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.
Will Apple keep the "G" brand name?
- Thread starter jamdr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yebot's designation of PowerBook M1 is actually the best I have heard so far without sounding PC-ish.
I don't think Apple has to concern itself with the 'sounding old/slow' arguement solely because they are starting from the group up, and those 'in the know' know that, so 1 is logical. For those not in the know, they do know enough that Apple is different than a PC, and so they probably assume 1 in Apple does not equal 1 (original Pentium
) in PC.
I don't know, I'm more concerned with stickers than naming nomenclature.
I don't think Apple has to concern itself with the 'sounding old/slow' arguement solely because they are starting from the group up, and those 'in the know' know that, so 1 is logical. For those not in the know, they do know enough that Apple is different than a PC, and so they probably assume 1 in Apple does not equal 1 (original Pentium
) in PC.I don't know, I'm more concerned with stickers than naming nomenclature.
efoto said:For those not in the know, they do know enough that Apple is different than a PC, and so they probably assume 1 in Apple does not equal 1 (original Pentium
I think you're giving the idiots at large far more credit then they deserve.
Remember, it's a marketing tactic.
We didn't start out with a G1. There was no G2. Why? Because the Intel chip at that time was the P2. But we're Apple, we're different, and our chip is the G3. 1 better then the P2. Intel came out with the P3. Guess what happens shortly thereafter. What's that you say? The G4 came out? You'd be correct!
I don't think it was an accident. But hey, it's just my opinion, I could be way off. Maybe it's coincidental, and none of it has anything to do with marketing and psychology. Apple could easily abandon all of that and start over. After all, with the move to Intel, they have a clean canvas, right?
yellow said:I think you're giving the idiots at large far more credit then they deserve.
Remember, it's a marketing tactic.
We didn't start out with a G1. There was no G2. Why? Because the Intel chip at that time was the P2. But we're Apple, we're different, and our chip is the G3. 1 better then the P2. Intel came out with the P3. Guess what happens shortly thereafter. What's that you say? The G4 came out? You'd be correct!
I don't think it was an accident. But hey, it's just my opinion, I could be way off. Maybe it's coincidental, and none of it has anything to do with marketing and psycology. Apple could easily abandon all of that and start over. After all, with the move to Intel, they have a clean canvas, right?
I completely agree and see your point, I just want simplicity in the lines and hope they start over and keep things basic. If not, G6 would be fine as an ongoing thing but I don't see that with these new chips somehow.
they could just continue the number but change the letter to signify a different processor with continued (and ever increasing) numerical performance.
So we are one up already, with a G5 vs. the P4. We could start the Macintels out at, oh I don't know....say the F6! The F quite obviously stands for FAST and the 6 stand for one more than 5...how about that?
Just please don't call them PowerBook 6000d or crap like that....I hate how Dell names and markets their stuff. Some of their products I have zero problems with but I hate the naming of it.
efoto said:
I concur. I don't care for Dell's naming scheme. I don't worry so much about Apple doing that. I just suspect that Intel will want to get into the game a little so people will know there's an "Intel Inside". Hopefully we won't have stickers. I think I'm realisitically shooting for P5-64 or P4M.. something along those lines.
James Philp said:
Wasn't ID4 that horrible movie from the '90s about space aliens?
I don't like PowerBook IM3 or M1 either. 'M' means mobile right? Isn't that a little redundant?
The prefix Power doesn't necessarily refer to the PowerPC. The first PowerBooks used 030s. On the desktop end, models were starting to be given names and numbers when the PowerPC came out (Centris, Quadra, etc.). PowerMac was like another name. The change in processors for both the notebook and desktop lines was noted by using 4 digits in the model number instead of 3.
I'd personally like to see a return to the old school by using the full Macintosh name. I don't see that ever happening though. Some people these days probably don't even know Mac is short for Macintosh.
ooh, oooh, pick me...pick me!
How's this for a name:
the iiMac (pronounced "eye-eye Mac", of course...)
How bout the (...sings the intel jingle...)
bum-bum-bum-bum Mac?
(As I was considering the musical intervals contained in their jingle, it dawned on me that they are a perfect fourth and fifth, which are often expressed as P4 and P5. Clever or coincidence?)
OK, one more:
iMaci (Pronounced ee-mace-ee) Now anyone who uses one would be iMaciated........
Sorry.
How's this for a name:
the iiMac (pronounced "eye-eye Mac", of course...)
How bout the (...sings the intel jingle...)
bum-bum-bum-bum Mac?
(As I was considering the musical intervals contained in their jingle, it dawned on me that they are a perfect fourth and fifth, which are often expressed as P4 and P5. Clever or coincidence?)
OK, one more:
iMaci (Pronounced ee-mace-ee) Now anyone who uses one would be iMaciated........
Sorry.
Even if the 'Power' prefix in Power Mac and PowerBook doesn't refer to the PowerPC chips, I think Apple should change it to 'Pro'. I also don't think we need a chip notation as a suffix. Apple needed the chip suffix to show the progress because at times the progress was so slow to be made. Hopefully, with Intel we will have newer/faster chips much more frequently and buyers will just look at specs to determine what chip/machine to purchase (like in the Dell world).
Apple themselves have been all over the map on this, mainly on the consumer side:
The original iMac was just iMac, then we had iMac DV and DV SE. The G4 iMac (sunflower) was never officially called iMac G4 by Apple, it was iMac G4 Flat Panel or something like that. Now we have iMac G5.
The clamshell ibook was just iBook, so were the dual-USB white iBooks. Then when it went G4 we got iBook G4.
eMac has always been eMac.
We had a beige Power Mac G3, then the B&W, then the Power Mac G4s and G5s.
Macheads will always use the code names to differientate machines. (Yikes, Sawtooth, MDD, Pismo, Lombard, Wallstreet, etc)
My votes are:
Mac mini (I hate that name, btw)
eMac
iMac
iBook
ProMac
ProBook
Apple themselves have been all over the map on this, mainly on the consumer side:
The original iMac was just iMac, then we had iMac DV and DV SE. The G4 iMac (sunflower) was never officially called iMac G4 by Apple, it was iMac G4 Flat Panel or something like that. Now we have iMac G5.
The clamshell ibook was just iBook, so were the dual-USB white iBooks. Then when it went G4 we got iBook G4.
eMac has always been eMac.
We had a beige Power Mac G3, then the B&W, then the Power Mac G4s and G5s.
Macheads will always use the code names to differientate machines. (Yikes, Sawtooth, MDD, Pismo, Lombard, Wallstreet, etc)
My votes are:
Mac mini (I hate that name, btw)
eMac
iMac
iBook
ProMac
ProBook
jazzmfk said:OK, one more:
iMaci (Pronounced ee-mace-ee) Now anyone who uses one would be iMaciated........
Sorry.
You are so fired.
LOL! We just uncovered the REAL reason Apple jumped ship from IBM and moved to Intel. The next chip couldn't be called the G6!
But I suppose that GM's trademark for G6 extends only to the realm of cars and car-related products? Therefore Apple would have had no problem using G6 in their computer line. Much the same way Tiger Direct got spanked by Apple over the use of the name "Tiger".
But I suppose that GM's trademark for G6 extends only to the realm of cars and car-related products? Therefore Apple would have had no problem using G6 in their computer line. Much the same way Tiger Direct got spanked by Apple over the use of the name "Tiger".
I think it would be great if they started using the old 030 mac naming again. Except Mac III instead of Mac II. Then we could have a mac III, IIIx, IIIcx, IIIfx etc all over again. What would really stink is if they dropped Macintosh all together and went with Jonagold, Red Delicious, or Granny Smith instead. Just think a PentiGran I666
Why does everyone believe apple will continure to deligate it's models by what processor is in it? Apple, in general but not always, changes their computer design with every processor change. Why couldn't they give each design a reference name or number. It could be something simple like the PowerMac X, or the PowerMac P, but have nothing to do with the processor that is inside. Say the iMac could be the iMac 4, and the PowerMac be the PowerMac 5 or whatever. Not saying this is better, but just throwing out another option. What if they went with what generation the computer was in instead. The iMac 4, the PowerBook 4 , the iBook 3, the eMac 2, the Mac Mini 2, and the PowerMac 5. I could definately be wrong on all these numbers but you get the ideal.
