
The subtle brilliance of Apple's product names - optiplex
http://www.tuaw.com/2014/01/21/the-subtle-brilliance-of-apples-product-names/
======
josefresco
This is quite possibly the craziest article I've read all day (and that's
saying something as I've spent the better part of the morning on Reddit)

Let's start with the iPad. First iPad was called the iPad. Awesome start. The
second, the iPad 2 ... even better. The third was not the iPad 3 but rather
the iPad ... or the "all new ipad" aka 3rd generation. Starting to lose it a
bit here but let's trust Apple. The iPad 4 was not the iPad 4 but actually the
iPad ... with retina display/4th generation. Ok so maybe we're starting a new
naming scheme? Good then. The 5th generation iPad is/was called the iPad 5th
Gen... oh wait no it's called the iPad Air.

To top it off, the 3rd and 4th generations are discontinued, leaving the iPad
2 and the iPad Air as the only available models. Try explaining that to a non-
Apple following family member and watch their face contort.

Now I did RTFA and was amazed at how the author could spin the atrocious
naming scheme for the iPad into something that matched his hypothesis. Kudos
to him for sticking with it.

This snippet taken directly from the article could almost prove my point

"The original iPad hit store shelves in April of 2010, soon followed by the
iPad 2, which was released in March of 2011. When the third-generation iPad
was released in March of 2012, Apple by and large decided to forgo the numeric
naming scheme and instead advertised the device simply as the all-new iPad.

Instead of a scenario with the original iPad, the iPad 2 and iPad 3 floating
around, Apple kicked numerical suffixes to the side and started anew. When the
fourth-gen iPad was released, Apple, again, didn't refer to it as the iPad 4.
Rather, it often began referring to it as the iPad with Retina display."

~~~
robmclarty
Lol. I agree the argument is a bit misleading. Apple products can be
considered to be just as confusing.

Apple Product Names:

\- iPad \- iPad 2 \- iPad \- iPad /w Retina \- iPad Air

Which iPad do I buy!? I'm thinking, maybe, the iPad 2 because it must be the
most current and advanced model :P

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Admittedly, if you're the type of person who purely bases their purchasing
decisions on the trailing number in a product name and whether it's bigger or
smaller than that of an alternative, yes, this would be confusing. However, if
you take other factors into account (price, weight, size, looks, maybe even -
gasp - technical specifications) then it becomes a fair bit easier to
determine which is the most current and advanced.

~~~
robmclarty
The article was about how great Apple names things and how bad everyone else
does. My point is that Apple's names aren't some brilliant miracle of
nomenclature like the article makes them out to be.

Obviously if I'm going to drop $500+ I'm going to kick the tires and take the
product for a spin around the block to see how it feels (and maybe even read
its specs).

I think what Apple _does_ do well, and which the article points out, is that
they limit their offerings to a number I can count on one hand, the
differences between each being obvious tradeoffs (e.g., performance vs.
portability) which consumers can actually decide between. This empowers
consumers, makes them feel good because they understand what's happening, and
likely leads to increased sales.

------
SDGT
Apple still has the exact same problem, they just hide it.

You may just buy an "iMac" from the store, but you could have purchased an
A1224 (EMC 2210) or an A1224 (EMC 2266).

If anything, I prefer model numbers as the model name. This gives me easy
strings to google, whereas with Apple products I have to type queries like
"Late 2008 Macbook Pro" just to find the actual model number.

This is even worse with MBP's. The A1226 MBP had the same EMC code, but the
order number denoted the 160GB vs the 120GB HDD. (MA895LL vs MA896LL)

------
ctdonath
Idiocy of product naming goes even further when the only difference between
two incomprehensible model names IS the name: two different products differ
only by name for the sole purpose of ensuring that competing retailers don't
carry the same product. Retailer BB doesn't want customers saying "your price
for the SNY FB-1234 is higher than Fris' SNY FB-1234", so BB (being a big
customer[1]) persuades SNY to produce the FB-1235, which nobody can prove is
the very same device with a different SKU label (though BB, when pressed,
vaguely promises is "superior").

[1] - And there's the problem: companies big enough they forget who their
customer is. Dazzled by large-volume sales contracts, they focus on
negotiation points and big numbers ... overlooking who is actually buying the
product to _use_ , not just re-sell. I saw this at Kodak: when faced with the
rise of digital photography, their resellers threatened to cancel contracts if
Kodak pursued this new tech which would undermine their ulterior motives for
selling film-based photography consumables (customers enter the store 3 times
- to buy film, to drop off film, to pick up prints - and likely buy other
stuff on each visit); they weren't interested in the product itself, only that
it was "sticky" and increased sales of other stuff. Hence we get product names
geared for large-warehouse retailers, products loaded with crapware paid for
by advertising departments, and general ignoring of the people who actually
_buy_ the stuff for what it is. Apple, however, knows that they must delight
each _user_ , not just people signing for pallets of product.

