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

Discussion in 'iPod' started by shoelessone, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    #2
    I disagree I thin they are good names and fitting for the product line. What other names do you suggest?
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #3
    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".
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #4
    Actually, it seems very "Appleish" to me... considering they once had a "Macintosh Classic".
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #5

    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.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #6
    agreed, all terrible names lately - Macbook/Mac "Pro", Mighty Mouse, Airport
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #7
    Actually, I'm loving the names. Especially the 'classic' because well, thats what it is.
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Osarkon

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wales
    #9
    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
     
  10. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #10
    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.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #11

    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 :)
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #12
    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?
     
  13. macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    IMO Touch is classic, and Classic is a nice touch. :)
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
  15. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #15
    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:
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    #16
    yeah Darn.

    Should've named it iPod Bigger and iPod Wider........:(
     
  17. macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #17
    I think they're fine. They get the point across without trying to be hip or wacky.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #18


    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 ;)
     
  19. BII
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    #19
    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
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    jczubach

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    northwest
    #20
    I personally would like to see an ipod "Hal" that warns you of you impending doom...
     

    Attached Files:

  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #21
    Touching is good
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Location:
    London
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    d_and_n5000

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #24
    :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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page