Once the name is attached to it changing it isn't going to do any good and only has the potential of making it worse. What rationale would there be to go for a change with no possible upside to it, especially when changing something that has pretty much everything going for it? The brand recognition is already built and is seen as extremely positive, meaning that whatever branding was picked worked very well and as desired.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Drop the i from iPhone?
- Thread starter DCIFRTHS
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it possible for you to make your case without coming across as though you are still in grammar school?
Below is an example of an intelligently worded post. Maybe you can learn something...
One argument could be the association with all the non Apple i products that now exist.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard
At this point mostly just the branding associated with various Apple personal devices.
iPhoto did not "become" Photos. They're two different programs. There was an iPhoto for iOS, separate from the Photos app that comes baked into the OS, and the new Mac app is intended to be the companion app for the iOS app - to access your photos on either iOS or Mac, the go-to app is now Photos.
"Mac" did not become "iMac," or vice versa. iMac is one product line within the Mac universe.
iDon't know how or why people came to think the 'i' means "iNternet" - the iNternet had nothing to do with the first iProduct, iPod. We have iTunes because it was the companiOn app for iPod. iThink 'i' was iNtended to iNfer "personal," me, myself, and i. All through the day, iMe mine, iMe mine, iMe mine... (geez, Beatles lyrics... i'M showing my age.)
iThink, iN the late 1990s, when Macs had become better known as machiNes for mediA professiOnals, Apple needed to reiNtroduce Mac as a consumer product, and so associAted the new entry-level, put one on your child's bedroom desk Mac with Apple's other consumer-focused product. And of course, you sync your iPod to your iMac with iTunes... iPhone is an extension of Apple's personal electronics product lines. It even incorporates an iPod. iPad is, of course, an extension of the iPhone product line. iCloud plays on the consumer focus - there was a time, not so long ago, when "the cloud" was associated solely with corporate computing.
As to Apple Watch? Yeah, it beaks from that tradition. But so did Apple TV (of course, ITV is a British TV company, so iTV would have been an uphill battle in the courts). It's certainly an extension of iPhone, and can play music like an iPod, but at this point, consumers can't be sure that 'i' is for Apple, and a $17,000 watch isn't exactly a playful, entry-level consumer product. "Apple Watch" makes it clear that this is Apple's watch - trading on and reinforcing the company's overall image, rather than just one part of it.
And there's that problem with noun/verb confusion... I watch, I pay
"Mac" did not become "iMac," or vice versa. iMac is one product line within the Mac universe.
iDon't know how or why people came to think the 'i' means "iNternet" - the iNternet had nothing to do with the first iProduct, iPod. We have iTunes because it was the companiOn app for iPod. iThink 'i' was iNtended to iNfer "personal," me, myself, and i. All through the day, iMe mine, iMe mine, iMe mine... (geez, Beatles lyrics... i'M showing my age.)
iThink, iN the late 1990s, when Macs had become better known as machiNes for mediA professiOnals, Apple needed to reiNtroduce Mac as a consumer product, and so associAted the new entry-level, put one on your child's bedroom desk Mac with Apple's other consumer-focused product. And of course, you sync your iPod to your iMac with iTunes... iPhone is an extension of Apple's personal electronics product lines. It even incorporates an iPod. iPad is, of course, an extension of the iPhone product line. iCloud plays on the consumer focus - there was a time, not so long ago, when "the cloud" was associated solely with corporate computing.
As to Apple Watch? Yeah, it beaks from that tradition. But so did Apple TV (of course, ITV is a British TV company, so iTV would have been an uphill battle in the courts). It's certainly an extension of iPhone, and can play music like an iPod, but at this point, consumers can't be sure that 'i' is for Apple, and a $17,000 watch isn't exactly a playful, entry-level consumer product. "Apple Watch" makes it clear that this is Apple's watch - trading on and reinforcing the company's overall image, rather than just one part of it.
And there's that problem with noun/verb confusion... I watch, I pay
The first "iProduct" was the iMac in 1998, and at the time Apple's marketing materials stated that the "i" stood for "Internet".
What's next?
Apple Macbook Pro? Apple Mac Pro?
The former.
But yeah, your point is interesting. Much like the situation with Pagerank and Larry Page.
Apple Macbook Pro? Apple Mac Pro?
The former.
But yeah, your point is interesting. Much like the situation with Pagerank and Larry Page.
An excerpt from an article I just found on the New York Times' site.
The "he" in the excerpt below is referencing referencing Steve Jobs.
I think you mean Intel Corp?
For those who work in, and grew up in the technology world, it has been i for Intel.
As in i8080 microcontrollers, i8086, i80386, Core i3, i5, i7.
Dating back to the 1970's.
Maybe once they start getting high up the numbers, as has already been said iPhone 18s looks silly.
They need to do what they do with the Macs, not change the name but refer to it by year. Like 2012 Macbook Air. But even then i still think it will be called an iPhone and not Apple Phone.
The dropping of numbers is needed more though with the iPads, as the naming scheme there is just messy. I don't know anybody who refers to 'The New iPad' as that, every one calls it the iPad 3.
They need to do what they do with the Macs, not change the name but refer to it by year. Like 2012 Macbook Air. But even then i still think it will be called an iPhone and not Apple Phone.
The dropping of numbers is needed more though with the iPads, as the naming scheme there is just messy. I don't know anybody who refers to 'The New iPad' as that, every one calls it the iPad 3.
I think you mean Intel Corp?
For those who work in, and grew up in the technology world, it has been i for Intel.
As in i8080 microcontrollers, i8086, i80386, Core i3, i5, i7.
Dating back to the 1970's.
I get your point but I was thinking of finished consumer products in this context. Including your company's initial(s) in a component name seems pretty obvious and legitimate versus arbitrary use of a letter like "i" or "g" in an attempt to build brand recognition. It's easy to lose control of the latter and Apple has. Now that they can't protect it, they might as well drop it. I honestly don't think they will drop it from iPhone as that's an established product but for the sake of argument here, I don't think rebranding would do them any harm. Most people would just keep calling it iPhone anyway and you'd have another sticky about those corrections.
Intuitive.
During the 1998 iMac launch event keynote, Steve Jobs spent more than a minute explaining that the i in iMac primarily stood for internet and also several other aspects of computing like individual, instruct, inform & inspire.
Yes. I agree. I simply threw out the first i word that reminded me of the Good Old Days.
It will be interesting to see if the new generation undergoes some sort of naming change. Personally, I like the idea of years. I agree though - the 'i' in iPhone is going nowhere.
Last edited:
Remember when Apple had the iBook, and it turned into MacBook?
i isn't going anywhere, just because there is an Apple Watch.
i isn't going anywhere, just because there is an Apple Watch.