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

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.