Green: Apple set-top box
Yellow: App for Apple set-top box
Orange: App for other Apple devices
Red: App for third-party devices
Yellow/Orange/Red stripe: App generally across all platforms
Violet: Integrated external subscription content
Blue: Apple subscription content
Violet/Blue stripe: Content generally
Rainbow stripe: Apple TV
Apple TV (disambiguation)
Original programming for Apple TV+ seems to be very good.
First three episodes for the "For All Mankind" (scifi) are good so are the three episodes for "See". The "The Morning Show" seems to be very good although I'm not in the target audience.
Which is funny because many critics/reviewers have panned all the new shows. I've only watched TMS so far and found it intriguing.
Watched 2 - 3 episodes of each this weekend to judge, and while there’s a lot of quality TV competing across pay channels lately, seems to me that Apple has nothing to be embarrassed about.
Case in point: once you have defined the three terms, you only use the striped one except at the very end to highlight one difference, which only depends on hardware.
But content is a main idea of Apple TV?
To me there is the device, the app and the streaming service. The Channels is just a feature of the app. I agree that the naming is not ideal, but that is on par for course with Apple nowadays.
Windows also went through a phase in which seemingly everything was Windows.
However, none of it holds a candle to IBM's mania for making everything "Websphere."
Also, Live was another Microsoft naming phase.
For me, the canary in the coal mine of ms naming is their messenger. Msn messenger, live messenger, Skype, Skype for business, Teams... I assume the next iteration will be named Azure Teams.
The messenger naming example is also apropos because each successive generation of bad naming is also a generation of product that is measurably worse in some way. It goes to demonstrate the durability of software canaries!
All the other ones are literally different products each. I expect different products to have different names.
Why there were so many messenger products is a different question. Anyone from Google wanna jump in and explain this one? ;)
After like 2013 I never used Skype again. Now everyone I know either uses Discord or Slack. Teams was at least the right direction for business focus but it seems they shoulda QAd it much more. I dont hear much positive about Teams.
We have a similar issue in education. First it was MSDN-AA, then DreamSpark, then briefly Microsoft Imagine. Now it's called Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching.
Live is the one for gaming.
Outlook is the business one.
But the mail client on windows is not outlook, that’s just windows mail.
It surprises me that they didn't release 'Windows Live Office' in that era.
But if I type in Live.com, I'm redirected to the same page that says 'Outlook' but is actually outlook.live.com
So Hotmail is Outlook but Outlook is Live.com but Live.com itself is Outlook
I learned just recently that Microsoft Visual Studio is completely different from Visual Studio Code.
But yes, dark times indeed.
.NET Passport went thru series of rebranding: Microsoft Passport, Windows Live ID and of course the current Microsoft Account. In some places they also tried to roll everything under MSN brand which later was replaced partially by Windows Live and then again, once they managed to combine their services, MSN applications were bundled with Windows 8 and 10 (News, Weather, Sports etc.). Not mention all GUI changes across the years...
Microsoft trying to figure out what's its brand identity it's like a kid who tries to combine a single image of various jigsaw puzzles sets, periodically smashing pieces together to fit
having to click the "start" button to shut down your computer is probably the most illogical one. and somehow it managed to stay that way for 15 years until someone got the bright idea to just but an icon there instead
"microsoft windows phone 7 series" was a mouth full compared to "apple iphone". luckily they changed that soon after but its crazy to think of the amount of people that were involved in that project and none of them spoke up about how stupid the name sounded
a recent one is the app "your phone". it just doesn't sound right. i imagine it would be even more awkward when someone has to search the term. "hey google, my your phone isnt working"
windows security centre changes its name every year. I could go on
The first time Win95 was started, a giant arrow pointed to the start button. It was rather discoverable.
Now Win8, I had to look up how to shut it down, the rtm version was a UX disaster.
On the "active" bandwagon, I forgot to mention Active Directory, which is kind of funny given that I spent the better part of a decade specializing in development and projects largely oriented around AD and ADFS, and which is maybe the only Active-branded thing still going strong.
But Microsoft being itself added some custom features on top of JVM ( like IE ) and Sun sued them. In retaliation, Microsoft removed JVM from Windows and built C#. Everybody at that time knew C# was Java, though C# has evolved to be a much better language to code in than Java.
"We put the dot in dot-com" - ??? - I think they got scared that they were starting to lose relevancy in the internet age. It turned out that Sun hardware was a poor choice if you really wanted to scale.
Microsoft: "Oh yeah? Well we put the COM into dot-com. Pthththth!"
