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

Apple Marketing Chief Phil Schiller: 'One Need Never Pluralize Apple Product Names'

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,198
38,989



Apple executive Phil Schiller gave Apple users a grammar lesson on Twitter yesterday afternoon, explaining that it isn't necessary to pluralize Apple product names.

Schiller's instructions came after a discussion on pluralizing "iPad Pro" between Andreessen Horowitz partner Benedict Evans and iMore analyst Michael Gartenberg. Evans referred to more than one iPad Pro as "iPads Pro," while Gartenberg said "iPad Pros."

ipadprodesign-1-800x376.jpg

Schiller clarified that neither approach was correct. The proper way to refer to more than one iPad Pro is to call them "iPad Pro devices."

@Gartenberg @BenedictEvans @stevesi @macintux One need never pluralize Apple product names. Ex: Mr. Evans used two iPad Pro devices. - Philip Schiller (@pschiller) April 28, 2016
Click to expand...
He went on to further state that it would be correct to say "I have 3 Macintosh," or "I have 4 Macintosh computers" when referring to more than one Mac. "Words can be both singular and plural, such as deer and clothes," he explained. By that logic, more than one iPhone would need to be referred to as iPhone devices or iPhone models rather than "iPhones."

As Business Insider points out, Apple sometimes breaks its own naming rules. In press releases, the company has made mention of "iPhones" in the plural form.

Article Link: Apple Marketing Chief Phil Schiller: 'One Need Never Pluralize Apple Product Names'
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/04/29/phil-schiller-dont-pluralize-product-names/
Phil's recent Tweets mention "iPads".

Edit: Hmmm... as do Tim's Tweets:

Edit 2: Thanks for the up votes guys :). Although, I now feel bad for pointing out these plural tweets. Phil rarely favorites Tweets, and he just favored a Tweet from @JosephRooks saying "He did say 'need not', not that you never can or never should". Therefore I guess Phil is saying it's ok to pluralize their products. (At least that's how I read it - I could be wrong.)
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    93.7 KB · Views: 33,069
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    114.2 KB · Views: 33,151
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    83.2 KB · Views: 32,730
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    186.4 KB · Views: 29,931
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    208.2 KB · Views: 29,941
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ouimetnick, mscuthbert, koolmagicguy and 85 others
This is a talk any good IP attorney will give you. For a trademark to continue, it should only be used as an adjective.

To keep a trademark, a company should never use marks of trade in other parts of grammar for public communication. Using a trademarked term as a noun or a verb dilutes the value for the mark.

Trademarked terms such as Xerox and Kleenex have been compromised because this diluted use in ads and press releases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starfires, sanity, MRxROBOT and 14 others
Oh that's just stupid. Especially if he's guilty of it too... From now on, I'm going to call them iPhones's and iPads's kinda like when I refer to my co-workers family as the Perkins's

Eat that Schiller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973 and btrach144
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
Back