Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.



"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.


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.


“Apple iPad [model] (<year>)" is what Apple uses, doesn’t it?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: