How Apple names things(nicolas.kruchten.com)
nicolas.kruchten.com
How Apple names things
https://nicolas.kruchten.com/content/2022/12/apple_tm/
201 comments
> There are a lot of things to also hate about apples naming schemes
Which you’re free to do, and could have done without insulting the author. The submitted post’s very first sentence is “I love the way Apple names things”. The author likes them. They’re sharing a opinion, at no point do they imply they’re the voice of reason or that you should agree with them.
What I see from their post is someone who made an effort to build and share something interesting which makes them happy.
What I see from your comment is instant tribalism, where one can’t even say they like an inconsequential naming scheme without being labelled a “typical fanboi”.
Can we do better? Let people enjoy what they want, they’re not harming anyone.
Which you’re free to do, and could have done without insulting the author. The submitted post’s very first sentence is “I love the way Apple names things”. The author likes them. They’re sharing a opinion, at no point do they imply they’re the voice of reason or that you should agree with them.
What I see from their post is someone who made an effort to build and share something interesting which makes them happy.
What I see from your comment is instant tribalism, where one can’t even say they like an inconsequential naming scheme without being labelled a “typical fanboi”.
Can we do better? Let people enjoy what they want, they’re not harming anyone.
How is fanboi an insult in any way? A fanboi is a “slangy” term for someone that just follows something blindly without questioning it.
> they’re not harming anyone
That is to be proven. Encouraging and advocating practices that are counterproductive can be harmful.
Maybe you just don't see how one company is shaping the entire market because a group of people (we can call them fanboys for the sake of argument) insists that their way of doing things is "the" way. Which it of course isn't and we see how that is ruining products that try to compete. See win11 as an example.
That is to be proven. Encouraging and advocating practices that are counterproductive can be harmful.
Maybe you just don't see how one company is shaping the entire market because a group of people (we can call them fanboys for the sake of argument) insists that their way of doing things is "the" way. Which it of course isn't and we see how that is ruining products that try to compete. See win11 as an example.
> we can call them fanboys for the sake of argument
You don’t call someone a pejorative term “for the sake of argument”, you do it for the exact opposite. Insults are the antithesis of productive discussion.
> because a group of people (…) insists that their way of doing things is "the" way.
Which, again, is not what the author did. They didn’t claim Apple’s naming scheme was “the way”, they said they personally liked it. Period.
You don’t call someone a pejorative term “for the sake of argument”, you do it for the exact opposite. Insults are the antithesis of productive discussion.
> because a group of people (…) insists that their way of doing things is "the" way.
Which, again, is not what the author did. They didn’t claim Apple’s naming scheme was “the way”, they said they personally liked it. Period.
> a group of people (we can call them fanboys for the sake of argument) insists that their way of doing things is "the" way. Which it of course isn't
I missed this part in the tiny paragraph that says "I like these names"
I missed this part in the tiny paragraph that says "I like these names"
Discouraging and disparaging practices that are helpful is also harmful. Have you considered that?
Also, Apple adopted these practices long before they had significant market share in any market. Nobody has been “forced” to adopt them in order to compete.
Also, Apple adopted these practices long before they had significant market share in any market. Nobody has been “forced” to adopt them in order to compete.
Is it so hard to just let someone enjoy something? Apple has a lot of problems right now, but it's still OK to say something positive about them once in a while. We don't need to fight about it and discredit it.
Apple names are fun! It's a nice thing!
Apple names are fun! It's a nice thing!
> Is it so hard to just let someone enjoy something?
Is it so hard to just let someone complain about something? Everyone can have their own opinion, i don't know why some people want every single one to be positive.
Is it so hard to just let someone complain about something? Everyone can have their own opinion, i don't know why some people want every single one to be positive.
There's a difference between critiquing an opinion and being a rude asshole. The "typical fanboi stuff" commentor was being a rude asshole.
How is the word “fanboi” rude? And how does your ad hominem “rude asshole” in any way balance this? Please enlighten me.
> Please enlighten me.
For the purposes of enlightenment: Your comment is typical nerd stuff. You’re biased by your failure to understand how human communications and social interactions work.
For the purposes of enlightenment: Your comment is typical nerd stuff. You’re biased by your failure to understand how human communications and social interactions work.
> Is it so hard to just let someone complain about something?
Contrarian edgelords are obnoxious and tiring. There is no need to get involved in a conversation if the point is just to label someone an idiot fanboy. It is not even cynicism, which requires some degree of consciousness instead of a knee jerk reaction. So yeah, if your only argument is “I think the author is an idiot and I am so much better because I can see clearly what he ignores”, well, then kindly fuck off. Come back when you’re civilised enough to have a conversation instead of name calling.
Contrarian edgelords are obnoxious and tiring. There is no need to get involved in a conversation if the point is just to label someone an idiot fanboy. It is not even cynicism, which requires some degree of consciousness instead of a knee jerk reaction. So yeah, if your only argument is “I think the author is an idiot and I am so much better because I can see clearly what he ignores”, well, then kindly fuck off. Come back when you’re civilised enough to have a conversation instead of name calling.
At this point, whenever anything Apple-related comes to HN front page, I can bring up a bingo card with pre-canned responses and cover at least 80% of conversation.
Same with go fanboyism/hate.
Same with go fanboyism/hate.
Same for every other topic, really. It's not like the HN crowd is homogeneous (you can add 'HN is not homogeneous' to the bingo card for HN-meta threads).
> Is it so hard to just let someone enjoy something?
Really, what is there to be joyful about here?
I can write a similar essay about how I like the strong capital letters of AMD, the beauty of not falling for the temptation of putting a lower-case "i" in front of it, etc., etc.
Really, what is there to be joyful about here?
I can write a similar essay about how I like the strong capital letters of AMD, the beauty of not falling for the temptation of putting a lower-case "i" in front of it, etc., etc.
It's not really up to you to decide what brings joy to the author.
You can write a similar essay, who said you couldn't? What point are you trying to make? If it's something you feel strong about, all power to you.
This kind of comment is deprived of any real content.
The point is that some things are better kept to yourself, and if you don't then you might annoy other people.
This is deviating too much from the original topic, but:
1) Your initial comment just took a bash at the author about being joyful regarding some topic - "what's there to be joyful", which is really a subjective matter;
2) I'll take your point, but I strongly disagree. I would never recommend anyone living by "do not share, you might annoy other people", you will never share anything then. Case in point, you shared your thoughts, I'm pretty sure you didn't care whether someone would be annoyed by your opinion ;)
3) Not sharing a small analysis regarding words and naming just because it may annoy someone it's a huge stretch. It's not even like he's sharing some hot political topic. Someone that gets annoyed at looking at such a simple project may want to take a deep breath and go for a walk. But anyway, that's my view.
