Does anyone else not like the new "Mac" computer names?

[mozmac]

I would like to know if there are others out there that do not like the new names Apple has given to the Intel Macs. If you feel the same, please post here and hopefully we can help Apple understand that their customers despise the new names.

Do this test: Say..."Powerbook" then say..."MacBook Pro"
Which one rolls off the tongue better? Which one sounds like a computer that a real professional would use? Which one sounds like it's trying to pose as a professional computer, when really it says "Tyco" underneath?

Do another test: Say..."Power Mac" then say "Mac Pro"
Which one rolls off the tongue better? Which would you rather tell people you have at your desk in your office? Which one sounds like it is the followup to the original 1984 Macintosh?

Develop your owns tests for others to use to see how they feel about the new names. I think the word "power" has helped give the Power Mac and Powerbook it's high-quality feel. Who cares what processor is inside. You're Apple...you can name it whatever the heck you feel like naming it.

mozmac: "Power"
Phil Schiller: "OOOOooo....say it again."
mozmac: "Power, power, power!"
Jobs: "I told you never to use that name ever again!"
(If you didn't follow that quote, watch the Lion King again.)

 

[Blue Velvet]

Although I agree with you to some extent, I think the thinking is to more clearly differentiate the lines in many consumer's minds. It's a more descriptive title and is a clear marketing strategy that probably has been tested on a number of focus groups heavily biased towards switchers.

I've stood next to people in John Lewis (UK dept. store) looking at G5 dual 2.5 PowerMacs saying that Macs were way too expensive when you really suspect what they probably needed was a Mini or iMac.

So what it does is reorient consumers who are unfamiliar with Macs and position the Mini and the iMac as the machines for everyday use and the Mac(Book)Pros as the pro's choice, setting them above the midrange and marking them out as a little special.

 

[reflex]

A rose by any other name...

 

[NewSc2]

big macs..

 

[risc]

Can't say I care I just call them "Macs" when I say "Where the hell is my Mac?" at work people know I'm waiting for a MacBook Pro. I actually like the MacBook (Pro) name, Mac Pro though sounds a bit lame though since there isn't a "Mac" that it is the Pro version of.

 

[MACDRIVE]

First of all this is how you write PowerBook. To answer your question; I think the new names are fine. What was always confusing to me was; iMac and iBook. When I first got into Macs, I would always get those two names confused.

 

[SpookTheHamster]

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

 

[Blue Velvet]

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

Maybe this is why.

Like the top highlighted entry BTW.

 

[AlBDamned]

I've always wondered why they didn't put the "Pro" at the beginning of the name. "ProMac" sounds so much better than "MacPro"

I like what someone suggested on here a while back, "Macintosh Pro" but they'd never go for it now as too many people would be like "what the hell's a Macintosh?" and it doesn't fit with everything else.

ProMac does sound like a painkiller and it doesn't fit with MacBook Pro which under this terminology would be Pro MacBook, right? (This sounds like a book about painkillers...).

BV is right, the Pro monikers do differentiate whereas before this wasn't the case.

Power Mac, in light of the new names, does sound a bit 90's, as does iMac, which increasingly, I feel they might drop with the next design, although it does mac a nice link to the iPod but that's a product that overrides (and is completely separate to) the whole "Mac" thing anyway.

Thus, the line up in the future (based on just current models) looks like this:

Mac mini

Mac

MacBook

Mac Pro

MacBook Pro

It makes sense. Looking at it like that though, Mac Pro is definitely the weakest name.

I love rambling....

 

[MacBoyX]

The new naming convention did not start with the Intel based Macs. Let us not forget that the Mac mini name debuted long before we knew of any Intel based Macs.

I for one couldn't care less. I did say PowerBook and MacBook Pro and they both roll off fine. It's just a matter of getting used to something different.

I do also like the fact that they've used a different name to really differentiate the products. Also I agree with Steve Jobs that every Mac should have the word Mac in it. I have had quite a few WINDOWS folks who didn't realise an iBook was a Mac.

In a year... none of the names will be strange, they'll be common place.

macboyX

 

[Legacy]

Yeah, the old names were better but you know...

The Mac Pro and Mac Mini are going to be the Pro/Consumer line-up for Apple...there will be no 'Mac'. I'd expect all the minis to sport Dual processors by August, with the Mini raising the stakes to 1.83/2Ghz Core Duos. My ideal lineup for the mini would be:

1.83GHz CD/Combo/512MB/60GB etc $599/£399 (Mini will drop in price in the UK like the MacBook Pro)

2GHz CD/Super/512MB/80GB etc $799/£549

Mac Pro:

2.67GHz C2D Conroe/200GB/Radeon X1600 128MB etc $1999

2x Faster than the PowerMac G5 2Ghz

2.93GHz C2D Conroe/300GB/Radeon X1600 256MB etc $2499

2.5x Faster than the PowerMac G5 2.3Ghz

3GHz C2D Woodcrest Quad/300GB/Radeon X1800 256MB etc $3499

2.5x Faster than the PowerMac G5 Quad


(Hopefully)

 

[mpw]

...Thus, the line up in the future (based on just current models) looks like this:

Mac mini

Mac

MacBook

Mac Pro

MacBook Pro...

I kinda agree the new naming method will make it simpler for less knowledgable consumers to navigate around Apple's product range

If it runs on the Mac OS it'll have Mac in the name and if it's high end it'll be a Pro machine obviously we'll need to know whether it's a notebook so those will be Books giving as you've said;
Mac mini
Mac (I think they'll drop the i from iMac)
MacBook
Mac Pro
MacBook Pro

I think that part of this could be to allow the seperation of the 'i' brand from MacOSX.

