The subtle brilliance of Apple's product names | Hacker News Reader

The subtle brilliance of Apple's product names

tuaw.com

25 pointsoptiplex38 comments

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."

You're thinking like an engineer. Good on you. But most people aren't engineers.

iPad [1-5] parses well but is meaningless to customers who don't ogle tech news and spec sheets. iPad Air conveys what Apple wants to convey and goes down easy for non-engies.

> Try explaining that to a non-Apple following family member and watch their face contort.

This is part of the brilliance. They don't want you to be comparing products to the old models they don't sell anymore. Partly because it gets confusing fast, and partly because they don't want you to think about anything besides the gorgeous product you have in your hands at the Apple store. Everything else is a distraction and it loses them money, for better or for worse.

I appreciate structure and monotonic sequences as much as the next hacker. But I think the "non-crazy" naming you seem to be suggesting is precisely how the insane naming in the rest of the industry is birthed, and Apple's done a great job steering away from it.

iPad 1-5 isn't meaningless. For the "average" person 5 is supposed to be "better than" 4, 3 better than 2 etc. If Apple's goal is to only sell the newest, than iPad Air or iPad GodModel is fitting however it isn't (to capture a bigger part of the market a big part of their business is now selling older models in specific markets). My argument was that Apple is no better or worse than any other tech hardware maker in this regard.

What's crazy is not Apple's naming scheme, or the industry standard naming schemes but rather the because Apple did it, it must be genius opinion many of these blog posts take. In this blind Apple-adulation world we live in, authors will twist facts to prove their point that Apple is genius, despite overwhelming contrary evidence. It's crazy.

Now, I appreciate evil-genius in their naming schemes because it confuses customers. Let's not all write articles however claiming that the inverse is true. Name each generation the same thing and people will have hard time comparing and buying older models is business...genius. However it's not simple or empowering to consumers in any way.

>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.

For one, you managed to miss all comperative context.

What you descrive, however ..."attrocious" sounds to you, is nothing compared to Sony's naming schemes and model variance he compares it to. We're talking several orders of magnitude worse.

Second, you don't have to explain much to a "non-Apple family following family member". He doesn't care for the history of the iPad lineage, and neither he should.

What matters is that at any given time he might want to buy an iPad there are 2 or 3 base models sold by Apple, that have clearly different characteristics.

In fact, by summarizing all the iPad release history in 2 paragraphs, you nullified your own argument. Trying to do the same with most companies product lines and naming schemes is an exercise in futility.

I also don't really follow why for the iPad it was good that they dropped numbers but for the iPhone it was good that they kept the numbers. Definitely hypothesis fitting.

With or without numbers, the bottom line is: keep your product line simple and give it memorable lines. That's what Apple does.

iDevice N or iDevice Foo is simple enough. Sony MK200 HVK-iZD (plus 10 simbling models released throughtout the same period) is not.

Sony's model numbers in your example mean something, though (if only to Sony themselves), and tech isn't the only place you'll find this.

Take BMW for example. I could buy a BMW 328i or a BMW 760Li. What the hell does that mean? Well the first number is the series of the car (the 3 series). The next two numbers are the engine displacement (2.8L). The i means it's fuel-injected. The 700 series has a 6.0L engine, the L means it's a long wheelbase, and the i again means it's fuel-injected (d would indicate diesel, x indicated all-wheel-drive, etc). But BMW, like Apple, has a line-up of simple names that hold very premium status over their complicated line of consumer models: the M Series. Simple names like the M3, M5, or M7.

Is it confusing to people trying to find a BMW to buy? Perhaps. Does it make for more informed consumers? Sure, because the consumer has to know exactly what they're looking for. If you're looking for all wheel drive, you're going to ignore anything without an X in the name. And by mentioning the name to other informed consumers, people will instantly know what you have. It's not just a BMW 3 series, it's a BMW 328si. It's not just a Lenovo Thinkpad, it's a Lenovo Thinkpad T530 (T series, 15" screen, model number 30). To anyone who knows the name, that instantly conveys a lot more information in a more succinct phrasing. It's not a 14" (that would be the T430). It's the newest generation, because it's not the T520.

Confusing? Yep. Useful? If you're willing to put the time in to research it.

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

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.

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.

The size, weight, and looks of the iPad have not changed dramatically since it's introduction which leaves consumers with the "trailing numbers" and gasp technical specs to differentiate each model. And we know how well "average" users can parse and compare technical specs.

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

How about doing the same with all Sony models released from 2010 to 2014 then?

Because you're comparing stuff that just isn't there. When a person visits applestore.com or an Apple Store, he's only going to see the currently sold models, not the whole product history.

He might be momentarily confused that iPad 2 is older than the iPad Air, but that can be fixed with one glance at the price or specs, or a word from an employee.

The difference between some competitor names like HVZ-KM323 and HMH-23hiK? Not so much.

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)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Newton, not Darwin.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

Eh, it's stupid, yes. But once you know, it is trivial to remember:

'95 => '98 => 2000

7 => 8 => 8.1

As well as remembering the second sequence follows the first.

Really, I don't mean to say it is a wonderful naming scheme or anything. I'm just less frustrated by it than by "big cats":

Kodiak, Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks

> 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.

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

Save for XP and Vista, they're all pretty logical and you can tell which version is the next version. With big cats, you have to wonder "was Puma before or after Snow Leopard?". There's no increment, only a change. With Windows, 95 came out in 1995. 98 came out in 1998. 2000 came out in 2000. 8 came out after 7 (and obviously no one would ever wonder if they should update Windows 7 to Windows 95 thinking they had missed 88 releases).

The underlying version (actually the version of NT that is powering the OS, not the Windows version) doesn't matter a bit and is never mentioned to consumers. Outside of Linux, people tend not to care what kernel version is under their OS.

Are you kidding me? Let's see...Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 7 Ultimate, etc...

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.

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.

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.

Surface / Surface Pro are the current names. The complaints were with the original names "Surface RT + Surface Pro." I think later on they renamed Surface RT to Surface which caused confusion since it seemed like 3 devices were available for purchase, when in reality Surface / Surface RT were the same product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com