Apple's mistake in naming this device the Apple Watch

[fitshaced]

Apple Strap. That's really where the money is. Or Apple Strap-on as you might feel a bit shafted by it.

 

[BMcCoy]

Knowing Apple, there were probably multiple tiers of naming committees and sub-committees.. all behind the secret door.

 

[FelixAng]

IMHO, I believe Apple made a mistake in naming this device the Apple "Watch". Sure, you wear it on your wrist, just like a watch. And it can function like a watch. In fact, it is extraordinarily versatile at that. But calling it a "watch" creates a set of expectations about it which are the default in most people's mind. Those expectations are based on what people want from a watch, and this device is so much more than just that. The result is that potential buyers can be disappointed in it, because they expect it to have the same characteristics as a watch, even though, it really isn't one.

I've been picking away here about battery life, for instance. Watches need much better charge life than 18 hours, on the order of days or weeks or months, and potential buyers are already primed to expect that because it's called a "watch". But this device doesn't have that kind of charge life. Why not? Because it has so many more functions than just as a watch, and those need lots of power, and space inside the device is limited. So, the battery doesn't last as long as a standard watch does.

If Apple wanted to create a new category with this device, they should have called it something else so that people don't expect it to be comparable to actual watches. When they introduced the iPod, they chose a new name for it, and that created the brand category that made Apple the company that it is today. The same is true with the iPad. But this is not the case with the Apple Watch. By naming it a "watch", Apple has put this device in direct competition with "watches", and that handicaps the perception of the device.

I can understand that Apple wanted to make the device familiar and comfortable to buyers, and calling it something they already know about does that. But that also creates the expectation that the device will be similar to those things users are comfortable with, which this device largely isn't.

I don't know what other name would be better than "Watch". And obviously, that name train has left the station, so it won't be changed. But suppose this device had been called something else, like the Apple "iFriend". Sure, that's pretty icky. But that would have avoided all the baggage that a "watch" brings to the expectations of the device. And, it would have created a new brand category at the same time. Apple could still have said that "your iFriend is worn like a watch", and get that usage metaphor into people's heads. But the context of it being just like a watch wouldn't be there. What would be there is something entirely new.

I don't know why Tim or Jony didn't call me up to talk about this before they announced this thing... maybe next time.

I agree. Something a little more original, like MacBOOK, iPOD, iPAD; Mighty Mouse...Thunderbolt...

I think the real lame-o is Apple Watch Edition...aka AWE...

 

[deckard666]

Continue with that line of thinking but add Tim Cook saying how long he's had to wait to make a phone call from his wrist watch…

I don't just think the name is wrong, I think that maybe the iPhone 10 should be a self-contained device worn on the wrist.

I think they're too soon - and because of that the product is a failure regardless of how well it sells.

So by what measure should we use ? Is really being the biggest selling wearable of 2015 a failure of any description ?

 

[kettle]

So by what measure should we use ? Is really being the biggest selling wearable of 2015 a failure of any description ?

If Apple just want the 'biggest selling' - why not brand some sugar water.

Apple are about innovation - not about sticking yet another blade on an already ridiculous razor.

IMO (obviously)

 

[Arran]

...My guess is that Tim Cook went with "Apple" in naming the "Apple Watch" to differentiate the Steve Jobs era of products which use "i" in their names and his, the Tim Cook era of products which will use "Apple"...

Not strictly true: Apple TV.

So maybe the "Apple..." prefix means it's a "hobby" product?

Just BTW: I think Jobs' use of the "hobby" qualifier for Apple TV was genius: It set a suitably low expectation for a new product that Apple was still grappling with. It bought them time and - most importantly - tolerance from their customers. In reality, I think this is where the watch is right now: There simply aren't enough compelling use cases. (Send your heart beat? Seriously? )

But of course, who's going to buy a $17K "hobby" product?

 

[Arran]

If Apple just want the 'biggest selling' - why not brand some sugar water.

Apple are about innovation - not about sticking yet another blade on an already ridiculous razor.

IMO (obviously)

Indeed. Or start making ladies handbags peppered with little apple logos? Those should fetch $5K a pop from the right sucker.

 

[tresmith]

Not strictly true: Apple TV.

So maybe the "Apple..." prefix means it's a "hobby" product?

Just BTW: I think Jobs' use of the "hobby" qualifier for Apple TV was genius: It set a suitably low expectation for a new product that Apple was still grappling with. It bought them time and - most importantly - tolerance from their customers. In reality, I think this is where the watch is right now: There simply aren't enough compelling use cases. (Send your heart beat? Seriously? )

But of course, who's going to buy a $17K "hobby" product?

Or maybe Apple TV was Tim Cook's idea and that's why Jobs called it "hobby". Because I can't imagine Jobs, being the ego maniac that he was, looking at one of his "babies" as just a hobby or wasting his time with something that he considers just a hobby.

Also that would mean Apple Pay is a hobby but it's clearly not. And I'm sure they see great potential in the Apple Watch so not to see at it as just a hobby, even if it doesn't look that way now.