O'Grady's PowerPage - Your Mobile Technology Destination

« Apple in the Way (Updated) | Home | Mobile Me Conspiracy Theory Number 1 »

January 20, 2006

MacBook Pro: What's in a Name? (Updated)

I was sitting there Tuesday morning all stoked about what would be revealed at MWSF, clutching my mouse and double clicking the refresh button on all the news sites. I eagerly waited. I guessed the Intel iMac debute and waited anxiously for the Intel Mac mini but to my surprise the PowerBook received the Intel chip - or should I say the "MacBook Pro?"

Eek... MacBook Pro?!

Jason amused us all here at the PowerPage a few months back when he asked if the PowerBook name needed to be retired (Hey Jason, does this mean you'll change the PowerPage's name?) and I ask a similar question: did they really need to change the name?

The PowerBook name worked on so many levels. The word "Power" really worked because it portrayed serious computing power that could be harnessed while on the run and away from the typical desk. The word "Power" associated with "Book" help to differentiate itself from the herd of other lame laptops out there. And from a marketing perspective, it just worked.

The word PowerBook was so Apple. It has become entrenched in Macintosh lore and even amongst analysts and techies the word PowerBook was synonymous with Apple's mobile hardware. So why mess with it? Nike didn't retire their "Air Jordan" line once the great one retired. These companies realize that the existing product name was accepted and functioned well despite what was going on behind the scenes. The names just worked.

So why did Apple have to monkey with the name? Was it a bit ego? Jobs got the shaft from IBM/Motorola in so many ways. They undoubtedly made it clear that Apple was such a small player and only purchased single-digit percentages of their chips while the auto industry (BMW uses something like 30 processors in each of their 5 and 7-series cars), handheld electronics, and embedded machines were the key markets to success. So did Jobs change the name to satisfy an inner urge or was it a sound thing to do to differentiate the MacBook Pro?

Maybe the marketing people forgot to travel down to the local fast food chain and realize that MacBook Pro sounds like a item off of the "Mac"Donald's menu? "I'll take the MacChicken, MacNuggets and the MacBook Pro. "Can I supersize that to a 17-inch please?" I'm sorry but "MacBook" sounds cheesy. Steve: ya goofed

Sorry to all you Mac faithful who believe that Apple can do no wrong. C'mon though, don't take yourself or the tech industry too serious, lighten up and get out and do something else (like get a tan and a girlfriend :).

But why didn't Apple play with the iMac name? Is it because the term iMac refers to nothing under its hood or perhaps the "i" in iMac could double to represent Intel? Personally, the play on the "Macintosh" name was excellent for their desktops and the play on the word "Book" worked well for the portable line.

Why bring the word "Macintosh" into the portable line? Apple must think that the public needs more brand awareness. I think the Apple logo says it all without needing the word "Mac." If Apple is trying to separate their consumer and professional product lines will we then see a name change for the desktop tower (Power Macintosh)? Maybe MacDesk Pro, MacTower Pro or MacStation Pro?

I guess my questions boils down to this: why did they do it?

As it stood, the naming convention worked:

Consumer products began with "i":
iMac
iBook
iPod

Professional models began with the word "Power":
PowerBook
PowerMac

Education with "e":
eMac (end-of-lifed)
eMate (end-of-lifed)

The product that needed a name change was the Mac mini... it doesn't fit. Or (conspiracy music playing) was the Mac mini the forebearer of things to come when naming Apple's new products?

Does this mean that we'll see more name name changes down the road? Who knows? Maybe we'll see them introduce another variety of fruit : )

Posted by DoubleB at January 20, 2006 11:24 AM
Category: MacBook Pro

Digg This | Post to del.icio.us | Post to Furl

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerpage.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8567

Comments

I think it's fantastic that Steve Jobs is re-branding the entire computer line to have the name "Mac" in it. That's so smart. Makes stupid consumers realize there's a difference between a Mac & everything else.

CASE IN POINT: This actually happened... this is a TRUE STORY! I was at Whole Foods Market the other day, getting rung up, and the bagger guy said to the cashier that he was thinking about buying a PowerBook as his first computer. The cashier said, "Who makes that? IBM?" And the bagger guy said, "No, Apple." And the cashier said, "Is it Windows or Mac?" And the bagger guy said, "I think Apple only makes Macs." Of course, you know how the rest of this story plays out: I stood there for the next 20 minutes, educating them both about the benefits of the Mac over Windows. The cashier was actually anti-Mac until I set him straight... he had never even touched a Mac in his life, and he was trying to diss the Mac!

But anyways, my point is this: By Apple adding the name "Mac" into the name of their products, the word "Mac" will be used much much much more often, and the public will have increased "mindshare" about the Mac.

After hearing this conversation at Whole Foods, I cringed at how many times people might have heard "PowerBook" and then immediately thought "IBM" or "Sony" or "Dell".

Seriously, this is one of the smartest moves Apple has ever made in the history of their naming conventions.

Posted by: scotty321 at January 20, 2006 12:19 PM

MacBook Pro name is ugly, Powerbook is such a good icon of a nice notebook.
Inside Apple: "Let us name it people"
SupremeBook,
MightyBook,
SuperBook,
UltraBook,
TheBook,
um MacBook Pro...
Steve: "ok let us just settle with MacBook Pro, we will find another name when we use AMD chip."

Posted by: bluels at January 20, 2006 12:43 PM

They did it because "Power" referred to the PowerPC chip that was inside - no PowerPC, no PowerBook!

Posted by: Mart at January 20, 2006 12:44 PM

If the PowerBook is now the MacBook, then I suppose the PowerMac will now become the MacMac.

Posted by: Mac the Spork at January 20, 2006 2:12 PM

I completely agree. MacBook Pro, WTF is that. The name PowerBook exuded a feeling of superiority. It just flows off the tongue. You say PowerBook and people almost instantly become envious.

So is the iBook to be replaced by the MacBook, and will the commercial feature dancing Leprechauns to convey the new diminutive size. The MacBook featuring iShamRock

Posted by: dggraphics at January 20, 2006 3:39 PM

This has nothing to do with defending Apple, but I think the name isn't that horrible. Just let go of the baggage and move forward... :) Then again, I was a fan of the WinBooks ages ago and thought it was a nice name, so why would I think differently about MacBook Pro? Given the emotional attachment to the issue, it's hard to say how much of the resistance is because of the name by itself or because it's being changed period.

Posted by: Steve Palm at January 20, 2006 4:02 PM

The answer is simple: Power refers to PowerPC, since the first Mac with that family of processors. Now PowerPC processor is gone and so is the PowerBook name.
Better MacBook than CoreBook ;-)

Posted by: Criceto at January 20, 2006 4:59 PM

Perhaps they are using the name "MacBook" realizing that people are eventually going to be able to run Windows on the hardware if they choose (either Vista will allow EFI booting rather than BIOS, or someone somewhere will come up with a solution.

No one's ever been able to separate the "Apple" brand from the "Macintosh" brand because of the interdependent nature of the hardware and software (the short-lived clones notwithstanding) -- until now.

Now, even if you try to run Windows as the primary OS, you'll still be confronted with both brand names.

Posted by: Gene at January 20, 2006 5:18 PM

The fact is that if the name MacBookPro wasn't so UGLY, you probably wouldn't even ask the question.
The real question is not "Why change the name?" but "why change the name to something that UGLY?"

Posted by: Luca grelli at January 20, 2006 6:20 PM

Cool post.

The original idea was to put a "computer in a book". I the late 90's their mantra was to cram a Macintosh in a space the size of book in a set time period, hence the the "book" label. Rest of the industry went the "laptop" route. As for power.... ther is no "Power" relevant to the new Intel chip. Plus, like you said, the IBM folks didn't prioritize chip development the way Steve saw fit.

Posted by: Nien Numb at January 21, 2006 10:51 AM

I hate (maybe too strong), dislike, the new name so much, it may be the single biggest reason I'll hold on to my current PowerBook G4, and possible purchase a beautiful Titanium on ebay instead of upgrading... At some point, I will want the latest and greatest... by then, the Intel bugs will have been worked out, and hopefully the name will change... or they will have new alternative products (like an "iBook")... I'm sure if they stick to their guns, we'll all eventually get used to the new name, but hopefully they can recognize a mistake, not be stubborn, and revert back to "PowerBook"... Like I said, I have a PowerBook "G4", what's wrong with calling the new machine PowerBook Duo, or even PowerBook i5 or something.. I know that's ugly, but it's Mona Lisa compared to the new name.

Posted by: Spencer at January 21, 2006 1:15 PM

The (first) Powerbook 100 used the 68000 processor, so the name had nothing to do with the PPC. It's about branding.

I work at a university and about twice a month I'll overhear someone talking about his/her "powerbook" only to then say that it's a Dell or IBM "powerbook." It's similar to the way people refer to generic "facial quality tissue" as "Kleenex."

MacBook Pro may not roll of the tongue like honey the way PowerBook did, but it could be worse -- think MactelBook

Posted by: Dave. at January 21, 2006 4:04 PM

Of course all the Mac fans would know that PowerBook was made by Apple... But now Apple starts to be presented to the other 90% PC users who do not know anything about Macs!
So the name "Mac" had to be branded back to the streets.

Posted by: almux at January 21, 2006 5:51 PM

shood have been called "inteliMac"

Posted by: richmond at January 21, 2006 6:36 PM

"I'm sorry but "MacBook" sounds cheesy. Steve: ya goofed"

This from the guy who came up these fine names:

Neo

Turbo

Ultra

Free

Commuter

Explorer (doh!)

Gypsy

Globetrotter

Journey

Roamer

Rover

Voyager

Wanderer

Entrepreneur

Mercenary

Pioneer

Traveler

Venturer

Colonist

Departer

Exile

Fugitive

No. Seriously. These are his ideas for new names for the Powerbook. Venturer. Seriously:

http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2005/07/its_been_15_yea.html

Posted by: Johnny Blazin at January 21, 2006 10:31 PM

Dontcha just love it when someone criticizes your ideas without contributing any of their own?

Johnny Blazin: This post was contributed by DoubleB, the post you link to was by me.

Come up with some of your own ideas before you criticize those of others.

- Jason

Posted by: Jason O'Grady at January 21, 2006 11:32 PM

Just to clarify to all those who keep posting some derivative of "'Power' refers to the PowerPC chip that is inside": Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The original PowerBooks (the 100, 140, and 170) came out in 1991, and were based on Motorola 680x0 processors. The name has nothing to do with the chip inside, and everything with brand identity - "Power" simply meaning "Powerful".
See history references such as http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=100 for more details.

More trivia: These units were an incredible design coup beyond the old Macintosh Portable, and were essentially the first in the industry to move the keyboard to the back, and a pointing device (then, a trackball) to the front, establishing what is still the industry-standard form factor for nearly all laptops.

Posted by: ClassicUser at January 22, 2006 4:08 PM

Here is how I think the new naming scheme will play out

Mac mini
iMac
Mac Pro

MacBook mini
MacBook
MacBook Pro

This would make sense, no? The MacBook mini is just a fanboy subnotebook dream I suppose.

Posted by: Scott N. at January 23, 2006 3:45 AM

... c'mon now! Power Consumption people!!! Steve always talks about power, and how they switched to Intel because of the whole processes/performance-per-watt approach. Intel got it, and so they changed. "Power" = heat = no new 'power' book b/c they couldn't fit a G5 into it because of 'power'. Power = burning laptop legs. Get it??? But yea, think they could've down better than MacBook Pro.

Posted by: jc at January 23, 2006 10:04 AM

Jason,

Does this mean you're going to change the name of your site and your URL? Or will you keep it the same?

Posted by: Laurence at January 23, 2006 4:05 PM

January 20, 2006

MacBook Pro: What's in a Name? (Updated)

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment