTV as a product name .
Then a couple of workweek ago , Gizmodo posted ateasing web log entryclaiming that the iPhone was about to be announce . And indeed , like clockwork , the following Monday Linksys denote that it was making anInternet phone called iPhone .
I ’ll admit that I ’m not impressed with Gizmodo’scrying wolfon this one , but I was taken aback by the response from Internet commentators about the iPhone name . “ So the iPhone is a VOIP French telephone , and not by Apple . Now , the big story presents itself : What will Apple call its cellphone ? ” order an item posted on Gizmodo . “ Steve Jobs probably is n’t too felicitous about the termination . ”
So let me get this heterosexual person . Apple has never , ever even admitted that this product might one solar day be . Cisco ’s own the stylemark on “ iPhone ” for ten years . And honestly , the whole i - Everything thing is getting a bit well-worn . So does anyone passably think that Apple wastrulyplanning on call off their phone the iPhone ? The only people who should be disappointed are the people who have been throwing around the word iPhone as if it were a real product name , which it never was .
plainly , Cartesian product name are vitally important . And if you do n’t come up with a name for your production , one will be assign for you by the media , or the hatful , or your competition . And names are steeped in substance . Take the iPod : when Apple announce five years ago that its digital music player was go to be called iPod , many of us raised an eyebrow . Even Steve Jobs seemed to stretch out when make up his case : “ iMac , iBook … iPod . ” Uh , okay …
iPod might not have have in mind anything then , but it sure means something now . Peopleknowwhat iPod means , and they like what it means . That devote the iPod name huge value . The name carries so much weight that Apple has ( sometimes heavily - handedly ) strike back against anyone who as attempted to appropriate the iPod trademark for their own purpose .
Now consider the bun - out of Apple ’s new Intel - base Macs this twelvemonth . The novel Mac Cartesian product this year had one thing in common : they all had the wordMacin their names . The Apple cant of the ’ 90s , “ major power , ” was ditch in the bank identification number . Goodbye PowerBook and Power Mac , hello MacBook and Mac Pro . The subject matter here was passably simple : when you ’re thinking of a figurer from Apple , the brand isMac .
As a society , Apple ’s divided itself into two naval division : one for music products , the other for figurer products . And the company has two brand names that clearly define those two divisions : iPod and Mac .
So why in the world would Apple muddy up the waters with another blade name ?
Yes , it ’s possible that Apple think its set - top box or headphone handset are going to be so huge that they need a fresh brand name all their own . But I ’ll go out on a limb and suggest that it ’s unconvincing that any new Apple intersection name is going to be able to outgo Mac and iPod for brand realization . If Apple was introducing a completely new course of Cartesian product — a washing machine , say , or a killer robot — a novel steel might make more sentience .
But look at those rumors again . The iTV ( not its literal name ) await like a tiny Mac mini with its own Front Row - fashion interface , but it ’s dedicated to playing back digital sensitive in a home - entertainment setting . Most reasonable people would muse that the iPhone ( also not its real name ) will be an attempt to put iPod and cellular phone feature article in a single twist .
For me , the history is moderately clear : If there ’s an “ iPhone , ” it ’ll almost sure be an iPod with speech sound feature article . The iPod marque already covers three core products : iPod , iPod nano , and iPod shamble . Why not iPod telephone set ? Or iPod nano with earpiece ? Or iPod with phone ? In fact , if you were Apple , whywouldn’tyou couple your cellular phone strategy with the power of the iPod name ? It only makes sense .
I ’m not quite as positive about the iTV , but when constrict I ’d probably make the same disputation : What is the iTV but a dedicated iPod for your nursing home theater solidification - up ? So why not call it iPod dwelling house or iPod theater or iPod telly and use the earth ’s general love for and credence of the iPod to drive cut-rate sale of your new machine ?
So if you ’re one of those pundits out there urgently searching for novel monikers to replace iTV and iPhone , may I humbly evoke that you start welt iPod TV and iPod phone ? You ’ll be beaming you did .
