Hacker News Reader

Comment by da_chicken | Hacker News Reader

Apple is the perfect counter example here.

Apple wasn't the first company to make an MP3 player, but the generic term is basically 'iPod'.

Apple wasn't the first company to make a smartphones or touchscreens, but the generic term for a touchscreen smartphone is basically 'iPhone'.

Apple wasn't the first company to make a tablet, but the generic term is basically 'iPad'.

Apple didn't invent high resolution displays for personal devices, but the generic term is basically 'Retina display'.

We can go back in time, too. Apple didn't invent the mouse or a GUI, but lots of people pointed to the Macintosh as inventing them.

View on HN

This has to be a regional thing, similar to how in some areas of the American south, "Coke" is a generic term for all sodas. But at least in my area (Portland, OR), what you're saying is definitely not true.

I've never heard someone use Apple trademarks as generic terms. The generic term people use for a touchscreen smartphone is...a smartphone. Likewise, a generic term for a tablet is "tablet". I've never heard someone use "iPhone" to refer to all smartphones or "iPad" to refer to all tablets.

Though as a kid, I know my parents would say to "put away the Nintendo" when it was the PlayStation stuff that was all spread out on the floor.

It doesn't really matter if it is a regional thing. The point is not that the name takes over. That's just a side effect that sometimes happens. The point is that the product that came second and copied the first now dominates the market.

How about the IBM PC? Plenty of home computers existed prior to the PC, but today 8086 code dominates at all levels of computing.

How about Google's search, or Google Maps? AltaVista and MapQuest came first.

You mention Nintendo and PlayStation, but Atari was before both of those!

How about Facebook instead of MySpace?

The point is that saying that the person who comes along and copies you will do it worse because they don't understand it is often wrong.

Where I grew up (borderline Midwest, generally associated with the South), it is common to ask “What kind of Coke would you like?” And an acceptable answer to said question could be “Mountain Dew”, “Dr Pepper”, or any competing soda brand. After I moved away from my hometown (though still in the general midwestern region) I found it fascinating how hyper local the nomenclature for soda can be (or rather “pop” or “coke” depending on where you live).

We may be from the same place.

>rather “pop” or “coke” depending on where you live

I think "pop" is a hold over from the older English fizzy pop

I feel like some of these examples could be US-centric phenomena. We in the US tend to confuse brand names with product categories, and in other markets the Apple brand doesn't have the same dominance in most of these.

Apple dominates a lot more in many desirable foreign markets.

At least the iPod/Pad/Phone stuff isn't US-centric - these are colloquially used to refer players/tablets/smartphones in many different languages.

Of those, the only one I would say that's actually fairly generic is ipod, but that's also the one that's been relegated largely useless as it's an "also" feature of everything else. I don't event here people refer to their non-iphone as an iphone, or their tablet as an ipad. People have have one of those might refer to theirs, and the class in general this way, but given they are actually in the minority of owners for those devices usually, I definitely don't hear it all that often as the generic term.

It all depends on the countries. FWIW, in my experience outside of US and other First World countries, "iPad" for "tablet" is by far the most common, and "iPhone" for "smartphone" is also pretty common. This is more typical of the older (roughly 50+) generation though.

I can hardly remember someone using an Apple(or any brand really) product name for the whole product category, it's rare in my experience. Sometimes there's a (grand)parent calling every game console "nintendo", but that's about it.

How about Q-tip? Band-aid? Adrenaline? Kleenex? There's quite a lot of them floating around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...

Seems to be much more of a US thing. As a European I'd use the category name for most of those.

Some of the category names don't even match up - adhesive tape is definitely not what comes to mind for Durex for me.

The specific brands are usually country- or region-specific. It's just that you often don't notice the ones that have been genericized in your culture.

Consider: thermos, escalator, linoleum, trampoline, zipper, scotch (as in tape), jeep, xerox, jacuzzi, dictaphone...

>The specific brands are usually country- or region-specific. It's just that you often don't notice the ones that have been genericized in your culture

I think branding to generic really depends on linguistics of target market, brand writers and brand saturation in target market.

A brand name that is hard to pronounce is less likely to be used and how often do you think about the Slovakian pronunciation of your brand?

The US being a large linguistically similar market would be more susceptible to this.

I don't think any of those exist in my country. We do have some older people that call every PND a 'TomTom'.

I was going to make this point. While having a huge market share, Apple doesn't dominate in the EU, so generic terms are more common.

Here in the UK people just have "Smartphones" and "tablets" (tho I do hear people calling generic tablets "iPad" sometimes).

I wonder if in the UK the BBC's anti-branding guidelines make a difference; they will almost never refer to a phone as an iPhone unless it's specifically relevant.

The example may be US-centric, but that really doesn't invalidate the point of the argument: that late comers may come to dominate the market by copying others. I really don't need a global example or eurocentric example to make the point, but if you don't want Apple, take Google's Android, IBM'S PC, etc.

Edit: How about Google? They copied Yahoo and AltaVista, and their search engine has become so ubiquitous with searching that it's a word in the dictionary now.

I’d say this is by design. A major goal / win in marketing is when your market confuses your brand name with a product category.

The USA, love it or hate it, is the most dominant marketing force on planet earth.

> The generic term is basically iThing.

Are you from the US? Because here in .eu "iThing" is definitely not the generic term for pretty much anything.

Not the parent, but I am from the US. I don't know anyone who uses i{whatever} as a generic term. When they say iPhone, they mean a smartphone manufactured by Apple. When they say iPad, they mean a tablet computer manufactured by Apple, and so on.

I am also from the US, and I frequently hear (in decreasing order of dominance):

“Apple Pay” being used as a generic for “phone-based contactless payment system”, “iPad” as generic for “tablet”, and “iPhone” as generic for “smartphone”.

Mu kids called all tablets iPads at some point, so I had to teach them the difference between iOS and Android.

I'm a long-time Apple user fully baked into the Apple ecosystem and have friends and acquaintances in the same position, and I'm not sure I agree with most of those. Maybe "Retina display," only because Apple arguably was the first company to give that a specific branding term. I don't even think iPod was ever a generic for "MP3 player"; it was far and away the most popular MP3 player, and I'm sure the dozens of people who bought Zunes were tired of people saying "I've never seen an iPod that looks like that before," but that's not the same thing as being a generic term.

Beyond that, though, your other examples just seem weird, because I don't ever hear anyone use iPad or iPhone as a generic term. "I have an Android iPhone." "Hey, that's a cool Microsoft iPad." Nope. And the Mac was the first computer anyone outside of nerdspace ever heard of using a GUI and mouse, and I'm sure that's led to some pop culture confusion, but that doesn't strike me as comparable to the other examples anyway. "GUI" and "mouse" are generic terms.

> I don't even think iPod was ever a generic for "MP3 player"

It was generic enough to form part of the word "podcast", which has stuck around.

in your opinion though.

i've never heard anyone use iphone as a generic term. phone, mobile, cell, cellphone. these are the only terms i've heard.

and while i'm add it, mp3 player is what i've heard EVEN it is in reference to an ipod.

ipad? nah, generally i've heard tablet.

and finally, i've heard no one say retina, i have heard HD, HiDPI or 4k (even if it's not).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com