IBM: ”When they put the dot into dot-com, they forgot how they were going to connect the dots. Badoom psssh!”
Yes, it's marketing fluff (as with any marketing), but I liked that one.
For all you tech people like me that have problems answering to non-techie family members what you do, I thought that was an example of a beautiful succinct answer that still conveyed enough of an idea to be satisfying to laymen.
As for one I really hated from Sun: "Java Desktop System", which was just a distro with GNOME, and had nothing to do with Java.
"You know, the one you've never heard of."
There was a time when Xerox had to explain what their products were for.
In one of the computer ads the headline said
"This Xerox machine can't make a copy"
Not even Lego has Legos. 
But even Google can Google. 
>Just a little reminder from Xerox / prepared by Needham, Harper & Steers Advertising, Inc. -- Not even Xerox can Xerox / prepared by Needham Harper Worldwide, Inc. (March 1985) -- Once a trademark, not always a trademark / [Xerox Corporation].
>Though it was a long time ago, I recall that my law school Business Torts casebook contained a copy of Xerox’s old ad, “Not Even Xerox Can Xerox”, which Xerox used to promote proper use of its trademark and fight genericide. Back in the day, Xerox was by far the most well-know copier brand, leased by offices all over. In this day and age, now that most people have a copier at home (as part of a multifunction printer) and it could be a Canon, HP, Brother, Epson or other brand, I think the younger folk are not so likely to refer to copying as “Xeroxing”. It poses an interesting quandary: Xerox may be winning the genericide war but they are no longer dominating the competition. Which is preferable?
>Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site
>If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs". Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used.
>In a well-reasoned opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the GOOGLE trademark has not suffered death by genericide – even if the public uses it as a verb for searching the Internet.
>The case before the court sprang from the registration of 763 domain names that incorporated the term GOOGLE. After losing a domain name dispute arbitration, the domain name owners sued to have various trademark registrations for GOOGLE cancelled, claiming that the mark had become generic for the act of searching the Internet. The court rightly observed that a claim of genericide must always relate to specific goods or services, and that use of “google” as a verb for searching the Internet was not sufficient evidence that GOOGLE had become generic for “search engine services” or any other goods or services.
>The general rule of thumb is that trademarks are best thought of as “adjectives” that modify a generic noun. But this “part of speech” approach is not determinative to whether a mark has become generic. And while for years Xerox sought to instill in the public’s mind the trademark significance of XEROX by stating that “not even Xerox can xerox,” evidently Google can google without destroying the mark.
At least they named it core and standard so you know which mess you're referring to.
With Apple TV you have to make up your own qualifiers.
Apple's marketing team seems to failing at their jobs right now. They had iPhone had X/Xr/Xs/Xs Max at some point, and I never figure out which was which. The most recent 11/11 pro/11 pro max makes a lot more sense, but it sounds dated.
.Net Core and Standard are two of the best things Microsoft has done in the past 5 years and part of the reason why .Net is doing so well and is super popular.
.NET Core is the best thing Microsoft did even if it sucks they basically redid .NET Framework. It sucks when companies do that kind of thing but the end result is a much more powerful .NET ecosystem. The confusing bit is old .NET Framework libraries that may or may not work at all with .NET Core.
Microsoft has the .Net ecosystem (as the above poster described it "Microsoft's Java," which it largely is). However for a period Microsoft was naming other products and services ".Net" that were completely unrelated. Specifically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy
Both .Net Core and .Net Standard are part of the .Net ecosystem for real, making them not an example of the marketing phenomenon being discussed here. Which isn't to say the names aren't confusing, just that it isn't in the same pattern.
.Net Framework: Legacy/Classic .Net. Windows Only. Started in 2002. 4.8 is the final major version.
.Net Core: Light weight/cross platform "reboot" of .Net Framework. Started in 2016.
.Net Standard: Minimum subset of both that allows libraries to be cross-compatible with .Net Framework and .Net Core. Also assures they lack Windows specific dependencies. Allowing a bridge to migrate to .Net Core.
Now with 40% more confusion.
Amusing that along with this, there are two articles about caches on the front page of HN right now.
A good Apple product may in some ways be more constrained than similar products but is easy to understand and use and 'just works'. For instance, you bought an iPod and you plugged it into your Mac which popped up a store where you could buy music. You didn't have to know what an 'mp3' is. Or you bought an iPhone, took it home, plugged into your computer and 3 minutes later had a working new phone/pocket web browser. You didn't have to listen to anyone telling you about extended warranty and the web browser actually worked.