------
freehunter
It's a fundamental difference between what they offer, though. Apple offers a
very small variety of devices, generally one in each market they want to
compete in (and all high quality, premium devices).

Lenovo competes in a lot more markets than Apple does, for example. Lenovo has
its T series laptops, which are close to the Macbook Pro. They have the X
series, which are close to the Macbook Air. Then they have the Yoga, which
Apple does not have anything to compete with. It's a touchscreen computer that
has a swiveling screen. They have the L series, which Apple used to have the
Macbook to compete with but no longer have anything in that market. They have
the W series with dual video cards and 17" screens, which again Apple has
nothing to compete with. They have the Helix, where the screen detaches from
the keyboard. Apple has nothing in this market.

The logical complaint is that Lenovo competes in too many markets. However,
Lenovo is the biggest PC maker and post pretty nice profits, so that argument
doesn't work either. Obviously Lenovo is doing something right, and people
like their products (even the ones where Apple has nothing to compete with).

Other companies are not Apple. This is a good thing. There can only be so many
Apples in the world, and consumers (for better or worse) demand more than what
Apple is making.

~~~
pmahoney
My problem with Lenovo is that something like your one-paragraph summary is
not on their website. I occasionally window shop for laptops, but I find it
very confusing. If I drill down into one of the laptop series, what am I
missing from the others? What's the price/feature difference between a top-of-
the-line L series and the bottom-of-the-line T series?

(After a quick look, I see the (base price) cheapest T is more expensive than
all the L, but the L allow up to 16GB RAM, while the T's cap at 8GB. ...and
I've spent too much time window shopping yet again.)

~~~
freehunter
That's a perfectly valid complaint, where I can come back with a hundred other
arguments: if you're looking for 16GB of RAM, you're likely to be looking for
something pretty specific and willing to shop around or install the RAM
yourself. Average consumers likely aren't going to go directly to Lenovo's
site to compare laptops, they'll go to Best Buy and find the prettiest one or
the thinnest one or the cheapest one or whatever meets their simple needs, or
they'll ask a friend for recommendations. I could go on with arguments like
that, but I won't.

Sure, it's inexcusable to us. We wonder how consumers ever manage to buy a
computer, then we're saddened when a consumer makes the "wrong" choice or are
unhappy with their laptops. Yes, buying a laptop should be easier. But it
works, and people still buy PCs. Lenovo is profitable, despite these issues.

People come to me and ask what computer they should buy, that their old laptop
died after a year or the screen hinges broke. I point them to a $900 Lenovo
that I know is reliable, a $800 Dell that I know has gotten good reviews, or
even a $1000 Macbook which I know will last forever with no maintenance. And
invariably, they all go out to Best Buy and pick up a $400 HP with pretty
plastic and blue lights and complain when it breaks within the year.

So why don't PC companies make it easier to understand their models? In my
opinion, it's because they don't have to. Simple as that. People will continue
to buy their cheap trash and continue to complain about it because that's what
people do. No one cares, the PC makers profit, and the cycle continues. Apple
has not had as big of an impact on the PC market as we like to think they did.
We will see the laptop market die completely before PC makers and consumers
learn the lesson Apple is trying to teach them.

------
herge
Reminds me of the condom vs Android phone names list
[http://insideintercom.io/whats-in-a-name/](http://insideintercom.io/whats-in-
a-name/)

------
larrik
Apple DOES have more specific model names for their computers, they just
aren't advertised with them.

