I remember in 2002 I was watching a movie in a London theater, and the lights went dark, and the movie was just about to start, and... that Nokia sound went off. The entire theater groaned, "AWWWWWW". And then, another went off, and another, and several more, until it was an absolute cacophony of Nokia sounds.
Then the Nokia logo came on screen, accompanied by the words, "Please silence your cell phones."
The groans turned into sincere chuckles.
That was one of the earliest pre-movie reminders, and still one of the best. And it only worked (full circle here), because that Nokia sound was so iconic.
Well said. In situations like this, I always refer to Oxford dictionary. It's included in spotlight on Macs.
Iconic: of, relating to, or of the nature of an icon
Icon: a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something
-----------
"Time goes by, and this sound becomes iconic, showing up in TV shows and movies, and becoming international short-hand for "you have a text message"..."
------------
That's from the article. Seems like a very appropriate use of iconic to me.
What I try to do is give folks the benefit of the doubt. Charity über Alles.
Rather than read "iconic" and jump to the first conclusion I have, I might try in earnest to read and understand what someone wrote as they intended it to be read.
In this case, if he meant "iconic" in the sense that The Beatles or the Rolling Stones or Elis Presley are iconic then, the tone of the article is off. It's very humble. There were no sour grapes, but rather a kind of happy surprise when he heard that a sound he made years ago was used on the iPhone. It sure doesn't seem like he was puffing himself up.
What's more likely, then? That he meant "iconic" in the Beatles sense or that it didn't occur to him that some folks reading this article might take "iconic" in a way he didn't intend?
My money is on the latter.