Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod This just in: iPod "classic" and iPod "touch" are terrible names

S

shoelessone

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 17, 2007
347
0
Anybody else agree?

For the record, I really could care less, I'm certainly not complaining, I'm very excited about the entire new lineup.

That said, the name "iPod classic" seems especially bad and non-appleish. Seems like they should have stuck with "iPod" and "iPod touch". "iPod touch" isn't as bad as the "classic", but even it seems a bit too much like a marketing catch phrase.

Thoughts? Was anybody else honestly surprised by Apple's new "iPod classic" name?
 
C

cmonster

macrumors member
Mar 23, 2007
37
0
I disagree I thin they are good names and fitting for the product line. What other names do you suggest?
 
S

storage

macrumors 6502
Jun 4, 2005
275
0
For some reason I actually like the name "iPod classic". I don't know why. I'm however not that fond of the name "iPod touch".
 
S

shoelessone

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 17, 2007
347
0
cmonster said:
I disagree I thin they are good names and fitting for the product line. What other names do you suggest?
Click to expand...


First, for the record, I want to state (again) that I for one am thrilled with everything apple did yesterday, all of their ipods are perfect (for me). I'm not COMPLAINING at all :).

That said, I think something more "modern" might have worked better. As I said before, leaving the iPod "iPod" and calling the iPod touch "iPod touch" would have been enough of a seperation for me personally.
 
F

flying dog

macrumors newbie
Sep 5, 2007
27
0
The "Classic" name brings up bad memories... a workaround to use old programs and a Mac model that hung around for a while at the low end of the market. Anything that sounds old should probably not be used to name electronics. It's like a name for a sports car that translates into "slow" or something.
 
Osarkon

Osarkon

macrumors 68020
Aug 30, 2006
2,161
4
Wales
I don't know, iPod 'classic' kind of makes me think it's already old in some way. :eek:

Heey, maybe that's what they planned, so that more people buy the iPod Touch because it sounds newer.

And if they didn't call it the iPod Touch, what on earth were they supposed to call it? :p
 
P

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,241
6
shoelessone said:
Anybody else agree?

For the record, I really could care less, I'm certainly not complaining, I'm very excited about the entire new lineup.
Click to expand...

so you care a lot, huh?

and i disagree, i think they work exceptionally well. they couldn't keep it at just 'iPod' anymore since if you said that "i have an iPod" people would ask you which one and would just cause confusion.
 
S

shoelessone

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 17, 2007
347
0
PlaceofDis said:
so you care a lot, huh?

and i disagree, i think they work exceptionally well. they couldn't keep it at just 'iPod' anymore since if you said that "i have an iPod" people would ask you which one and would just cause confusion.
Click to expand...


while I might agree, do you really see yourself saying, "oh yeah, I just picked up an iPod CLASSIC at the apple store"?

Maybe you would, but I probagly wouldnt. I'd say, "iPod Nano", or, "one of those fancy new touch screen iPods" or "a 160gb iPod".

Anyway, I of course understand the need for some sort of further classifications, but "classic" (as somebody mentioned above) makes me feel like I'm buying an older, "classic" electronic, instead of a sweet ultra hip new Apple product :)
 
E

Enterprise8875

macrumors member
Oct 14, 2005
71
0
I couldn't disagree more; I think they are amazing names. Classic tells people right away that its the original iPod plus it has that Coca-Cola Classic like nostalgia factor. And iPod Touch tells us what it is a touch iPod.

What would you rather have them called? iPod Original and iPod big screen?
 
rdowns

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,521
shoelessone said:
Anybody else agree?
Click to expand...

No. I told you the agreeable thing wouldn't last long. :p

shoelessone said:
For the record, I really could care less, I'm certainly not complaining, I'm very excited about the entire new lineup.

That said, the name "iPod classic" seems especially bad and non-appleish. Seems like they should have stuck with "iPod" and "iPod touch". "iPod touch" isn't as bad as the "classic", but even it seems a bit too much like a marketing catch phrase.

Thoughts? Was anybody else honestly surprised by Apple's new "iPod classic" name?
Click to expand...

I like the classic name. Reminds me of the Mac Classic (the first under $1000 Macintosh) and Color Classic- machines I sold a boat load of in my previous life as a reseller.

You new switchers have no sense of Apple history. :cool:
 
M

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
I think they're fine. They get the point across without trying to be hip or wacky.
 
S

shoelessone

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 17, 2007
347
0
rdowns said:
No. I told you the agreeable thing wouldn't last long. :p



I like the classic name. Reminds me of the Mac Classic (the first under $1000 Macintosh) and Color Classic- machines I sold a boat load of in my previous life as a reseller.

You new switchers have no sense of Apple history. :cool:
Click to expand...



whatever! When I was in 5th grade (I'm 22 now, so.. whenever that was :)) I programmed on an Apple IIe. My first home computer in my bedroom (6th grade) was an Apple - I think and Apple Quadra or something of the sort.

I think "classic", I think "classical music", or "classic cars", or "oh, those old _____ you are wearing are classic", etc.

But you WERE right, the agreeable thing didn't last ;)
 
B

BII

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2006
82
0
milo said:
I think they're fine. They get the point across without trying to be hip or wacky.
Click to expand...

exactly, it does what good marketing does, clearly and effeciently tells you what the product is. In two words, you know exactly what's in the box.

iPod = music player

classic = the most familiar form factor, and a form factor which hasn't changed fundimentally in 6 years.

touch = the one with the touch screen
 
jczubach

jczubach

macrumors 6502
May 15, 2007
385
0
northwest
I personally would like to see an ipod "Hal" that warns you of you impending doom...
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    19.6 KB · Views: 445
Bern

Bern

macrumors 68000
Nov 10, 2004
1,854
1
Australia
To me "iPod Classic" also says it's the original and best mp3 player and everyone else just copied it therefore it's a classic. I don't mind that name at all. I think "iPod Touch" is a little too obvious. Perhaps just call it "iPod" as it effectively replaces the "classic" one, but I suppose in the future that's probably Apple's intention.
 
H

homeboy

macrumors 6502
Aug 23, 2007
467
1
London
I think the iPod classic is kind of dull. If they want to stick to that name, why not just call the iPod Touch simply iPod.
 
d_and_n5000

d_and_n5000

macrumors 6502a
Oct 6, 2005
631
0
j/k/Andy said:
agreed, all terrible names lately - Macbook/Mac "Pro", Mighty Mouse, Airport
Click to expand...

:confused:Airport's not exactly a new name—they've been using it since 1999.

Anywho, I don't really mind them. The only thing that bugs me is that I think that 'iPod touch' sounds a little, i don't know...unprofessional.

Although I suppose that I can't come up with anything better :eek: so its good enough.
 
Nabooly

Nabooly

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2007
849
5
Classic is horrible. Why not just keep the iPod video name? I mean ipods have been around for only about 6 or 7 years, not enough time for something to become "classic" :S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom