Former Apple’s Advisor Admits Apple’s Naming System is Weak and Awkward

Ken Segall, former Apple’s Advisor, has worked with Apple and Steve Jobs for six years. He helped Steve Jobs name Apple’s products. Last week, in a blog post, Segall said that Apple's system for naming brands is confusing and doesn't make sense. There is no good reason, Segall writes, for the iPad line to be named the way it is: iPad - iPad 2 - New iPad. Why not iPad 3? There's no good reason for "New iPad." It's the same with iPhone. He says that Apple should have named the Apple iPhone 4S the iPhone 5 especially since it said that the model was the result of "completely rethinking” the phone—Segall says: Most experts see a narrative in which Apple only produces a major upgrade every other year, and in between we get the “S” model. This is the model that delivers only incremental improvements. Whether that’s Apple’s intended message is unknown. But personally, I wish Apple never created a “4S.” First of all, it’s an awkward moniker whether you speak it or read it. The Apple designers tried their best with the product graphics, but there is an inescapable reality: 4S will never be as simple as 4. More important, tacking an S onto the existing model number sends a rather weak message. It says that this is our “off-year” product, with only modest improvements. It seems that "weak" and "awkward" are words that are almost never applied to Apple's marketing and branding. Right now, it might be time for Apple to have to adjust its strategy and have more innovation. What do you think of Apple’s naming system? Does it make any sense? Source: BusinessInsider