"PowerBook" -- Ugh!

By David Norton 

First, an apology. I had to use a catchy title, and it may have been misleading. This article is talking about the name of the PowerBook, not of the actual PowerBook itself. Don't get me wrong, I love the new PowerBook.

It's not hard to see why Apple called the new PowerBook, just announced at MacWorld Tokyo last night, "PowerBook":

• There were already three variants on the PowerBook G3 name.
• PowerBook is simpler.
• Leaving off the "G3" paves the way for future G4 processors.
• Using the 'year' naming convention (2000 PowerBook?) would give users the thought that the computer is outdated as soon as 2001 rolls around, therefore cutting sales.

But why did Apple have to name it just plain PowerBook? There are dozens of older PowerBook computers &endash; if someone doesn't know better, they could come upon a product that they think will work with their old PowerBook 190, when in fact the it was meant for the 'new' PowerBook. In a couple years, there could be several of these PowerBooks, each with varying specs on what works and what doesn't.

Why am I talking about Apple's naming conventions now? When they started doing this almost two years ago with iMac?

Because the PowerBook's seem to be most different from one model to the next. A drive module that worked in one PowerBook may be a couple millimeters too tall (or too short) to work in the next. TILs that are trying to explain a feature of one PowerBook can be confusing.

Apple should figure out a way to name their products. And not just for the PowerBook, but the entire Mac line.

Don't ask me how they should do it. Frankly, I have no idea! But obviously, it should be changed.

Right?

David Norton uses iCab.

© 1997-2002 MacMilitia.com, Contact Us
John Norton, Webmaster