In marketing, branding may be as important or more important than the product itself. Sometimes a brand name becomes a verb for an entire product category. For years I referred to a bandage as a “Band-Aid” until I realized I was giving Johnson & Johnson free publicity. My mother would always refer to a certain kitchen appliance as “Frigidaire” even though the refrigerator’s brand name may be something else entirely.

When it comes to a personal computer, it’s technically a PC even if it’s a Mac, although most of you separate the two since they are so different in so many ways. But I do hear some refer to their smartphones as iPhones, their tablets as iPads, and their digital music players as iPods even if they are products from other makers with different model names. Then again, how does “pod” imply music player? But most product names from other companies are so incomprehensible they can be most anything. What message does Samsung Galaxy convey about the product it represents?

In short, most members of the tech industry may well be clueless about product naming. But what do I know of marketing anyway?

Other than iPod, Apple seems to have a problem with operating system branding for its personal computers. At one time, Macs were powered by the Mac OS. When the new generation operating system was introduced in 2000, with a public beta, it was Mac OS X. But one fine day it was simply OS X. Perhaps it was meant for the operating system to support products other than Macs, but it hasn’t worked out that way.

So iOS is for iPhones, iPads and the iPod touch, even though it is based on the guts of OS X. The Apple Watch is powered by watchOS and Apple TV, beginning with the fourth generation, is powered by tvOS. So iOS is for certain “i” products and the other operating systems clearly indicate which products they represent. Except for OS X.

Now once upon a time, Apple might actually have planned to spread the joy, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, particularly since its other operating systems more or less clearly indicate in their labeling what sort of products they are designed for. Indeed, I expect the Apple Car to be powered by carOS, so where does that leave OS X?

One online commentator, a former tech magazine editor, is clearly in the Mac OS or Mac OS X camp. I would presume the latter would make more sense since it’s quite different from the original. But is there any reason for such a change? What point would it serve at this point in time?

Sure, I understand why Apple Computer became Apple Inc., since the focus expanded so much, but would it make any difference at all what naming conventions are used for its oldest operating system? So far as I’m concerned, it really doesn’t matter. It’s not that marketing messages must be consistent, so long as they deliver a message that gains traction with customers and, at the end of the day, helps to sell a product or a service. Or at least doesn’t get in the way.

So this all is probably a case of talking about nonsense, since Apple is not about to care one way or the other at this point. Indeed, there may be some future product, a successor to the Mac, that might bear a different name and still use OS X. So we’re all whistling in the dark anyway.

Regardless of what choices Apple makes in future products or services, you can bet it will be simple, direct, memorable. Product distinctions will be fairly simple and more or less easily understood. It’s a simple message that began with the Apple computer and continued through generations of LaserWriters, MessagePads all the way to the present day.

This remains a message mostly lost on other companies. So does a Roku imply a media streamer? Certainly an Amazon Fire TV might, if only for the third name. So where does Fire enter the picture anyway?

But I fail to see where Dell Inspiron or Dell XPS conveys personal computer without a word or two to further define the product, such as Dell Inspiron Micro Desktop. That falls easily from the tongue — not.

At least Microsoft Windows was meant to imply a windowing operating system, but I’m not so sure about Android. The original definition refers to a robot with a human appearance, but it was distorted in referring to a mobile operating system. Why Android? Well, it’s the name of the company that Google acquired to gain the technology. But where does that leave Chrome?

Yes, I realize that the public has accepted Android as the world’s popular mobile operating system, although Chrome, outside of educators who want the cheapest gear for their students, hasn’t gone anywhere. But if you asked people who never heard of a smartphone what an Android might be, what would you expect them to say?

In recent weeks, I’ve published several articles about Apple’s Magic Keyboard and the iPad Pro. My reactions to both weren’t so favorable, but I decided to give them a second chance. I even asked Apple to extend the reviewer loans so I would have more of an opportunity to reach some final decisions.

I cannot say that my views were changed substantially on longer exposure, though my opinion on one of the products became more favorable. What this demonstrates to me yet again is that writing reviews a little too quickly may yield a first impression that isn’t borne out with extended use. So I find myself concerned over publications that seem to review too many things too quickly, betraying evidence that their writers are churning out too much incomplete copy too quickly.