Buying an Apple TV or subscribing to the service doesn't solve any of the endless irritations and inconveniences associated with consuming TV or movies online. It just names them all Apple TV but if they fixed that, the irritations and inconveniences would still be there.
It solves all problems by leaving no memory and battery for them to happen in.
The physical Apple remotes are so terrible, I've stopped using Apple TV (all of them). The Apple remote app is better, but is useless for when you need to hit pause, as your phone has gone to sleep.
They would have been better sticking with the remote that came with the early versions.
It's not great for long lists but it's far from being terrible, also part of the problem lies on the UI design for example having too long lists
The smart home integration buttons are nice, as is not having a screen that changes what buttons do.
And, sometimes when you search for a movie using Siri on Apple TV it opens in Movies where you can add it to your wish list, but sometimes it opens in the TV app where you can't. To avoid this, you have to go into Movies, then use Search, then use your voice to fill in the title, then it will come up in Movies where you can add it to the wish list.
And don't even get me started on having different Apple IDs that you need to use for iCloud and iTunes because btw, you can't merge Apple IDs. And if one of your Apple IDs is from the .mac/.me era, you can't change its primary email address.
But other than that it's great.
If you are at the point that your company is adding MAX to the end of its product names, your company is about to jump the shark (see Boeing).
- Snow Leopard
- Mountain Lion
Aside from the fact that I doubt anyone downloads that many apps, from my understanding Apple TV makes you use on-demand resources for anything above 4GB. That means that old resources automatically get flushed out, so the actual benefit of those extra 32GB is more of caching-feeling behavior.
There are quite a few storage hungry apps least of all the screen savers.
Plus, it'll probably be object-oriented.
That said, Apple’s support for third-party Smart TV apps is actually quite unusual IMHO; this really reduces their usual control over quality and experience.
To me, every one of these Netflixes is the same: the Netflix on my phone, tablet, TV, games console, and the website are all the same product.
For Apple TV, however, the exact same name is used to refer to multiple different products and experiences: the device, the app on the device, the app on different devices, and many of these experiences differ significantly.
There's the device, and there's the app/service. The difference from Netflix is that Netflix doesn't sell hardware also called Netflix.
Assuming for a moment that the hardware devices can be a single product, the apps just cannot be: each of them has wildly different behaviour on different apple devices, with different features, and different functionality depending on the presence of 3rd party apps.
As an end user I found this confusing at first, frustrating when I understood what was going on, and now I just don't use the Apple TV apps, even on my Apple TV.
In all cases, the Apple TV app is where you go to access the Apple TV+ service and as much other available content and video services as can possibly be presented to you on the given platform. The fact that this is different depending on your device and subscriptions is a little bit weird, but it doesn't change that much, at least for me.
Obviously not a problem for people who can just buy all the extras but if you're budgeting then it does get quite nasty and lead you to the media server route
Maybe it is not as problematic when you are in the US, but in my country Amazon Prime works in all devices (android, ios, pc, etc) except in the FireTV, other services like netflix, spotify and youtube works very well on FireTV. Note that this is clearly stated in the documentation and faqs, it is a product targeted to a few countries only.
With Google, I don't even know where to start. Messaging is not the only product line they messed up. Play Movies offering the same thing as Youtube Movies and Google Play Music - Youtube Music (you can buy, you can subscribe). Adding podcasts to Google Play Music, then removing it for a standalone app. However if you download the podcasts from the standalone app, they show up as Albums in Google Play music (on Android)
I just want free stuff/included stuff. I login to prime/netflix I know where to go to get all the included stuff. on Apple+ via Roku it's confusing as fuck. I think it's meant to be so I dish out cash to watch stuff. But that's not going to happen, instead I'll get pissed off and get rid of the service.
(There actually is a category, well hidden, on the Mac/Apple TV hardware version of the app, but I'm not familiar with the Roku UI.)
In the March 2019 Apple TV+ announcement event, Apple renamed the non-4K Apple TV hardware from "Apple TV" to "Apple TV HD".
So the hardware options are now "Apple TV HD" and "Apple TV 4K".
* one or more pros not included
(Apart from the iPod, which probably is still more confusing than the iPad names. At one point it was so messed up that in November 2004 they had to rename the “iPod Photo“ to the “iPod photo”.)
This is a weird comparison. Apple TV+ isn't competing with Netflix day one, it's competing with Netflix today.
People still ask Wozniak about his opinions on devices(iphones etc) that he had absolutely no input on and they do tinge people's perceptions of those devices
Jobs penchant for secrecy persists to this day at Apple, the personalities of the people who were in charge/first affect organizations more than you'd think