> I can write a similar essay about how I like the strong capital letters of AMD
You could. And it might be an enjoyable read if you articulate it properly.
You could. And it might be an enjoyable read if you articulate it properly.
What's fun about SE, XR and XDR?
I don’t think anyone has said that Apple never used bad names…? But I don’t think it is radical to say (atleast among us who works with branding) that ipod, mac, powerbook, macbook, itunes, airpods, etc. are strong names.
Frankly all the i-devices are just bad naming.
The products themselves were/are great but their names are really bad.
"I phone" kind of works, but "I pod"? "I pad"? Really? :-)
The products themselves were/are great but their names are really bad.
"I phone" kind of works, but "I pod"? "I pad"? Really? :-)
“iPad” is short and unique. Easy to remember, to say, and to search for.
Compare it with the discontinued “Galaxy Note.” Although it is not a tongue twister, it is two words, neither of which is unique to Samsung on its own. “Galaxy Tab” has the same issues.
Samsung’s product names are not bad. But “iPad” definitely has the advantage of pithiness and uniqueness.
Compare it with the discontinued “Galaxy Note.” Although it is not a tongue twister, it is two words, neither of which is unique to Samsung on its own. “Galaxy Tab” has the same issues.
Samsung’s product names are not bad. But “iPad” definitely has the advantage of pithiness and uniqueness.
iPhone followed the name iPod. I actually think iPad is great.
All of them, of course, followed the iMac. The iPod was an extension of that, so the name makes perfect sense. The iPhone is an iPod on steroids (and it’s a web browser!), so again it makes sense. It is all very consistent.
I really dislike the pro/max/ultra qualifiers, but again it is all consistent.
I really dislike the pro/max/ultra qualifiers, but again it is all consistent.
iPod is bad how? It is short, looks good typographically, it is unique, easy to remember, easy to pronounce even for non native speakers. Do you mean that it is not descriptive? In that case, that does not matter.
Yes.
> * Also the naming scheme of Mac OS versions, i can never figure out which one came before or after the other, there is no rhyme or reason. Why dont they use alphabetical sorted names? Or years/numbers like Windows…?*
They do. Ventura is macOS 13. In fact, when they dropped OS X, they did a bit in the key note explaining that instead of it being OS X 10.16 Catalina, it would now now be macOS 11 Catalina.
See > About this Mac
They do. Ventura is macOS 13. In fact, when they dropped OS X, they did a bit in the key note explaining that instead of it being OS X 10.16 Catalina, it would now now be macOS 11 Catalina.
See > About this Mac
But did Mojave come before or after Sierra?
The cat names were more memorable and spanned a longer time line instead of being yearly releases.
The cat names were more memorable and spanned a longer time line instead of being yearly releases.
> But did Mojave come before or after Sierra?
Idk, but it doesn’t matter. If you need to know which version came before or after just compare the version numbers instead. The human names are not meant for that.
Idk, but it doesn’t matter. If you need to know which version came before or after just compare the version numbers instead. The human names are not meant for that.
[deleted]
That is not true: when some good logic is applied to naming, human names are too in order, with the alphabetic order, so that at any time you could know what you are talking about (at least easily if it is "before" or "after" each one)
> when some good logic is applied to naming, human names are too in order, with the alphabetic order, so that at any time you could know what you are talking about
That's just like, your opinion.
Even operating systems that try to follow that idea are not fully able to do it.
For example, Ubuntu has been using alphabetically ordered names ever since version 5.10, which was released in October 2005.
But sooner or later they have to wrap. And they already did that once.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames
So now, for someone on the outside who tries to apply this idea that names should encode release order, we still can't tell, which of the following was released first:
- Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat
or
- Ubuntu Lunar Lobster
Well, if all we know about Ubuntu is that the names are alphabetically sorted then we might think that Lunar Lobster came before Maverick Meerkat. But Ubuntu Lunar Lobster is the upcoming version 23.04. Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat was version 10.10, released all the way back in October 2010.
And so my point is, if you want to compare version release dates. Just look at the version numbers.
It is not sensible to claim that somehow the names have to be in alphabetical order.
Do you use alphabetical order for the hostnames of your computers?
Do you name your children in alphabetical order?
Maybe you do. But not everyone will, and that's perfectly fine.
That's just like, your opinion.
Even operating systems that try to follow that idea are not fully able to do it.
For example, Ubuntu has been using alphabetically ordered names ever since version 5.10, which was released in October 2005.
But sooner or later they have to wrap. And they already did that once.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames
So now, for someone on the outside who tries to apply this idea that names should encode release order, we still can't tell, which of the following was released first:
- Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat
or
- Ubuntu Lunar Lobster
Well, if all we know about Ubuntu is that the names are alphabetically sorted then we might think that Lunar Lobster came before Maverick Meerkat. But Ubuntu Lunar Lobster is the upcoming version 23.04. Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat was version 10.10, released all the way back in October 2010.
And so my point is, if you want to compare version release dates. Just look at the version numbers.
It is not sensible to claim that somehow the names have to be in alphabetical order.
Do you use alphabetical order for the hostnames of your computers?
Do you name your children in alphabetical order?
Maybe you do. But not everyone will, and that's perfectly fine.
> But sooner or later they have to wrap. And they already did that once.
Frankly, that's not a problem. They have 26 letters to go through, so that's 13 years.
13 years is a geological age in computing. By that point the previous product has been deprecated for so long it's basically a museum piece and nobody can spot it in the wild.
Frankly, that's not a problem. They have 26 letters to go through, so that's 13 years.
13 years is a geological age in computing. By that point the previous product has been deprecated for so long it's basically a museum piece and nobody can spot it in the wild.
> 13 years is a geological age in computing. By that point the previous product has been deprecated for so long it's basically a museum piece and nobody can spot it in the wild.
Microsoft Windows XP was released to retail on October 25, 2001.
Extended support for Microsoft Windows XP ended on April 8, 2014.
~13 years after its release
Back then, in 2014, 13 years after its release, Windows XP still had a big market share according to for example this page from 2014 https://sourcedigit.com/6553-windows-xp-will-die-april-8-201...
Regardless. All I am saying is, there is no reason to try and insist that marketing name should encode version release date.
If you want to compare versions, use the version numbers and compare those. That's what the version numbers are for.
