Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why not more Apple names?

roxics

roxics

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 4, 2013
315
154
Why doesn't Apple use more Apple names in their products? We have the Macintosh (McIntosh) and that's really it.

You'd think that at the very least, instead of going with California locations for OS X names they might have used types of apples like Gala, Braeburn, Honeycrisp, etc.
Maybe even call the gold iPhone color golden delicious or something.
 
roxics said:
Why doesn't Apple use more Apple names in their products?
Click to expand...
Because its corny, that's why. Its hard to be taken seriously if they kept choosing apple names. Technically the macintosh is not an apple name either.

The fruit is actually Mcintosh
 
maflynn said:
Because its corny, that's why. Its hard to be taken seriously if they kept choosing apple names. Technically the macintosh is not an apple name either.

The fruit is actually Mcintosh
Click to expand...

"You kids get off my lawn!"

:D

Renzatic said:
Honeycrisp [...]
Click to expand...

Holy smokes, have you ever had one (the apple variety)? I saw some post with this guy ranting about how amazing it is, and dang, if he wasn't right, they're fantastic!
 
Last edited:
Can we rename this thread "The Apple Thread" as a sequel to "Bacon"?

Assuming so, I'll start.

It's a cruel world we live in: Honeycrisp apples go out of season :(
 
Sounds like we have some AppleTalk going on here. (For those of you who remember AppleTalk...)

Mac OS X Gala. Sounds like a good name to me.
 
Solomani said:
Who would want to buy a smartphone called a Granny Smith?
Click to expand...

They already used Granny Smith. Sort of. Wozniak said in his book that it was an in-joke the Apple II GS was named after the Granny Smith. Officially the GS meant Graphics Sound.
 
Because AppleBook doesn't sound right.

Even Apple doesn't use "Apple." I heard Tim Cook and Phil Schiller simply say "Watch" to refer to the :apple: Watch which, to me, sound horribly generic.

----------
FieldingMellish said:
Android leads with Lollipop. You can't lick that.
Click to expand...

"You can lick that lollipop mister, but you can't lick me!"

Sorry, old King of Queens sitcom memory. Couldn't resist. :eek:
 
Honeycrisp is actually a registered trademark. That could make things difficult for Apple if they attempted to use the name. That's becoming a more common thing with the newer cultivars. Most legacy apple cultivars don't have trademark protection, though.

I attended a really interesting lecture last year by Dr. David Bedford, the guy who developed the Honeycrisp, about how it was done and what made the Honeycrisp different. Interesting fellow.
 
:apple: Mac
:apple: Phone
:apple: Pod

Meh, it doesn't flow that well.

I do understand why they went with Apple Watch instead of iWatch though. I think they were trying to break away from the "i" devices and influence customer perceptions.
 
Traverse said:
:apple: Mac
:apple: Phone
:apple: Pod

Meh, it doesn't flow that well.

I do understand why they went with Apple Watch instead of iWatch though. I think they were trying to break away from the "i" devices and influence customer perceptions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. iPhone and iPad are established understood Apple products and Steve Jobs was generally against over utilization of the Apple watch.
 
Good question

I guess it would be brilliant to have products named after an apple, but sooner or later they are going to run out of names! And apple is very quick with producing new items very frequently. In the end, the apple names would not be a bright choice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back