8 ms·

Good. Any commercial I would see/hear about the Nokia Lumia 1020 Microsoft Windows Phone powered by Verizon Wireless LTE, it drove me crazy. Cell phone names

Good. Any commercial I would see/hear about the Nokia Lumia 1020 Microsoft Windows Phone powered by Verizon Wireless LTE, it drove me crazy. Cell phone names are getting out of hand. Granted I love my Apple products, and appreciate their ads: iPhone 5--bam I know what I'm getting--fairly sure most ads don't even have to say "Apple". Why other vendors haven't followed suit, I have no idea. "Samsung Galaxy S III with Android on an LTE network" is a mouthful, and I have to think that your average person doesn't really hear anything there.

roc 13y ago
I think average people tuned out everything aside from "Galaxy", which Samsung noticed and thus began Samsung Galaxy Everything.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I remember reading that Compaq considered using a different brand for its low cost PCs back in 1991 or so.
aggronn 13y ago
depending on who is sponsoring the ad, iphones have this sometimes. I know when sprint got the iphone, for instance, there were tons of 'apple iphone now on sprint' ads, which is exactly what you're talking about. if a carrier runs an ad mentioning a phone, this is the end result.
- skyebook 13y ago
  I would argue that in Sprint's case it was less of a branding move than a "we have it too!" One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance. If you watch a commercial for almost any Android device, it looks like it could be either a carrier or device commercial. I remember when the Motorola Droid first came out seeing the 'energy core with static discharge' with a bunch of red hues and knowing immediately "oh, Verizon's got this". Sprint does the same by shoving yellow text anywhere that negative space hasn't yet been sullied. I find it oddly telling about the difference between the two camps, as having owned both Android and iPhones, the difference in commercial is roughly analogous to the user experience in terms of carrier integration.
  - corresation 13y ago
    One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance Those are ads that Apple is almost completely paying for it, but via a partner agreement rather than directly (which is how there can be many times more Apple ads in media, yet people talk about how little they spend compared to Samsung). Most carriers also have carrier-specific, and sponsored, iPhones ads, and they do all of the same things that every "Android" ad does. As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon. This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs.
    - skyebook 13y ago
      > As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon. And how else would you, as a consumer who doesn't spend their time on HN, know that Droid is from Verizon? Its like saying to someone who doesn't know much about cars "Hey you should buy an Elantra!" where the immediate followup from those who don't know as much say "well who makes that?". For a Mustang, Corvette, or something of similar ilk, the make is less important since its already icon. Apple has succeeded in making the iPhone an icon where others haven't. > This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs. How, exactly? Apple has maintained a strong enough brand control over its products that people are easily able to identify them. This has simply not been the case with the vast majority of Android OEM's.
mason240 13y ago
See also: HTC EVO or HTC One
- slouch 13y ago
  If you count the HTC Ones on this page there are seven, and only two are device you are talking about. http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/ http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/
jessedhillon 13y ago
On the topic of messaging in general, I heard that James Carville once told Bill Clinton that "if you said three things, you said nothing." Apparently that was the genesis of "it's the economy, stupid." That's always stuck with me as a salient pointer on communication.
corresation 13y ago
Your comparisons are disingenuous. If your point is that Apple is known and thus unspoken (though it always is spoken), then that has nothing at all to do with "cell phone names": AT&T calls it the Nokia Lumia 1020, while the iPhone is the Apple iPhone 5. Any baggage you put before or after that is almost certainly pulled from a selectivity bias. Sometimes ads mention Windows Phone, sometimes they don't. Sometimes ads mentioned the super advanced iOS, sometimes they don't. The Galaxy S3 comment is another nonsensical comparison. I _do_ hear commercials say "Come to {PROVIDER} to get the Apple iPhone 5 with the fastest LTE network". What does that prove? How about nothing. Seriously, the name griping is like a bad Seinfeld episode, only these are manufactured gripes rather than real world observations.
- valleyer 13y ago
  I'll counter with this: https://twitter.com/thinkofthought/status/192967196413149185/photo/1 https://twitter.com/thinkofthought/status/192967196413149185...
Pxtl 13y ago
The problem is that Nokia has brand power. Microsoft is incapable of producing this in their new products because every product they've created in the past 15 years has been painfully short-lived. They create the Zune brand, tie it to the Windows Phone brand, then destroy it. Their various home apps like gallery in Vista get dropped for Windows Live in 7, which in turn is dropped in 8. Their near-constant ADD prevents them from creating solid brands outside of their trusty '90s-era products like Office and Visual Studio and Windows, and even then nobody loves these brands. I don't trust Microsoft to be able to create a phone brand that has the kind of resonating name as Nokia.
- tracker1 13y ago
  "XBox Mobile" as a brand would be brilliant. Tie it into an XBox Live account... push services to your XBox (kind of like android + chromecast), and keep the "development" name Windows 8.x or whatever... sell it as the gamer teen/twenty something device to own.. get EA etc in on it for device specific games.. and throw in free X months of XBox Live sub when you sign in on your phone.

roc 13y ago

I think average people tuned out everything aside from "Galaxy", which Samsung noticed and thus began Samsung Galaxy Everything.

yuhong 13y ago
I remember reading that Compaq considered using a different brand for its low cost PCs back in 1991 or so.

aggronn 13y ago

depending on who is sponsoring the ad, iphones have this sometimes. I know when sprint got the iphone, for instance, there were tons of 'apple iphone now on sprint' ads, which is exactly what you're talking about. if a carrier runs an ad mentioning a phone, this is the end result.

skyebook 13y ago
I would argue that in Sprint's case it was less of a branding move than a "we have it too!" One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance. If you watch a commercial for almost any Android device, it looks like it could be either a carrier or device commercial. I remember when the Motorola Droid first came out seeing the 'energy core with static discharge' with a bunch of red hues and knowing immediately "oh, Verizon's got this". Sprint does the same by shoving yellow text anywhere that negative space hasn't yet been sullied. I find it oddly telling about the difference between the two camps, as having owned both Android and iPhones, the difference in commercial is roughly analogous to the user experience in terms of carrier integration.
- corresation 13y ago
  One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance Those are ads that Apple is almost completely paying for it, but via a partner agreement rather than directly (which is how there can be many times more Apple ads in media, yet people talk about how little they spend compared to Samsung). Most carriers also have carrier-specific, and sponsored, iPhones ads, and they do all of the same things that every "Android" ad does. As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon. This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs.
  - skyebook 13y ago
    > As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon. And how else would you, as a consumer who doesn't spend their time on HN, know that Droid is from Verizon? Its like saying to someone who doesn't know much about cars "Hey you should buy an Elantra!" where the immediate followup from those who don't know as much say "well who makes that?". For a Mustang, Corvette, or something of similar ilk, the make is less important since its already icon. Apple has succeeded in making the iPhone an icon where others haven't. > This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs. How, exactly? Apple has maintained a strong enough brand control over its products that people are easily able to identify them. This has simply not been the case with the vast majority of Android OEM's.

mason240 13y ago