This would allow iLife to become cross-platform and make way for an iHome media centre that played nice with MS Windows or free to avoid connection to any PC which might please the Movie studios etc. The iPhone will need to iSync to any platform as would any iPDA that wasn't running a full version of MacOSX.

I imagine that all 'i' branded products would work seamlessly with OSX but would be one step removed from it not to discourage a Windows user to consider it. Obviously the iPod/iTunes already fit this scheme and the iPod will likely form the basis of any iPhone/iPDA/iSight portable etc.

Imagine a Nokia N93 branded as an Apple iPhone, it could serve as iPhone/iPod/iSight portable/iPDA and come with iLife for Windows (or Mac) or just iSync striaght to your iHome media centre.

 

[Vaphoron]

Well, my opinion is this. Mac Pro SUCKS! MacBook is ok and MacBook Pro has grown on me a little but still sucks compared to PowerBook. There, I said it. Mac Pro SUCKS!

 

[wordmunger]

Mac mini
Mac (I think they'll drop the i from iMac)
MacBook
Mac Pro
MacBook Pro

Sounds about right, but I disagree about dropping the i from iMac. They want people to think of the iMac as the computer that goes with the iPod.

 

[cubist]

The names are fine with me. It's the Intel CPUs I can't stand... and the fact that they won't run Classic apps. Apple's taken off the mask and spit in the face of loyal users. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Go to the vendor and ask them to make a UB? OK, then, where's the UB of Apple HyperCard?

 

[AlBDamned]

They want people to think of the iMac as the computer that goes with the iPod.

I'm split on this. On one hand yes it's the computer that goes with the iPod.

But, the iPod's a standalone Apple product and the majority of people that have an iPod actually use a Windows computer with it. The link between iPod and iMac may actually be a negative as people link the two and are scared off ("don't you need a Mac for an iPod?")

And, the "i" in iMac doesn't fit with anything other than iPod, iLife and iMac, but maybe that's the whole point.

Then again, where does the "MacBook" stand? Maybe they realised they simply couldn't call it the "iMacBook" because that truly is a terrible name so MacBook it is and we'll keep iMac as iMac. It's too much of a [brand]name to give away. Or is it? Would the majority of people care if the name iMac disappeared?

The names are fine with me. It's the Intel CPUs I can't stand... and the fact that they won't run Classic apps. Apple's taken off the mask and spit in the face of loyal users. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Go to the vendor and ask them to make a UB? OK, then, where's the UB of Apple HyperCard?

What do you really, honestly need classic for these days anyway?

 

[mpw]

The names are fine with me. It's the Intel CPUs I can't stand... and the fact that they won't run Classic apps. Apple's taken off the mask and spit in the face of loyal users. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Go to the vendor and ask them to make a UB? OK, then, where's the UB of Apple HyperCard?

I don't see any problem with Apple not supporting software written for an OS last sold, what 6years ago with new machines.

You don't HAVE to buy a new machine, surely if you are happy using six year old software on a current machine they shold be happy with that performance in another 4-5years at which point the software is a decade old. I think it's fair that decade old software can be considered 'past-it', is Windows95 still credible software?

 

[mpw]

...Would the majority of people care if the name iMac disappeared?...

*chanting*
Poll
Poll
Poll

 

[dylanemcgregor]

I think it's fair that decade old software can be considered 'past-it', is Windows95 still credible software?

I still run DOS software from the late 80's on my XP machine. Runs just fine.

 

[AlBDamned]

*chanting*
Poll
Poll
Poll

Done.

 

[ncook06]

I personally think they needed a name change. You're ushering in a new era of Macs - leaving PowerPC behind. Yes, I liked the old names better, but they needed to change.

 

[cubist]

Anyone who touts it as an advantage to not be able to run older software is deranged. This is not progress at all. Computers of the future will be able to run any program ever written for any platform - that is progress. To not be able to run older programs, especially those specifically written for your own platform, is not progress.

I have a LOT of applications software for the Mac, which I have bought over the last ten years or so. None of it would run on an Intel Mac. Apple is telling me, and my money, to go away. Fine, I will. I won't buy any Intel Macs. Is this a good thing for Apple? for me? for the community? One thing it's definitely NOT is user-friendly. Or progress.

 

[AlBDamned]

Anyone who touts it as an advantage to not be able to run older software is deranged. This is not progress at all. Computers of the future will be able to run any program ever written for any platform - that is progress. To not be able to run older programs, especially those specifically written for your own platform, is not progress.

I have a LOT of applications software for the Mac, which I have bought over the last ten years or so. None of it would run on an Intel Mac. Apple is telling me, and my money, to go away. Fine, I will. I won't buy any Intel Macs. Is this a good thing for Apple? for me? for the community? One thing it's definitely NOT is user-friendly. Or progress.

So what would you have done?

 

[timswim78]

I was really hoping that the laptops would be called, "Macintosh Laptop Computer, Professional Edition" and "Macintosh Laptop Computer, Consumer Edition."

 

[Cloudgazer]

I don't really have a problem with the new names.
But
(never forget the 'but')

I feel that there is not enough name differentiation between MacBook and MacBook Pro.
At least with iBook and Powerbook they were two distinct lines.

I quite liked the iBook name as i associated it with the other consumer products iPod, iLife, iMac, iWorks, etc.