4 ms·

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

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."

Brashman 13y ago
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.
- coldtea 13y ago
  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.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    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.
aegiso 13y ago
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.
- josefresco 13y ago
  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.
robmclarty 13y ago
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
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  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.
  - josefresco 13y ago
    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.
  - robmclarty 13y ago
    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.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >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.
coldtea 13y ago
>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.

Brashman 13y ago

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.

coldtea 13y ago
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.
- freehunter 13y ago
  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.

aegiso 13y ago

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.

josefresco 13y ago
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.

robmclarty 13y ago

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

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
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.
- josefresco 13y ago
  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.
- robmclarty 13y ago
  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.
coldtea 13y ago
>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.

coldtea 13y ago

>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.