If you think any of this gibberish looks interesting, you should poke around and subscribe to my RSS feed to keep up with new content.
Appropriately following my previous post on how cool Steve Jobs can be, I thought I’d take a second to flesh out my disagreement with the way Apple names their operating systems.
“Tiger” and “Panther” are the official names of the two most recent iterations of the Mac OS (correct me if I’m wrong), and I find these names annoying. I understand the names are supposed to imply that the OS’s represent the “sleek, feline power and speed” of their namesake, however I feel like it’s a bit “posh,” for lack of a better word.
I just get this image of someone saying “I’m not a barber, I’m a hair stylist!” And I think Apple perpetuates that image. So, regardless of the quality of the product, I get a sense of snobbishness with the name. I guess that’s why I disagree with that image.
Don’t get me wrong — “Windows Vista” isn’t much better…I think “Windows 2005″ would’ve been great. I tend to pick on Apple because they sound so ridiculously euphemistic to me.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments }
Robert R. Fox 07.27.05 at 11:01 am
And what would you name an OS? Rock? Paper? Elephant? Please post an interesting alternative. Any way, Tiger is just a memorable label. The REAL official name is “Mac OS X version 10.4″. Look under the menu item “About This Mac” no mention of Tiger anywhere.
tommyboy 07.27.05 at 11:10 am
I dissagree. I don’t see how naming a the operating system after cats is “posh” or euphemistic. Its just a branding/marketing choice that is no different than Ford naming their cars with “f” names: Focus, Fairlane, Fiesta, etc. or, say, horse names: mustang, maverick, pinto. What’s the big deal? I see no pretentiousness in the cat names. They are nice names. Fun names. And besides, if I remember correctly, these were just internal project names that were not orignally intended to be product names. But because Jaguar was so well received in discussions before its release, Apple decided to stick with the name. In contrast, the name Longhorn apparently did sit so well with the public. Anyway, if you read this “poshness” into the cat names and find them annoying, I think its just your head/your attitude, something that you are projecting onto the names.
Van Secrist 07.27.05 at 11:13 am
Hey Jason, I enjoyed reading your viewpoint. Though, I think you might be mistaken about the use of the word euphemistic. Dictionary.com says this:
euphemistic
adj : of an inoffensive substitute for offensive terminology; “`peepee’ is a common euphemistic term” [syn: inoffensive] [ant: dysphemistic]
Perhaps a better way to phrase it might be “Apple has a tendency for hyperbole.” Or Apple is so pretentious.
Now, to your naming point, is Apple really any different than any other company? A quick look at car model names makes my point: Jaguar, Thunderbird, Cougar, etc. Apple needs a name for their operating system that doesn’t elicit a yawn, but rather, excitement. “Mac OS X 10.4″ is about as exciting as a license plate. As you stated, the cat names are used to embue their characteristics on the OS. I might agree with you if they named it “the Ultimate OS” or some such nonsense. This, of course, is ridiculous as it doesn’t allow room for growth. Perhaps some of Apple’s other actions are coloring your perceptions.
David 07.27.05 at 11:18 am
Tiger’s official name is MacOS 10.4. Tiger is just the nick name.
M 07.27.05 at 1:59 pm
I believe the ‘marketing names’ are to help distinguish between ‘versions’ of Mac OS X.
A single point upgrade in Classic Mac OS wouldn’t warrant $129. Who would pay to upgrade from 8.5 to 8.6?
Perhaps if the product were Mac OSX v1.0 - 1.1 thru to 4.0 - 4.x that would seem easier to reconcile. But, it would be more difficult for Apple to market.
Remember, the underlining core OS kernal hasn’t changed much since 10.0 (aka OSX 1.0 ;-), only ‘really cool’ features have been added or upgraded.
popemark 07.27.05 at 3:45 pm
M, I take issue with your assertion that “the underlying core kernal [sic] hasn’t changed much since 10.0.” Take, for example, John Siracusa’s description:
“The Mac OS X kernel has undergone some very significant changes in Tiger.” Link to Ars Technica
M 07.27.05 at 4:13 pm
popemark,
My bad. Thanks for the link.
In my own feeble way, I was attempting to illustrate the marketing reasons Apple would likely have added ‘names’ to the version numbers of OSX.
Being the dilitant that I am, I should have left the technical aspect (kernel) out - as it likely wasn’t necessary to make my point.
Jason 07.27.05 at 4:52 pm
Very cool points, all around. I think my response is big enough for a post, so that’s going up in a few minutes.
- Jason
Comments on this entry are closed.