What should the 970s be named?

Discussion in 'Community' started by BaghdadBob, May 11, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #1
    OK, I really have no idea, but there are two trains of thought here. Mine is that you want to separate the 970 from the Pentium line and the G4 line by naming it something completely different, to say to consumers "pay attention, this is new."

    Another line of thinking is that "G5" clearly denotes a generation that comes after the G4 to the consumer, and makes it look like Apple beat Pentium to "5".

    To me this makes less sense because while we are still losing the GHz war, we need to make it clear that this processor is nothing like the Pentium.

    What do you guys think? I'm going with "Blue" something for now...to kind of symbolize the partnership between IBM and Apple (which, like Motorola, many don't even know about)... like "Blue Bomb"....no, wait, that was a broken-down old car I used to ride in as a kid...something else...

    Celebrating my 200th invaluable post! Hoo-ray!
     
  2. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #2
    Re: What should the 970s be named?

    Congratulations BaghdadBob on your 200th post, your almost half way there! I think that it should be called the G5. The Apple community has been waiting for this release for a number of years. In the end it's the performance of the PPC 970 that the critics will judge Apple. A simpler name is much better for marketing. I would not want to go back the number naming system we had prior to Steve. Let's go with simplicity! ;)
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
  4. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    What's wrong with calling it the 970?

    (Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound rude. I don't know why I always sound rude when I do that)
     
  5. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    I think G5 would probably be best for marketing...but that won't mean a damn thing for Apple UK if they don't get off their arse and ADVERTISE IT! Apples advertising efforts over here are nothing short of pathetic :rolleyes:

    ...though I have seen a *little* advertising for the new PB's, that's about it, and even those are just a few posters here an there...
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #6
    The last time I saw an Apple ad Yao Ming was facing off against Shaq for the first time. So don't feel too bad.
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #7
    This was mentioned in another thread - but given that the G3 is an IBM chip, the G4 a Moto chip - there's really no reason to not have Apple say the IBM 970 be a G5.

    Who knows what's going to happen - we'll all be anxiously awaiting Jobs' WWDC presentation.

    And if its not a G5 then I'm going to have to redo jefhatfields 'tar...;)

    D
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    MacFan25

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    I think that G5 is fine, but maybe Apple will come up with something better.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #9
    I think that G5 is probably the best bet right now. We've just had Jaguar, nad we are waiting for Panther, and not to mention that nearly every Macintosh has had its own name (i.e. Pismo,Wallstreet...) that yet another name will just muddy up the waters too much.
     
  10. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #10
    I agree with the G5 name... it denotes another generation machine, improved etc etc... I'm not so sure that they'll go with it though just because the G5 has been discussed for so long....

    As for advertisements.... well the PowerBook ad's has been on relatively heavy rotation on terrestrial and digital TV... so it's certainly out there...

    As for print ad's... read Creative Review, Design Week, Campaign etc etc then Apple really do advertise.... much more than ANY other PC company....

    It's not been too bad in the broadsheet magazines either... they are advertising, but only in certain area's....
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
  12. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #12
    hmmmmm...looks like I've been walking round with my eyes closed then :eek: All I've seen is a few posters, and the PB add once or twice on TV....oh, and an ad in the back of T3 :) They'll need to do a lot more then that if they ever hope to win over more customers over with their next generation machine, be it G5, 970, or what ever.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #13
    OK, here's my main beef with "G5".

    The 970 doesn't compare to either the G3 OR the G4 because it is 64 bit and basically totally new.

    So let's say (and I think this is reasonable) that Apple goes with this architecture for the next decade or better. For those who weren't watching this soap opera for the last two decades, you would have to point out to them when the new age of Mac processors rang in, and not just by saying "yeah, I know it was G3 and G4 before the G5, but the G5 isn't even similar to those last two." A new naming convention (and yes, no 6360, 5436, 9500, 6200...etc....) would simplify making this point.

    I mean, look at the Pentium. The pentium is the same damned chip as the 386 and 486, but to the uninformed they think it started with the Pentium. Why miss a chance to make that distinction when it is real?

    From a marketing standpoint, a totally new name would symbolize a "new age" in Mac processors. And really, if this is the beginning of Apple regaining their marketshare through (once again) superior hardware -- as well as their OS and software strategies coming to a full head of steam -- don't they want to send a signal to the world to the regard that this is not just an incremental upgrade, but totally new?

    Plus, G5 doesn't do anything to let everyone know that this is not only totally different from the G4, but also from the Pentiums. I believe a split from both of those architectures is necessary here.

    I mean, I (we?) could be wrong, it could just be an incremental improvement (in performance), but if its not, wouldn't you want to shout it from the rooftops?

    Note: I thought I posted this half an hour and several posts ago. Stupid "push this button" technology...
     
  14. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #14
    I have some beef with calling it the 'G5' Gee-Four sounded decent, Gee-Five sounds cheezy, like some horry flick 'Jason 5' yeah...

    No the real reason I don't like G5 is It aint IBM's 5th gen chip like the G3 was for IBM...
    The 970 is derived from the Power4 Chipset, it is Gen 4, therefore it is a Gen4 chip.
    It may be the apple 'Gen 5' chip but it seems a little weak.

