Why did they change ibook to macbook?

[Darth.Titan]

It was called PowerMac before they put PowerPC chips in. They probably could've kept the name with Intel processors if they wanted to.

No, before the PowerPC chips came along, there were LC, Performas, and Quadras. Granted there were still PowerPC based Performas after the switch, there were no non-PowerPC based PowerMacs.

PowerMac = PowerPC inside.

Perhaps you meant PowerBook. There were lots of PowerBooks before PowerPC came along...

 

[iSee]

Steve simply wanted "Mac" in all the product names.

Right.

Remember, this is branding and marketing, so it doesn't have to be consistent and logical all the time. It's about creating and identifying a brand that communicates a message.

Actually, I think the Macbook name makes sense.

Macbook = a notebook that runs Mac OS. This name capitalizes on Apple's Mac brand, which is a very positive brand these days.

Remember, the when iBook name was introduced Apple was still on Mac OS 8.x. At that time it wasn't really something to focus on. Instead, Apple chose a name that connected the computer to the acclaimed iMac. The message then was: iBook = notebook version of the iMac.

So back then they wanted to extend the iMac brand rather than the Mac OS brand.

Consistency in naming is important (which is probably why the iBook name lasted as long as it did), but sending the right message is important too.

 

[The Samurai]

Right.

Remember, this is branding and marketing, so it doesn't have to be consistent and logical all the time. It's about creating and identifying a brand that communicates a message.

Actually, I think the Macbook name makes sense.

Macbook = a notebook that runs Mac OS. This name capitalizes on Apple's Mac brand, which is a very positive brand these days.

Remember, the when iBook name was introduced Apple was still on Mac OS 8.x. At that time it wasn't really something to focus on. Instead, Apple chose a name that connected the computer to the acclaimed iMac. The message then was: iBook = notebook version of the iMac.

So back then they wanted to extend the iMac brand rather than the Mac OS brand.

Consistency in naming is important (which is probably why the iBook name lasted as long as it did), but sending the right message is important too.

I second this.

If they were to name it something stupid like the iBook v4.0, it wouldn't go with their company 'ethos' as such where they try and portray a 'simple' image of the Apple brand.

Take Dell for example, I often get confused by their range with their Inspiron ranges - they've got various models in this range and they are very ambiguous i.e. 6400, 1525, 1520.

With Apple, everything is clear and one can easily 'paint' a picture of the model/looks/spec when one says 'Macbook'.

p.s. I voted for 'who the hell cares'.

 

[Benguitar]

Who the hell cares..

I am personally fine either way, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future they bring the term "iBook" back.

Didn't Apple bring "Leopard" back?

 

[iGaryMonnecka]

look at the original ipod and look at the touch, and tell me they're remotely similar. they're two completely different products, but they kept the name because its ipod

bad analogy. you should be comparing the classic to the original. The touch is a completely different product using different technology.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Who the hell cares..
Didn't Apple bring "Leopard" back?

Not AFAIK. But they did start using the internal (animal) codename in marketing starting with Jaguar... maybe that's what you're thinking of?

 

[Primejimbo]

To try and re-invent/remove the stigma of the Cavalier, because the Cavalier was such a heap

so is the Cobalt.. like how the Ford 500 became the Taurus.

 

[ThomasJL]

Contrary to popular belief, the "Power" prefix in the name "PowerBook" is not related to the name "PowerPC". In fact, the use of the name "PowerBook" predates Apple's usage of PowerPC processors.