Microsoft Windows XP was released to retail on October 25, 2001.
Extended support for Microsoft Windows XP ended on April 8, 2014.
~13 years after its release
Back then, in 2014, 13 years after its release, Windows XP still had a big market share according to for example this page from 2014 https://sourcedigit.com/6553-windows-xp-will-die-april-8-201...
Regardless. All I am saying is, there is no reason to try and insist that marketing name should encode version release date.
If you want to compare versions, use the version numbers and compare those. That's what the version numbers are for.
Not proud of this, but there is IBM X41 from 2005 in our family that is still running XP.
Hostname can have many orders: if it's a technical/location name like "dc-room-row" then it's in order. If it's a character name, they could follow the logic of the characters: some are leading (frontend), some are smarter (backend), some are...
If you had more than 20 children, you would clearly want some logic in naming. People often apply that to twins for example.
Anyway, that applies better to "more than a few" groups; Ubuntu did well because they release many versions, and you really rarely need to check against versions from 13 years ago with that release speed. Microsoft didn't need it for Windows because they only had 4 or 5 versions in 20 years.
If you had more than 20 children, you would clearly want some logic in naming. People often apply that to twins for example.
Anyway, that applies better to "more than a few" groups; Ubuntu did well because they release many versions, and you really rarely need to check against versions from 13 years ago with that release speed. Microsoft didn't need it for Windows because they only had 4 or 5 versions in 20 years.
Yes but How do you know which cat or geological feature corresponds to which version number?
How do you know which Windows came first: XP, ME, Vista, 98, 10?
I mean even when Apple uses sequential, numerical names you can't always answer the question of which came first: the iPhone 8 and iPhone X (10) were announced ~simultaneously! And there wasn't even a 9!
My point is it really doesn't matter which big cat or California landmark came first. It's trivial to find out if you want to, but it's not terribly important to encode that in the name you're using to identify your product.
I mean even when Apple uses sequential, numerical names you can't always answer the question of which came first: the iPhone 8 and iPhone X (10) were announced ~simultaneously! And there wasn't even a 9!
My point is it really doesn't matter which big cat or California landmark came first. It's trivial to find out if you want to, but it's not terribly important to encode that in the name you're using to identify your product.
To be fair Microsoft have moved some number for the last 4 releases of Windows
Well, 98 is higher than 10.
But perhaps they should adopt a chicken-egg naming scheme.
But perhaps they should adopt a chicken-egg naming scheme.
> How do you know which cat or geological feature corresponds to which version number?
You don't need to know that. It does not matter.
These human names are for marketing. They have no significance other than that.
You don't need to know that. It does not matter.
These human names are for marketing. They have no significance other than that.
> You don't need to know that. It does not matter.
When a vendor says "we are dropping support for MacOS High Sierra and earlier" then it does matter.
Does that include Big Sur? Catalina? Mavericks ? One has to go and look up the corresponding version numbers to determine that.
When a vendor says "we are dropping support for MacOS High Sierra and earlier" then it does matter.
Does that include Big Sur? Catalina? Mavericks ? One has to go and look up the corresponding version numbers to determine that.
Every software vendor of any significant size knows to use version numbers of macOS, not just marketing names of macOS, when communicating that kind of information.
Here are some random examples taken from some of the software that I use on my systems.
JetBrains CLion system requirements:
> macOS 10.14 or later
https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/installation-guide.html
System requirements for using Slack
> MacOS OS X 10.15 or above
https://slack.com/help/articles/115002037526-System-requirem...
Davinci Resolve 18 Tech Specs
> Mac 10.15 Catalina or later.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/tec...
Mac Compatibility with Live – Live 11 – Live Universal build
> Apple Silicon: macOS 11.6.6 Big Sur through macOS 13 Ventura
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001261150-Mac-...
Here are some random examples taken from some of the software that I use on my systems.
JetBrains CLion system requirements:
> macOS 10.14 or later
https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/installation-guide.html
System requirements for using Slack
> MacOS OS X 10.15 or above
https://slack.com/help/articles/115002037526-System-requirem...
Davinci Resolve 18 Tech Specs
> Mac 10.15 Catalina or later.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/tec...
Mac Compatibility with Live – Live 11 – Live Universal build
> Apple Silicon: macOS 11.6.6 Big Sur through macOS 13 Ventura
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001261150-Mac-...
10.12 came after 10.11. Nobody having to deal with this sort of thing is confused. Using a Mac, it is easier to get the version number than the code name. This argument is most of the time, if not always, used by people with no interest in trying to understand how it works.
Not sure, but Mountain Lion has to be a downgrade from those other cats, right?
10.14 came after 10.12
[deleted]
macOS 11 was named Big Sur while Catalina was version 10.15.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_operating_system...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_operating_system...
Ha! Hoisted by my own petard! Can’t edit my post now, but thanks for adding the correction.
Yes, of course they have real version numbers and these make sense!
But the thing is, almost everywhere we see the marketing names being used, so thats where i see the problem.
This page merely contains a graph of the product names taxonomy and four short sentences to explain why/how they created the graph, so we must have a very different definition of what typical fanboi stuff is.
Ok, Microsoft is not a shining example for naming either, I mean, they had a product called "Windows 8" which actually had version number 6.2 - do I need to say more? At least they fixed this with the first release of Windows 10 - and then got rid of the version numbers in the very next release (at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_vers...).
If microsoft fired everyone who's ever come with a name for anything and renamed all their stuff after randomly selected Pokémon it would be an improvement.
Like on this chart? https://i.redd.it/n9zkfwj43kn01.jpg
The internal version number is just that: an internal number, maybe useful for developers making a check. To quote the great Raymond Chen [0]:
> Poseurs will call Windows versions by their programmatic version numbers. For example, they will call Windows Vista “NT6” and Windows 7 “NT6.1”. Trust me, nobody on the Windows team calls the products by their programmatic version numbers. Whenever anybody says “NT6” I have to go to Wikipedia and look up what they’re actually talking about. If I even care to bother, and usually I don’t.
[0] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130507-00/?p=44...
> Poseurs will call Windows versions by their programmatic version numbers. For example, they will call Windows Vista “NT6” and Windows 7 “NT6.1”. Trust me, nobody on the Windows team calls the products by their programmatic version numbers. Whenever anybody says “NT6” I have to go to Wikipedia and look up what they’re actually talking about. If I even care to bother, and usually I don’t.
[0] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130507-00/?p=44...
We can't forget the nightmare that is Xbox names
Rumor has it that Steve Ballmer wanted people to refer to the new Xbox as "The One" because it was supposed to tie all these capabilities together and be the centerpiece of the living room. Additionally, Microsoft was going through a branding phase of "One" at the time.
As a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever a corporation chooses "One" for its marketing or branding it indicates an uncreative and unoffensive marketing team that can't think of anything more creative to convey a sense of product cohesion.
As a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever a corporation chooses "One" for its marketing or branding it indicates an uncreative and unoffensive marketing team that can't think of anything more creative to convey a sense of product cohesion.
I still don't know which is the most powerful one. I remember people buying the previous generation of XBox consoles, because they were confused about the name :D.
Hey, don't dis MS for having different marketing version vs product versions. OS manufacturers are hostage to the same bad 3rd party coding practices that browsers browsers are with the UA string. You get stuck in a position where changing version number can become actually scary (I recall Safari 2.0.4 having a bunch of issues because the addition of the character "4" broke a wide array of sites, because if your user agent string contains "4" you are netscape 4, and supported document.layers and JavaScript Style Sheets)
That's nothing. Try working out what version of the .Net framework you need or are running!
And Windows 9 got skipped because some Y2K-like software would see "Win9" as Windows 95, or because 9 is unlucky in Japan, or because of marketing, or to distance itself from the flop of Windows 8, or because we all like the number 10.
But you can still understand that Windows 10 is newer than 8 or 8.1, and older than Windows 11. It is what most software companies use, v1, v2, v2.2, etc. Another good way is with year/month, like Ubuntu.
What reads as fanboi stuff? This is a visualization with surprisingly little editorializing.
It reads as fanboyish because it start with "I love how ...", while a non-fanboy might instead have said: "How apple names things: they choose names that have a slight air of elitism to them (also reusing name parts they already established), to make it sound as if they're slightly better than everything else"
That's being overly pedantic. You can appreciate (even love) something without being a fanboy. I, for one, can say that I love some of the design of macos, but I also criticise apple on most other things. I don't even own a mac.
I know this might be pedantic under certain circumstances but I think it was really just a joke on the part of the commenter.
I didn't see it as a joke. Happy to be wrong though.
This is not "I love Apple and everything it does" but "I love how Apple names things".
> the naming scheme of Mac OS versions, i can never figure out which one came before or after the other, there is no rhyme or reason. Why dont they use alphabetical sorted names? Or years/numbers like Windows…?
The human names of the macOS versions are not meant for that purpose.
Every version of macOS also has a version number. If you need to ever know which version came before another you compare the version number.
The human names of the macOS versions are not meant for that purpose.
Every version of macOS also has a version number. If you need to ever know which version came before another you compare the version number.
Why even have a version name then if it’s not intended to communicate anything?
I too find their naming conventions confusing. Apple TV is another example. It could refer to 3 different things depending on how it’s used. I have an Apple TV and an Apple TV subscription but I have no idea which is technically called what.
I also disagree with their casual use of the term “Pro” too. But at least that isn’t an Apple specific problem but rather endemic across the entire tech landscape.
The Microsoft example given by the GP isn’t great though. Microsoft are, in my personal opinion, even worse at naming things than Apple. But as someone who’s released a fair amount of open source, I do acknowledge that naming things is hard.
I too find their naming conventions confusing. Apple TV is another example. It could refer to 3 different things depending on how it’s used. I have an Apple TV and an Apple TV subscription but I have no idea which is technically called what.
I also disagree with their casual use of the term “Pro” too. But at least that isn’t an Apple specific problem but rather endemic across the entire tech landscape.
The Microsoft example given by the GP isn’t great though. Microsoft are, in my personal opinion, even worse at naming things than Apple. But as someone who’s released a fair amount of open source, I do acknowledge that naming things is hard.
> Why even have a version name then if it’s not intended to communicate anything?
It does communicate something. But it's not for comparing release dates of versions.
It's for marketing.
Go to Apples website, navigate to the Mac section and then to the macOS section.
That lands you on this page: https://www.apple.com/macos/ventura/
The names are used in marketing when new versions are launched.
Read the page I linked about macOS Ventura. The way that they use the name of that version here is the way that they use the OS version names in general. For marketing, when a new version is released.
It does communicate something. But it's not for comparing release dates of versions.
It's for marketing.
Go to Apples website, navigate to the Mac section and then to the macOS section.
That lands you on this page: https://www.apple.com/macos/ventura/
The names are used in marketing when new versions are launched.
Read the page I linked about macOS Ventura. The way that they use the name of that version here is the way that they use the OS version names in general. For marketing, when a new version is released.
But plenty of products manage to have a version name that is both used for marketing and also conveys contextual informal about the release. Which is the point all the other commenters have been making.
Your argument that the names are non-descriptive because they were intended to be non-descriptive doesn’t absolve the criticism that non-descriptive names are confusing to a lot of people.
Your argument that the names are non-descriptive because they were intended to be non-descriptive doesn’t absolve the criticism that non-descriptive names are confusing to a lot of people.
AOL did a great job with those CDs. There was AOL 4.0,5.0,6.0... all free for 30 days or 500,000 hours, whichever comes first.
The subscrption is called Apple TV+.
Which is confusing. Why have a hardware product and a streaming service named identically aside the addition of a non-alphabetically symbol.
When people talk about Apple TV I’m never quite certain which product they’re referring to and have to infer that from the context of their sentence.
When people talk about Apple TV I’m never quite certain which product they’re referring to and have to infer that from the context of their sentence.
Such as "I like my Apple TV" probably implies the hardware box whereas "I like Apple TV" means the streaming service.
Don't forgot the app! Use the Apple TV app to watch Apple TV+ on your Apple TV!
Isn’t the app just called “TV”? It kind of makes sense if it’s purpose is to show television programs.
>There are a lot of things to also hate about apples naming schemes, just look at the pro, max, se nonsense they cooked up.
Nothing bad about those names in utility. They designate 3 different models/spec levels, and they're infinitely better than all crap names DELL or SONY etc ever came up with ("NZ4X5-324DD" and such). As for aesthetics, they're short, easy to remember, and pleasurably sounding.
What's not to like? That "pro" ain't for "real" professionals gatekeeping BS, as if video editors and graphic designers are the only real professionals, and a CEO isn't pro enough...
>Also the naming scheme of Mac OS versions, i can never figure out which one came before or after the other, there is no rhyme or reason.
Aside the fact that they coming with an associated dead simple numeric version, they're out there for a year before the next one comes. You have like a year to learn and remember that Ventura is the latest and had one year to become familiar with Monterey before it was replaced (so it's quite easy to remember Ventura was next). Now, if you some reason you want to determine if some OS from 10-15 years ago like Snow Leopard came before or after Tiger, yeah, that would be more difficult (also more pointless).
Nothing bad about those names in utility. They designate 3 different models/spec levels, and they're infinitely better than all crap names DELL or SONY etc ever came up with ("NZ4X5-324DD" and such). As for aesthetics, they're short, easy to remember, and pleasurably sounding.
What's not to like? That "pro" ain't for "real" professionals gatekeeping BS, as if video editors and graphic designers are the only real professionals, and a CEO isn't pro enough...
>Also the naming scheme of Mac OS versions, i can never figure out which one came before or after the other, there is no rhyme or reason.
Aside the fact that they coming with an associated dead simple numeric version, they're out there for a year before the next one comes. You have like a year to learn and remember that Ventura is the latest and had one year to become familiar with Monterey before it was replaced (so it's quite easy to remember Ventura was next). Now, if you some reason you want to determine if some OS from 10-15 years ago like Snow Leopard came before or after Tiger, yeah, that would be more difficult (also more pointless).
Yea but most people dont update their mac os every year, and get “familiar” with the name.
Heck, im still on catalina, imho the last “good” macos version (but thats another discussion).
Anyway, its just that everytime a macos version is mentioned i have to look up the sequence, because i just cant remember it.
One reason is probably also that macos has much more frequent updates (than windows for example) and thats why i cant remember them.
Also you say its hard to sequence the older macos releases, that is true! but i can perfectly sequence the old windows releases. Why? Maybe i used them more? Anyway its still interesting.
In the end it wouldnt be hard for them to use a more helpful, user friendly, naming scheme
Heck, im still on catalina, imho the last “good” macos version (but thats another discussion).
Anyway, its just that everytime a macos version is mentioned i have to look up the sequence, because i just cant remember it.
One reason is probably also that macos has much more frequent updates (than windows for example) and thats why i cant remember them.
Also you say its hard to sequence the older macos releases, that is true! but i can perfectly sequence the old windows releases. Why? Maybe i used them more? Anyway its still interesting.
In the end it wouldnt be hard for them to use a more helpful, user friendly, naming scheme
Author here... it pretty much is fanboi stuff, yes :) And sure, there are flaws in Apple's naming scheme as well as things I love.
As a California native, I love the 10.9.5+ names. They all have meaning to me. (They're all places in California).
1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11
vs
10.0, 10.1,...,10.15,11,12,13
vs
10.0, 10.1,...,10.15,11,12,13
You forgot 10, 10 Anniversary Update, 10 Creators Update, 10 Fall Creators Update, etc. nonsense. These were comparable to macOS 10.x since we were told Windows 10 was the last Windows version. But of course later macOS 11 happened, and Windows 11 magically sprang into life soon afterwards.
Years numbers like windows?
You mean like
Windows XP
Vista
8
10
11?
I reckon by naming things sequentially, you build in the expectation that a later variant is “better” than a previous one - Windows 11 is “better” than Windows 10.
Which isn’t always the case.
Which isn’t always the case.
Do you sincerely think the marketing team wants to names things so accurately as to admit the next version is worse than the previous? It seems like that would be a really bad strategy IMHO.
Which is definitely not the case
[deleted]
Wow, I disagree strongly with this one. It's so frustrating that I have to describe a feature to a search engine to find out what it's called, just so I can find it in the Settings (sorry, I mean System Preferences) panel. Continuity, Stage Manager, Exposé, Spotlight, Launchpad, Mission Control. These names don't mean anything, and aren't helpful. They're features, not products, yet they are named like products and you just have to be tapped into the marketing language Apple uses in order to know what's what.
I agree with you. It's even worse for AppleTV.
AppleTV is a set-top box. AppleTV is an app that you can install on your AppleTV. AppleTV+ is a streaming service, which is also an app on AppleTV, but different from AppleTV. AppleTV is an Operating System for old AppleTV hardware.
AppleTV is a set-top box. AppleTV is an app that you can install on your AppleTV. AppleTV+ is a streaming service, which is also an app on AppleTV, but different from AppleTV. AppleTV is an Operating System for old AppleTV hardware.
Could we just name things functionally+unique?
Functionally as in categories of what they do.
Example:
Oscalc. O: Office; S: Spreadsheet; Calc: Name of application.
There's no reason to stick to only one name, Oscalc in English could be XyCalc in another language.
And no reason why something with many functionalities could not be in more than one place, PvVLC could be ArVLC too plus deep linked to the recording function when called as such.
Then we could, name things how we liked, know what they do and where they are instantly, and get using them for what we want to do even faster.
Functionally as in categories of what they do.
Example:
Oscalc. O: Office; S: Spreadsheet; Calc: Name of application.
There's no reason to stick to only one name, Oscalc in English could be XyCalc in another language.
And no reason why something with many functionalities could not be in more than one place, PvVLC could be ArVLC too plus deep linked to the recording function when called as such.
Then we could, name things how we liked, know what they do and where they are instantly, and get using them for what we want to do even faster.
It's bizarre that you think this would work, and more so that it would work universally for every language.
> PvVLC
What does the "Pv" in this even mean? "Playback video"? That does not line up with your other examples. Is the first letter a verb or a noun? What about the second letter? You see how this proposal falls apart once you look at it for more than a second?
What does the "Pv" in this even mean? "Playback video"? That does not line up with your other examples. Is the first letter a verb or a noun? What about the second letter? You see how this proposal falls apart once you look at it for more than a second?
Hungarian Notation essentially? Regardless of (assumed) technical advantages I thought we’ve settled most users just don’t like it.
The article is missing the best/worst named apple product. I'm in the camp of best. For sure its the ugly ducking, odd ball out, named unlike any other apple product.
Safari.
Like Explorer, Navigator before it, it invokes adventure and exploration. It doesn't mean anything per se in technical terms. It is however, a product.
Safari.
Like Explorer, Navigator before it, it invokes adventure and exploration. It doesn't mean anything per se in technical terms. It is however, a product.
It would be fun if Finder was called File Safari and Safari was called Internet Safari and Activity Monitor was called Process Safari.
I always imagined it was a play on "surfing" the web and a Beach Boys reference to "Surfin' Safari".
"iBrowse" would certainly have lifted some eyebrows. ;)
I would think it just jibed well with the naming theme of the OS X releases.
