What’s in a name?

Kodak and Xerox are legendary for taking names that had no prior meaning, and investing them with the meanings of their products. whether the products catch on, they have uniquely catchy and identifiable names. There is no surer path to longterm recognition.

The iPod was mostly like that. “Pod” obviously brought a little more meaning to the iPod than dak and xox did to Kodak and Xerox, but it was open sufficient - had a lack of previous overwhelming meanings sufficient - to quickly allow the iPod to stand on its own, semantically. And, indeed, the word soon generated names for applications such as “podcast,” which soon came




to mean a digital audio production that did not have to be heard necessarily on an iPod.

Clearly, iPhone, although it seems a lot like iPod namewise, is a completely different linguistic fish. “Phone” has an overwhelmingly familiar and prior meaning to everyone.

In one sense, that’s good - folks are more likely to jump on board for something that feels familiar to them.

On the other hand, the familiarity of the “phone” in iPhone means that the word will have a steeper hill to climb, to become as universally almighty as the terms Xerox, Kodak - and iPod.

Original post by Chris

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • description
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
Related Posts

  • iCountr iPhone Web App
  • Four new products from Sony for the iPod and iPhone
  • Citizen special edition black iPhone
  • iPod Touch can run the same applications as the iPhone
  • Download your favorite animes from iTunes

  • Write a Comment