    I prefer 'The All new 970 PowerMac' over a 'The All new G5 PowerMac'

    edit: Like people called the G3, the G3, people called the G4 a G4, but will people call the 970 a 'G5' ?
     
  15. macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
  16. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #16
    I second that opinon scem0! It would make the best marketing sense!
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    britboy

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #17

    I agree completely. When apple moved from the G3 to the G4, there wasn't really that much that changed (apart from altivec, obviously). This time round though, the 970 is a completely different beast, and deserves a name that clearly differentiates it from what has come before. Whilst apple have to a certain extent built up a kind of brand name with 'GX', 'Powermac 970' would get my vote.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Laslo Panaflex

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #18
    There is no way that they are going with "G5" for the name of the next processor. I think that apple needs to get away from the past, and look forword to the future. Sure using "G" will keep the marketing nice and clean, but really when these chips come out, G5 will be a name that assumes that its close to the "G" series processors, which on paper, these chips blow G4 and x86 out of the water, so a new name needs to be established. Apple needs to bring interest back to them and using "G5" will not do that for non-apple consumers. Think about it, if someone walks into Frys and looks at daul g4 and then dual g5, there won't be much of a megahertz difference, for the difference in price the consumer will go for the way cheaper, slightly slower (in megahertz) g4 system. If Apple want more people to "switch" they need to create a buzz and hype, and using a new name for the chip besides "970" or "G5" would be the best way to go. I think most would be upset of the discontinuation of the "G" name, but that will be overshadowed by the awsome new name for the chip. There's my 2 cents, we will have to wait and see.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #19
    I'm totally against the G5 name. The PPC 970 is a completely different chip from a different company. I think calling it PowerPC 970 is fine.

    Or maybe "the Apple X processor", like OSX on the new X processor. Then the next one can be the XI processor.

    Please not G5.
     
  20. Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #20
    970 or some boring, long, purely numerical representation works fine for the pc world...but apple needs to come up with something more creative

    my pc laptop is the presario model 1272 and not much to distinguish it from other models...but my mac is an ibook, much cooler sounding and easy to remember

    i like it when apple used the simple term G3, instead of the 750 model or something

    yes, the ibm 970 chip is 64 bit so that G5 may not do the new machine justice

    how about G-64, for generation 64, where 64 denotes the 64 bit architecture...but that may be too many numbers and not be distinctive enough

    what happens when intel ends up with the pentium 11 or pentium 20...all the models will just blur into one another, as if they haven't already done that...i think the pentium moniker is dead

    whatever comes next for apple, i hope comes soon
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #21
    That is a good point. Why did Intel change to a name? Because they tried to enforce a copyright on the name "486", and were soundly defeated because "486" is simply a number. (A rare victory for common sense in the courts.)

    I don't know if Apple has trademarked "G3" and "G4", but they could run into a similar problem. Personally I'd like to see them drop the "Power". PC people like to call them "Powerless Macs", and the word "Power" has no real point anymore. "PowerMac 970" has too many syllables. My suggestion is "Mac 5".

    When the iMac gets the 970, call it the "iMac 5". When the Powerbooks get it, call them the "Mac 5 Books".

    The main drawback here is that the 970 is an IBM Power4 derivative. We're off by one; but due to history we can't call it the "Mac 4", and IBM will not let Apple call it the "Mac Power4".

    Thus, "Mac 5". Think elegant simplicity. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
     
  22. Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #22
    hey cubist,

    i like that one for its simplicity and ease of remembering

    mac 5...it has a ring to it

    it's better than G5 imho
     
  23. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #23
    On the point of the "Powerless Macs" quip, hopefully with the 970s the only laughing that will be going on will be from our side of the aisle.

    How about "PowerBlue". Like "The all-new iMac, with 1.8 GHz PowerBlue processor." Or is that too close to Pepsi Blue? Which sucks?

    Maybe something with "64" in it, like the Apple Jaguar 64...ohhhhhhhh wait.......
     
  24. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #24
    I've seen the PowerBook ad's so many times on TV.... and I don't really watch alot of TV....

    They've always targetted the creative industry here in the UK, and hence all the creative magazines, when it comes to this area... Mac's still seem like the de-facto.

    Where they need to advertise more is for the consumer machines... iMac, eMac and iBook... these are the machines that Joe public are likely to buy, they need to advertise the services, and why things really are quicker, easier, better on the mac... rather than having iMac's spinning around in different colours etc etc... poeple need to be educated.

    We also need aproper chain of Applestores in every major city... say London, Bristol, Brum, Leeds, Manchester for starters, with staff that know their stuff.... and can really demonstrate exactly what the Mac can do... Only then will we see Apple beginning to really find there way into people's homes in any decent amount of numbers.

    Then they can advertise.... what's the point in advertising if you can't buy the machines anywhere?

    We need Applestores..... and proper ones... :p :p
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #25
    X marks the spot

    I think that Apple might tie the processor name into OS X somehow. Like the GX. But that kind of sounds like a car name..hmm. But yeah, I think G5 isn't the way to go. The G4 has picked so much baggage and negative connotations that I think they need to break from that naming scheme. Maybe X5? Whatever...as long as it comes soon, I think we'll all be happy to call it by whatever Steve chooses.

    :)
     

Share This Page