And surely giving two different products which exist concurrently names which are homonyms or close to it is a terrible idea, right? "EarPods" and "AirPods" sound literally identical in my dialect of English, and they're extremely similar in most.
One of the nice things I liked about OS X when I moved from Windows/Ubuntu around 2010 was the clear but playful naming of apps and utilities. They seemed to have presence. The large and beautiful high resolution icons helped too.
In Windows Disk Management was hidden away and searching for it would return a nebulous list with long winded descriptions but never name Disk Management forcing me to carefully read each result. For search to actually return Disk Management (or any utility for that matter) you have to type the entire name.
In OS X (and now in MacOS but with far fewer utilities these days) apps like Disk Utility have a personality and are easily searched for. Typing ‘du’ in Spotlight is all you need. Windows 10 fixes a lot of this with Super X (or right clicking on Start) but it still lacks that personality.
MacOS is losing a lot of its personality these days unfortunately. In a hurry I often confuse the app icons for Finder, Safari and Mail because they’re all similar white and blue squares.
I also love how the name Finder throws shade at Explorer.
In Windows Disk Management was hidden away and searching for it would return a nebulous list with long winded descriptions but never name Disk Management forcing me to carefully read each result. For search to actually return Disk Management (or any utility for that matter) you have to type the entire name.
In OS X (and now in MacOS but with far fewer utilities these days) apps like Disk Utility have a personality and are easily searched for. Typing ‘du’ in Spotlight is all you need. Windows 10 fixes a lot of this with Super X (or right clicking on Start) but it still lacks that personality.
MacOS is losing a lot of its personality these days unfortunately. In a hurry I often confuse the app icons for Finder, Safari and Mail because they’re all similar white and blue squares.
I also love how the name Finder throws shade at Explorer.
Disk Utility (the old version anyway) is an underrated tool. Sure you can use clonezilla or gparted or something, but having something built in and idiot-proof is a real joy. The only thing I wish it supported was moving partitions around.
Mean while Samsung,
Samsung notes
Samsung file manager
Samsung blah
Samsung bleh
Samsung blush
Apple's system strikes an interesting contrast to Google's system for naming products, documented at [1].
[1] https://bonkersworld.net/naming-dartboard
[1] https://bonkersworld.net/naming-dartboard
Ah yes -
Go -> A programming language created by Google
Google Go -> An android app to help you search
Android Go -> A lightweight version of Android created by Google.
Go -> A programming language created by Google
Google Go -> An android app to help you search
Android Go -> A lightweight version of Android created by Google.
AlphaGo -> AI system from a Google sibling playing: Go.
Go -> an ancient board game
If Google is so good, why haven't they made Google 2 eh?
Google 3.0 would be a minimum. In industry 4.0 times, it should at least be google 4.2, but why bother with minor versions: Google Googol!
(with or without the faculty sign. As long as users say the want the new Samsung iPhone [sic], no one cares if that is barely even a meaningful number)
ive been making general notes on How To Name Things (from companies to variables) here since its one of the well known hard problems - offering it up for others
https://www.swyx.io/how-to-name-things
this piece would be a new category for me - how to name products, given a big brand that covers multiple products
https://www.swyx.io/how-to-name-things
this piece would be a new category for me - how to name products, given a big brand that covers multiple products
Thanks for sharing this, it will be my canonical resource on the topic. (also, it brings me joy that someone obsessed enough to make such an informative and lengthy compilation of pure ideas; a service to the community!).
Number one rule to be is that it should be universally unique and easy to search for, especially if it’s frequently searched for on Google. Being universally unique might mean if the primary name (company, app, etc) is combined with the thing name (product, variable, etc) it is unique.
This is really interesting, thanks!
It may surprise technical users but a _lot_ of people who have used Macs and iPhones for more than a decade don't know what an application is, much less what that application might be called. They just click an icon and things appear - when they don't, or the icon is not where they expect it, they are totally stuck.
On the one hand, Apple deserves credit for creating an experience where the tool seems to get out of the way.
On the other, it's depressing that so many users are steered away from understanding things that could increase their facility with these devices they rely on so much.
On the one hand, Apple deserves credit for creating an experience where the tool seems to get out of the way.
On the other, it's depressing that so many users are steered away from understanding things that could increase their facility with these devices they rely on so much.
> when they don't, or the icon is not where they expect it, they are totally stuck
Ah, yes. The reason MS Edge had to start with an E so the icon could still be an e.
Ah, yes. The reason MS Edge had to start with an E so the icon could still be an e.
Hmm, the topic is a nice one, but I think it proves the adage, “a force-directed graph visualization is never the right way to articulate anything.” It’s very hard to discern much of interest.
In general I would agree, but since you mentioned "never" I have to interject ; )
In this visualization, I was immediately able to pick out clusters around "i", "Apple", "touch" and so on .. and the interactivity helps me to quickly filter and explore. So, I think that for an exploratory tasks, a force-directed graph helps.
In this visualization, I was immediately able to pick out clusters around "i", "Apple", "touch" and so on .. and the interactivity helps me to quickly filter and explore. So, I think that for an exploratory tasks, a force-directed graph helps.
Ah yes, Harnly's law
I think Apple's decision to mostly name products based on dictionary words is a good one, and well-executed. Google tries this too but usually misses the mark a bit by being overly generic (Play, Chat, Calendar, etc.) and failing to build a brand around the products themselves.
My main gripe with Apple is their decision to not version product names well, e.g. "The New iPad". This is fine for tech-savvy users who will read the specs and know what they're getting, but from what I've seen almost universally confuses less tech-savvy customers and leaves them at the whim of salespeople. Apple doesn't need to use model codes or numbers, but should have something that clearly defines new vs. old. They have relented a bit and now have "10th generation" add-ons on official messaging after years of hiding it, which just seems to be like one-button stubbornness where they won't concede the obvious.
My main gripe with Apple is their decision to not version product names well, e.g. "The New iPad". This is fine for tech-savvy users who will read the specs and know what they're getting, but from what I've seen almost universally confuses less tech-savvy customers and leaves them at the whim of salespeople. Apple doesn't need to use model codes or numbers, but should have something that clearly defines new vs. old. They have relented a bit and now have "10th generation" add-ons on official messaging after years of hiding it, which just seems to be like one-button stubbornness where they won't concede the obvious.
"Play" is my favorite example. Even after a lot of years of using it I still cannot remember what is the current name for their "App Store" when I need to tell someone to look for some app there.
Is the Play Store no longer the name of Android's app store? I haven't looked at Android in a while.
I agree, "Play" is very generic. But I thought the name "Play Store" had become ubiquitous among Android users, even non-tech-savvy ones.
I agree, "Play" is very generic. But I thought the name "Play Store" had become ubiquitous among Android users, even non-tech-savvy ones.
How many times have you had to look up whether it is Google Workplace or Google Workspace? I get it wrong more than I get it right.
>"The New iPad".
I'll always remember how weird that decision became just 12 months later.
You went from something that was understood to something that even tech savvy people have to Google to figure out which version their parents have and why Facetime group calls silently fail for them.
I'll always remember how weird that decision became just 12 months later.
You went from something that was understood to something that even tech savvy people have to Google to figure out which version their parents have and why Facetime group calls silently fail for them.
“Apple iPad [model] (<year>)" is what Apple uses, doesn’t it?
Can anyone elaborate on the process how companies like Apple can get registered TMs on pretty much any seemingly generic term — Is it that they simply buy out any existing mark that would be remotely conflicting?
Some extremes: Soundtrack, Afterburner, Aperture, Cocoa, Exposé, etc.
Some extremes: Soundtrack, Afterburner, Aperture, Cocoa, Exposé, etc.
It's not like all uses of the word "aperture" now refer to an Apple registered trademark. It's just that you can't name an image organizer program Aperture. It's not really a generic term in that context, although it's obviously evocative.
Trademarks are allowed to be 'generic' English words, they just can't be purely descriptive of the product/service/company. You can't trademark a name like 'Computer Store' for your computer store, for example. In the cases you list, I don't think any of these purely describe the app/feature's function (these are pretty opaque names actually, except maybe Soundtrack and Aperture), so should be eligible.
'App Store', 'Multi-Touch', 'FaceID', and others that Apple claims though are definitely questionable IMO. When you have to jump through linguistic hoops to describe your product because someone's trademarked the obvious descriptive language, there's a problem. I don't know either. I guess, considering how the legal system generally works in the US, that someone would have to legally challenge their validity, and nobody wants to go against Apple in court.
To be fair I'd say most of the trademarks they claim are pretty reasonable, though: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
Edit: Did a bit of looking into the App Store trademark and it looks like both Amazon and Microsoft did challenge this, but both settled out of court with unknown terms, and the trademark stands as a result.
'App Store', 'Multi-Touch', 'FaceID', and others that Apple claims though are definitely questionable IMO. When you have to jump through linguistic hoops to describe your product because someone's trademarked the obvious descriptive language, there's a problem. I don't know either. I guess, considering how the legal system generally works in the US, that someone would have to legally challenge their validity, and nobody wants to go against Apple in court.
To be fair I'd say most of the trademarks they claim are pretty reasonable, though: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
Edit: Did a bit of looking into the App Store trademark and it looks like both Amazon and Microsoft did challenge this, but both settled out of court with unknown terms, and the trademark stands as a result.
> Edit: Did a bit of looking into the App Store trademark and it looks like both Amazon and Microsoft did challenge this, but both settled out of court with unknown terms, and the trademark stands as a result.
This is a great example of how the USA legal system is broken.
The responsibility for preventing bad trademarks from being registered should not lie with other gigantic companies, which have as much incentive to collude as to compete.
Now the public suffers because the bad trademark stands, and the people who are likely to be harmed by trademark trolling (smaller companies that do not have the money to fight Apple's questionable trademark) remain at risk of harm, potentially indefinitely, because trademarks don't expire under US law.
If the case went through the full court system, then at least the outcome would be decided in the public eye and could be said to have been fairly evaluated and decided. A settlement is as if the case never happened at all!
This is a great example of how the USA legal system is broken.
The responsibility for preventing bad trademarks from being registered should not lie with other gigantic companies, which have as much incentive to collude as to compete.
Now the public suffers because the bad trademark stands, and the people who are likely to be harmed by trademark trolling (smaller companies that do not have the money to fight Apple's questionable trademark) remain at risk of harm, potentially indefinitely, because trademarks don't expire under US law.
If the case went through the full court system, then at least the outcome would be decided in the public eye and could be said to have been fairly evaluated and decided. A settlement is as if the case never happened at all!
I feel robbed. There's all that lead up... to nothing. Where is the Apple product name generator?!
Apple has been dropping the article from iPhone advertisements. "With iPhone 13, you can...", not "an/the iPhone". To me, this breaking of orthography feels too much like reverential capitalization for something that is not exactly divine.
It seems to me an ordinal rule of business is, in order to scale, sell systemic solutions to customer's problems, instead of selling mere widgets.
I interpret this change as communicating 'iPhone is a system whose benefits are predicated on the hardware being omnipresent.'
When you're on vacation and a stranger offers to take your photo and they can just airdrop it to you? When you can retrieve lost keys with an AirTag? When you put that fun sticker on an iMessage? That's not 'an iPhone', it's 'iPhone' and it's what a lot of people are really paying for these days, I think.
I interpret this change as communicating 'iPhone is a system whose benefits are predicated on the hardware being omnipresent.'
When you're on vacation and a stranger offers to take your photo and they can just airdrop it to you? When you can retrieve lost keys with an AirTag? When you put that fun sticker on an iMessage? That's not 'an iPhone', it's 'iPhone' and it's what a lot of people are really paying for these days, I think.
My recollection from the original iPhone keynotes is that there never was an article.
Jobs presented "iPhone" and article-less was dominant in all company messaging for the product.
Jobs presented "iPhone" and article-less was dominant in all company messaging for the product.
You’re right. It never was “the iPhone”, it has been “iPhone” since day 1. And Apple being Apple, they are very consistent with it.
Apple’s way of naming things generic names makes it almost impossible to search for information related to them on the internet. Almost think it’s intentional so that people have to use them as the resource for all information related to Apple.
I always wonder why, out of all the mobile products, is the Apple Watch the only one not called the iWatch?
iPod, iMac, iPhone, iPad ... Apple Watch?
Feels like somewhere along the line they decided that naming all their products something with the letter 'i' was silly and dropped it.
iPod, iMac, iPhone, iPad ... Apple Watch?
Feels like somewhere along the line they decided that naming all their products something with the letter 'i' was silly and dropped it.
Because Apple is a tech company, but also considered a luxury brand. A watch is mostly a fashionable accessory. iWatch would've been a gadget-first name. Apple Watch sounds much better if you're trying to sell it to fashion aware people, besides people interested in the best tech.
That's my theory anyway. Probably wrong lol.
That's my theory anyway. Probably wrong lol.