Otherwise, I thought all the different flavors of products were to make "price
match guarantees" impossible to actually use.

~~~
FireBeyond
Pretty much. Best Buy hard drives, for example - I Google, NewEgg and Amazon
search to price match, but those model numbers are only at Best Buy,
unsurprisingly.

------
snorkel
It's not just about product names, but overall Apple's product line is much
more narrowly focused. Apple chooses to focus on a few well made product lines
rather than a shotgun blast of different variants for every budget and market
segment. The shotgun blast approach is quite intentional because consumer
electronics makers sell more product when they crowd the retail shelves with
too many choices, the consumer sees a plethora of choices and feels and
obligation to try a few, at which time has been invested, so now you have to
make that time investment worthwhile by making a purchase.

Instead of playing the shelf space crowding game out in bazaars, instaed Apple
built its own quiet Zen retail space which is decidedly focused on only a few
types of products and each has many upgrade options. Apple realized that they
needed the undivided attention of retail consumers, pull them away from the
noisy bazaar of the big box stores, pull the shoppers into their private Zen
garden to contemplate only on how the latest iPad while fullfill their journey
in life.

------
lowglow
I think a lot of thought goes into a name. If you've worked on a product for
long enough, it becomes family. Giving that product a name is like naming your
own child.

I appreciate the subtle and nuanced names Apple comes up with. Even the name
"Apple" itself I think a lot about. It conjures up images of Newton, Adam and
Eve, The wicked witch from snow white -- just to name a few. I appreciate how
much the apple object itself has been such a subtle not-so-subtle member of
our culture, yet often overlooked as being simple.

I think in this simplicity we are allowed to explore our own imaginations and
make some things better than they could ever explicitly be. I'd say strive for
basic, simple names and don't pass up the easily overlooked.

~~~
frandroid
Newton, not Darwin.

~~~
lowglow
Ah thanks! That's what I get for writing this the first thing in the morning
before coffee. :|

------
beat
This great naming happened when Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the '90s. At
that point, they had industry-typical incomprehensible names and product
lines. Legend has it that Jobs' first act was to draw a quadrant on the board
with personal/professional columns and desktop/portable rows. That was the
iBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro.

------
general_failure
Not directly comparable but Intel processor names and architecture are the
worst. I mean who can remember all the differences?

Same goes for OS X version names. Unless you are a Mac Dev nobody can remember
what is what. I feel windows got their version names right. Easy to remember.

~~~
aroman
I'm sorry, but how is the Windows naming scheme superior to OS X?

For the past decade+, OS X releases have been named after "big cats". Puma,
Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. Consistent and distinct.

Windows on the other hand has had positively _no_ common scheme.

Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1.

Worse still, the above "public-facing versions" actually _mismatch_ their
underlying versions. For example, Windows 7 is actually Windows Version 6.1.x,
while Windows 8 is Windows Version 6.3.x.

I think the simple fact is that Windows releases have been substantially less
frequent and have been met with much more fanfare and obviously have much
wider adoption. But to say that the Windows version names are superior to that
of Windows is laughable, imho.

~~~
sliverstorm
IMO it really is a bit easier to understand the Windows lineup. Any idiot can
figure out that 98 came after 95 and 7 came before 8. But I cannot ever
remember which "big cat" came first in OSX, or even which one we are on now.

I personally don't really care, but I definitely agree that "Puma Cheetah
Jaguar" is less friendly to the uninitiated than "Windows 7 Windows 8"

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming scheme.
The advantage of "big cat" or similar names is that they don't really impart
any meaning, other than acting as a unique label.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But Windows 95 came out 94 versions too early according to that naming
> scheme.

91 versions too early, since Windows 95 followed Windows 3.x.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Fair point; I was working backwards from Windows 7, which obviously makes even
less sense than this naming scheme :)

------
lotyrin
Apples to oranges.

An iDevice is not at all in the same kind of market as a Sony Camcorder or PC
Laptops.

The magic here is that Apple only builds devices that don't have to compete in
a commoditized market where everything is the same except what it's specs are.

In those markets people have tens of options from each manufacturer, and it
doesn't matter what they're called because you're looking at giant matrix of
all of their technical specifications the whole time. You pick the one that
does whatever you need it to for whatever your budget is, and it's not
personal. It's not a subjective experience.

It's not the magic of their frikken product naming, it's the magic of their
entire overarching strategy.

------
pedalpete
I somewhat agree that it is simple with Apple, but how did people not
appreciate the same differences with the Surface. Where there is the Surface
and the Surface Pro, and it seemed there was constant complaints about people
understanding the difference.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Because one ran Windows RT and one ran Windows 8, and that distinction was
massive, despite the fact that the Surface/Surface Pro distinction wasn't that
huge in terms of names or looks. And people expected "Windows RT" to be
compatible with "Windows", since before then, pretty much all things that were
marketed as "Windows" were compatible, to some extent. And no-one understood
what "RT" meant.

Contrast this situation with Apple: all the mobile devices (from really small
to pretty large) run iOS, and many of the Apps are cross-platform. The
desktops run something completely different; contrast this back again with
Microsoft's attempt to get the same thing running on desktops AND tablets, but
- of course - only SOME tablets. That approach is a complete mind __ __.