JE
JE
I just found this at http://www.macosx.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-93462.html
NOTE: The articles there are FAKE news, but it brings up an interesting point below:
"Although the "G6" designation would be the most obvious for the next generation of Power Macs, G6 has already been extensively advertised by Pontiac as "the first ever G6" for their new performance sedan. It's also the name of a digital camera from Canon. Can you imagine the confusion of connecting your G6 to your G6 in a G6?"
As yellow mentioned, G4 and G5 might be just marketing names, most likely meant to compete with the P4. But now, there will be no need for this. However, if Apple does decide to use some kind of a designation, I really doubt it would have '1' in it. I mean, there was no Pentium 1 (just Pentium), or even iTunes 1 (yes, it was version 1.0, but it wasn't marketed this way). In fact, this is how Intel is marketing their new Pentium D and M processors. I'd bet (not much, though) there'll eventually be a Pentium D2. I don't think Apple would use anything that refers to Intel, since AMD is out there and they could be a future supplier too, just how both Motorola and IBM made G3's.
Based on Yebot's suggestions, I think PowerBook X would be a good name. It would be Intel-neutral, represent x86, and we can say, "I'm running OS X on my PowerBook X!" I honestly don't think there'd be any confusion. I mean, Apple's already reusing "Extreme" and "mini". New generations would be PowerBook X2, X3, and so on. I can already see the X-Men related mods people will be doing...
NOTE: The articles there are FAKE news, but it brings up an interesting point below:
"Although the "G6" designation would be the most obvious for the next generation of Power Macs, G6 has already been extensively advertised by Pontiac as "the first ever G6" for their new performance sedan. It's also the name of a digital camera from Canon. Can you imagine the confusion of connecting your G6 to your G6 in a G6?"
As yellow mentioned, G4 and G5 might be just marketing names, most likely meant to compete with the P4. But now, there will be no need for this. However, if Apple does decide to use some kind of a designation, I really doubt it would have '1' in it. I mean, there was no Pentium 1 (just Pentium), or even iTunes 1 (yes, it was version 1.0, but it wasn't marketed this way). In fact, this is how Intel is marketing their new Pentium D and M processors. I'd bet (not much, though) there'll eventually be a Pentium D2. I don't think Apple would use anything that refers to Intel, since AMD is out there and they could be a future supplier too, just how both Motorola and IBM made G3's.
Based on Yebot's suggestions, I think PowerBook X would be a good name. It would be Intel-neutral, represent x86, and we can say, "I'm running OS X on my PowerBook X!" I honestly don't think there'd be any confusion. I mean, Apple's already reusing "Extreme" and "mini". New generations would be PowerBook X2, X3, and so on. I can already see the X-Men related mods people will be doing...
Who cares?! It's a name of something... the only thing I care about is how it works and what is inside of it. They could call it the Apple Powerbook AXSDSAVXZ32123 and it would make no difference as to how it performs. All these silly questions since Apple has announced it's decission to go with Intel are getting out of hand. Sure it is going to be an Intel processor under the hood, but it is still going to be an Apple computer, and rest assured everything that people have come to expect from Apple will not be going away. As Steve said in the keynote, OSX is the soul of Apple... so you are still going to have the same OS and just because they go to Intel doesnt mean they are going to change their inovative ascetetic design. So... no it probably won't be G6, but again who cares what they call it. I'm sure marketing will think up of some clever name that will get people saying "ohh I wonder what that is?"
savar was referring to the 5 generations of the PowerPC as used in PowerMacs: 601, 603/604, G3, G4, and G5 (the latter three actually being, respectively, the 740/750, 74xx, and 970; courtesy everymac.com).Chaszmyr said:There are 5 generations of Power processors, but the G5 is based on the derivative of the Power4, not the Power5
jamdr said:
read http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ for an answer to your questions: AMD are vastly inferior in portable chip design, and they face a supply issue as big as that of IBM. Also, while they may currently be ahead of Intel, in 2 years Intel's new CEO will have continued to push the company way ahead of AMD. So in the long run, AMD would have been like the G5.
They went to the right company.