Since this newsletter is, by and large, the odyssey of one person in the tech world, I try to be careful about snap judgments. When I wrote reviews and feature articles for several major publications some years back, I tried not to rush. I would usually start the review after the initial exposure to a product, but would set it aside for a while and continue to use it. How long would depend on the deadline, but I’d would return to the article and provide a more complete and nuanced reaction. It doesn’t mean I get everything right, but I try to be as fair as possible.

Continue Reading…

You may have noticed that, in recent days, Apple’s stock price has resumed its upward path (except for Friday as part of an overall stock market dip). After a loss of some 20%, this is a refreshing change, at least if you care about such things, or happen to own some of their stock, or have an interest in acquiring some. Otherwise, it’s just more blabber that is probably not worth your attention.

Although I suppose Apple’s stock market price has some value, since it’s perceived to be evidence of the company’s success, or lack thereof, or a perception on the part of some on what may or may not happen.

So the stock price drop was, in part, triggered by rumors, not confirmed, that some supply chain vendors had reported cutbacks in orders from Apple. Unfortunately media and financial analysts have poor memories, and thus didn’t recall the last time this happened, in late 2012, weeks after the release of the iPhone 5s. That, by the way, was perceived as a failure by some, and its little brother, the iPhone 5c was labeled a dud. Only there’s no evidence that either failed to meet or exceed Apple’s sales expectations.

Regardless, the stock price was in the doldrums for months. Tim Cook even had to address the issue during a quarterly call with financial analysts, pointing out that a few supply chain metrics, while possibly accurate, didn’t necessarily reveal sales trends. Apple deals with lots of suppliers, and will switch orders from one to the other. There are also seasonal ordering patterns to consider, such as the obvious fact that Apple sells in lower numbers in the March quarter than the December quarter.

Now in recent days there have been a few juicy tidbits that serve as a reality check for the latest supply chain scuttlebutt. One is the report that sales of non-Android smartphones in China are way up, to the tune of 33%. Since most of those smartphones are built by Apple, you can see that stories of a sales slowdown don’t quite wash. Of course we heard this before last year during one of those occasional stock market crashes in China, when Tim Cook had to reassure the market that everything was coming up roses in that country.

That’s just one set of numbers. The other is a report of record earnings by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., or TSMC. This is one of the key chip fabs used by Apple to build A-9 series processors. So if sales of competing products are essentially moribund, where’s all that action coming from anyway?

Kudos to AppleInsider’s Daniel Eran Dilger for actually doing the legwork to come up with these reports. You wonder why so-called tech or mainstream reported from the big media companies aren’t publishing this information. At the very least, a story about supposed supply chain cutbacks could be balanced with reports about high sales in China, and the fact that one of Apple’s key suppliers is being kept real busy building parts. While Daniel’s sources don’t specifically say Apple, the connection is obvious.

None of this necessarily means Apple won’t issue a lower-than-expected guidance for the March quarter. But that won’t be known until later this month. Until then, it’s all speculation, or just assuming that, since other tech companies are hitting headwinds, Apple must too.

Meanwhile, as expectations for an Apple Car gain a little more momentum, you’ll no doubt continue to hear stories suggesting that Apple has no business getting into that market. After all, what does Apple know about automobiles. On the other hand, what did Elon Musk know about cars before he established Tesla? Or building rocket ships, for that matter, before SpaceX was established?

The long and short of it is that Apple can buy expertise in product segments were it doesn’t participate. Over the years Apple has acquired a number of products and companies to enhance its portfolio. Remember that Apple acquired third-party apps, and their developers, to create, for example, iTunes, Final Cut Pro and Logic. Their chip development capability came from outside acquisitions, and Apple Maps is, in part, built on technology Apple bought and paid for.

So, yes, it’s clear to me that, if Apple wants to build a car, they can definitely make it happen. They have the money to buy the talent they need, and to build test labs and manufacturing facilities. Or just lease a facility from another auto maker.

They also said Apple didn’t have a clue about smartphones when the iPhone was first announced. One of their severest critics was none other than Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft CEO.

So confounding skeptics has been in Apple’s DNA from the very early days. Remember what they said about Macs being unsuited for serious work. And what about a graphical operating system? Real computer users worked with DOS. Macs were just fancy, overpriced toys.

And we all know how the Mac continues to outpace the PC industry in growing sales, and how the iPhone also continues to confound skeptics with its continued success. Sure, the iPhone’s rate of growth cannot continue at its current rate, but there’s no evidence Apple is going to disappoint anyone with its next earnings report. But even if the figures are favorable, the skeptics will continue to find downsides.