4 ms·

As a counter point, Apple has a habit of labeling products with i- and labeling software libraries with -Kit.

flyinghamster 12y ago
Indeed, when I first heard of "Healthkit" I misread it as "Heathkit" even though Apple is pretty much the antithesis of Heathkit.
UVB-76 12y ago
Apple have been fairly consistent; the 'i' prefix has been synonymous with Apple since the iPod in 2001. Microsoft chop and change brands all the time, often in ways that are confusing to the consumer and damaging to the business.
- zeckalpha 12y ago
  iMac, 1998.
  - UVB-76 12y ago
    Noted, but the iPod (and iTunes, also 2001) is what made Apple (and the 'i' prefix) a household name, and paved the way for everything that followed.
- theoutlander 12y ago
  The number of times products get rebranded is a sign of the fact that there's just not any forethought!
bunderbunder 12y ago
Apple doesn't just willy-nilly throw the i- designation of every product they have, though. i- is a special sub-brand that's used to express something that is small, easy, light, etc. Customers who are familiar with Apple's branding can immediately guess at how an iMac differs from a PowerMac (or, when they still existed, an iBook from a PowerBook) based only on knowing their names. That branding was carried forward, so that the same connotations helped offer consumers an immediate sense of familiarity with the basic idea behind new products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Even now, you see a hint of the distinction alive in iOS vs OS X. They rest on the same technology base, but keeping the distinction alive means users still have an easy mnemonic to help them keep track of the distinction between the two and their relative capabilities. So yes, Apple does reuse monikers in their branding. But they use them to create a branding language that helps them to better communicate with customers. This is starkly different from what Microsoft is trying to do with the Windows brand, which is to turn the word into a blaring, monotonous drone to be blasted at us until we enter some sort of alternate mental dimension where words lose all meaning and every single noun is replaced with the word Windows.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Curiously, the Watch is not an i product despite being among the smallest and lightest products.
  - buckbova 12y ago
    Swatch owns it . . . . kinda. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-04/swatch-objects-to-authorities-on-apple-s-use-of-iwatch-label-1-.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-04/swatch-objects-to-a...
- hyp0 12y ago
  There are other reasons for not using i, e.g. iTouch, iWatch
whyenot 12y ago
Labeling things with -Kit dates back to early NeXTSTEP (1989). I believe it was originally intended as an indicator that a library included an object-oriented API.

Indeed, when I first heard of "Healthkit" I misread it as "Heathkit" even though Apple is pretty much the antithesis of Heathkit.

UVB-76 12y ago

Apple have been fairly consistent; the 'i' prefix has been synonymous with Apple since the iPod in 2001. Microsoft chop and change brands all the time, often in ways that are confusing to the consumer and damaging to the business.

zeckalpha 12y ago
iMac, 1998.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  Noted, but the iPod (and iTunes, also 2001) is what made Apple (and the 'i' prefix) a household name, and paved the way for everything that followed.
theoutlander 12y ago
The number of times products get rebranded is a sign of the fact that there's just not any forethought!

bunderbunder 12y ago

Apple doesn't just willy-nilly throw the i- designation of every product they have, though. i- is a special sub-brand that's used to express something that is small, easy, light, etc. Customers who are familiar with Apple's branding can immediately guess at how an iMac differs from a PowerMac (or, when they still existed, an iBook from a PowerBook) based only on knowing their names. That branding was carried forward, so that the same connotations helped offer consumers an immediate sense of familiarity with the basic idea behind new products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Even now, you see a hint of the distinction alive in iOS vs OS X. They rest on the same technology base, but keeping the distinction alive means users still have an easy mnemonic to help them keep track of the distinction between the two and their relative capabilities. So yes, Apple does reuse monikers in their branding. But they use them to create a branding language that helps them to better communicate with customers. This is starkly different from what Microsoft is trying to do with the Windows brand, which is to turn the word into a blaring, monotonous drone to be blasted at us until we enter some sort of alternate mental dimension where words lose all meaning and every single noun is replaced with the word Windows.

tedunangst 12y ago
Curiously, the Watch is not an i product despite being among the smallest and lightest products.
- buckbova 12y ago
  Swatch owns it . . . . kinda. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-04/swatch-objects-to-authorities-on-apple-s-use-of-iwatch-label-1-.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-04/swatch-objects-to-a...
hyp0 12y ago
There are other reasons for not using i, e.g. iTouch, iWatch

whyenot 12y ago

Labeling things with -Kit dates back to early NeXTSTEP (1989). I believe it was originally intended as an indicator that a library included an object-oriented API.