>but also considered a luxury brand
Who is considering it a luxury brand? Maybe teenagers on the school playground, or in developing nations where a iWatch costs over a month's average wage (I'm from a developing nation).
But in the west (US, Sweden, etc) it's far from being a luxury brand of any kind. It's just a gadget/tech brand making stuff that almost anyone there can afford. Hardly comparable to something like LVMH.
Who is considering it a luxury brand? Maybe teenagers on the school playground, or in developing nations where a iWatch costs over a month's average wage (I'm from a developing nation).
But in the west (US, Sweden, etc) it's far from being a luxury brand of any kind. It's just a gadget/tech brand making stuff that almost anyone there can afford. Hardly comparable to something like LVMH.
>Apple Watch sounds much better if you're trying to sell it to fashion aware people
Fashion aware people are mostly wearing traditional watches or go for colorful oversized G-Shocks if they're some celebrity looking to make a bold statement or something.
I recommend 'The Urban Gentry' on Youtube.
Fashion aware people are mostly wearing traditional watches or go for colorful oversized G-Shocks if they're some celebrity looking to make a bold statement or something.
I recommend 'The Urban Gentry' on Youtube.
The real elite are wearing F-91W's thanks very much. :)
But Apple is not necessarily selling to watch aficionados, they are selling (partly) to people who want to be seen as fashionable in a general sense. Calling it "Apple Watch" instead of iWatch, and putting it next to Hermès straps is about adding that gleam of luxury and glamour.
But Apple is not necessarily selling to watch aficionados, they are selling (partly) to people who want to be seen as fashionable in a general sense. Calling it "Apple Watch" instead of iWatch, and putting it next to Hermès straps is about adding that gleam of luxury and glamour.
>people who want to be seen as fashionable in a general sense
That's funny. I'm not deep into the celebrity/fashion cult, but whenever I see interviews with various celebrities, actors, business people, fashion people, athletes, etc, they always wear some sort of Swiss/Japanese mechanical watch with their fashionable formal or casual attire, never an Apple watch.
That's funny. I'm not deep into the celebrity/fashion cult, but whenever I see interviews with various celebrities, actors, business people, fashion people, athletes, etc, they always wear some sort of Swiss/Japanese mechanical watch with their fashionable formal or casual attire, never an Apple watch.
I don't believe there's ever been an official explanation of when Apple stopped using the 'i' prefix for new products, but Apple Watch came out after that date.
My guess - the 'I' prefix was tied to the Digital Hub initiative, where software and devices would tie in via your home computer to share music, home movies, photos, etc.
When it became clear that the cloud would replace having all of that maintained on a home computer for most people, adding 'i' as a prefix ended - with iCloud.
My guess - the 'I' prefix was tied to the Digital Hub initiative, where software and devices would tie in via your home computer to share music, home movies, photos, etc.
When it became clear that the cloud would replace having all of that maintained on a home computer for most people, adding 'i' as a prefix ended - with iCloud.
[deleted]
Previously held trademark / copyright somewhere if I remember correctly - the company that owned it came out and more or less no to the name being used; when rumours were swirling about the "iWatch".
The Apple Watch is the only one of those products post Steve Jobs. Since then they have specifically removed that prefix from the OS too, e.g. iPhoto > Photos
Given that the I was the prefix of the dotcom-days, I'd say it has become too much of an obviousness for a device to be connected.
It's also the AppleTV, not iTV (but that might be to avoid battling it out with ITV, a TV station).
With the exception of the iMac, there's also only Mac computers. Really there's only the iMac, iPad and iPhone left with the i prefix.
With the exception of the iMac, there's also only Mac computers. Really there's only the iMac, iPad and iPhone left with the i prefix.
It was announced as iTV and then ITV noticed and it was released as Apple TV.
Its been interesting to watch the naming evolution (or at least the speculated evolution) of Apple's upcoming vr/ar headset.
For example, they were going to use rOS and now it's rumored to be xrOS [1] for technical/branding/market reasons that are evolving behind a curtain.
Also, its a little meta, but I am a big fan of visualizations and this link is itself an example of one that would work well in XR !
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/01/apple-headset-operating...
For example, they were going to use rOS and now it's rumored to be xrOS [1] for technical/branding/market reasons that are evolving behind a curtain.
Also, its a little meta, but I am a big fan of visualizations and this link is itself an example of one that would work well in XR !
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/01/apple-headset-operating...
Not a good idea to name a new OS "rOS" when ROS, the Robot Operating System, is already a thing.
I mean IOS was already a thing when they named the iPhone’s operating system that. In fact, I think they got in an argument with Cisco over it?
Guessing they think of a consumer hasn’t likely heard of it it won’t be confusing.
Guessing they think of a consumer hasn’t likely heard of it it won’t be confusing.
stringByAppendingString:(NSString) is probably one of my favorites namings of Apple. Short and concise.
It would be nice if the visualisation could show the full name of the product and a description, when e.g. tapping a connecting arrow.
I didn't understand some connections, e.g.: book & apple; or mac & tcp and I had to check against the provided list of trademarks[1].
[1]: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
I didn't understand some connections, e.g.: book & apple; or mac & tcp and I had to check against the provided list of trademarks[1].
[1]: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
iPhone naming will have to be restarted soon. Purely from marketing I feel going from iPhone 14 to iPhone 15 doesn’t sound as impressive as going from iPhone to iPhone 2.
After a while these large numbers feel like minors on a software patch and not big leaps that drive sales from average consumers.
After a while these large numbers feel like minors on a software patch and not big leaps that drive sales from average consumers.
Screaming into the void for years to stop using numbers for versioning (and codenames, my god, please send anyone who uses codenames directly into the core of the sun) and start using dates. iPhone 2017. Firefox 2022.05. Systemd 2022.04.23. Aaaaaaaaagh.
Isn’t Samsung selling Galaxy S 23 or something like that?
Occasionally that “similar sound” proclivity leads them down confusing paths: witness stage manager and center stage, which many people seem to struggle with separating!
Where's Gruber's wisdom when we need it?
Might be unlabeled nodes but I didn’t spot ultra and mini.
How long are they going to make us wait for MusicTunesPro+
I wish it would tag or mention the product names that a keyword originates from. I like it a lot though, mostly because I like Apple product names a lot too.
Mistletoe(3)
There are a lot of things to also hate about apples naming schemes, just look at the pro, max, se nonsense they cooked up.
Also the naming scheme of Mac OS versions, i can never figure out which one came before or after the other, there is no rhyme or reason. Why dont they use alphabetical sorted names? Or years/numbers like Windows…?