Does the (apple logo)WATCH mark the end of "i-products"?

[ryanasimov]

I was happy that the WATCH wasn't named the iWatch. The "i" prefix is a holdover from the late 90s and while it was a strong branding component, I believe it's time has passed. Using the prefix is timeless.

 

[ZombiePete]

I've been wondering the same thing.

 

[Markyyy]

I've never liked how Apple have kept re-using the i-Device branding convention. We're all so used to it that most of us don't recognise how over-used it is. It had some meaning when it was used over a decade ago for the iMac and iPod. Then came the iPhone and iPad. They tried to have iTV but had to settle for something else, so went with TV, which felt very refreshing. I'm glad they've not named their watch iWatch. A plausible explanation for this would be that iWatch sounds like you're using the adjective 'watch' rather than the noun 'watch'. Many may assume iWatch is somekind of device / service similar to what TV is. So watch seems like a sensible, reasonable name for their watch.

 

[laudern]

Considering apple watch doesn't use ios I'm not surprised it is not called iwatch.

 

[sracer]

In my opinion, switching from "i-" to "" is similar to Prince changing his name to

That's when Prince "jumped the shark"... connection?

 

[Kiju]

I hope so. I quite like the branded names.

 

[Alvi]

Considering apple watch doesn't use ios I'm not surprised it is not called iwatch.

Oh and does the iMac use iOS? That's not logic...

 

[MonkeySee....]

Would be classy to ditch it and move back to "Apple Macs" etc instead of iMacs etc.

There are far too many people jumping on the "i" bandwagon.

 

[dejo]

Considering apple watch doesn't use ios I'm not surprised it is not called iwatch.

I'm willing to bet that WatchKit, which is what developers will use to write for the Apple Watch, will be part of iOS, along with all the other xKits we use (UIKit, MapKit, SpriteKit, etc.)

 

[cfedu]

Considering apple watch doesn't use ios I'm not surprised it is not called iwatch.

Just like the apple TV does not use iOs.

 

[imaginex20]

Just like the apple TV does not use iOs.

Uhhh yes the Apple TV does run iOS...

 

[Kariya]

Makes sense after the iPhone trademark fiasco with Cisco.

Plus its now becoming a parody tool.

Just use

Job done.

 

[ryanasimov]

Just about every accessory company has used the "i" prefix to associate their products with Apple, and I believe over time it's become almost generic. Using the prefix makes a branding statement that can't be copied or appropriated by another company.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I think the reason why they didn't go for iWatch is because it sounds like a TV product and would be weird for companies to use it in advertising - "Get the new Starbucks app on your new iWatch". Heck, trying to explain that Siri can be used to find movie listings on an "iWatch" is weird in itself.

I also like to think it's a play on the Swatch brand.

 

[katewes]

The fact is, there were a ton of trade mark applications by other parties for IWATCH. Apple could not get the trade mark.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Sure "i" is overused, but it's simple, easy to say, easy to write, immediate connotation to Apple, and you can add it in front of pretty much anything.

Apple Watch is a bit of a mouthful. Watch is almost impossible to write in most situations. Even on Apple's Website, they identify it as "Watch" at the top. That just seems too generic. I think Apple can get away with their apps like mail, music, etc because it is the default way to use your mail, music etc on their software and is ONLY used on their software. But these watches are out in the wild. You can just call it "watch". I'm not really a fan.

----------

Uhhh yes the Apple TV does run iOS...

I'm guessing he was being sarcastic

 

[gametime10]

I wonder if Apple is distinguishing it's main stand-alone products w/ the "i" name (iMac, iPhone, iPad - exception being the MacBook Pro), vs. products which fall more in the category of an accessory w/out the "i" (Apple TV, Apple Watch). Perhaps since the Apple Watch isn't able to fully function without an iPhone, Apple didn't feel comfortable giving it an "i" designation. Perhaps we'll get other accessories down the line (Apple Glasses? Apple Toaster?).

 

[sracer]

Sure "i" is overused, but it's simple, easy to say, easy to write, immediate connotation to Apple, and you can add it in front of pretty much anything.

Apple Watch is a bit of a mouthful. Watch is almost impossible to write in most situations. Even on Apple's Website, they identify it as "Watch" at the top. That just seems too generic. I think Apple can get away with their apps like mail, music, etc because it is the default way to use your mail, music etc on their software and is ONLY used on their software. But these watches are out in the wild. You can just call it "watch". I'm not really a fan.

It will probably be referred to as "iWatch" or "aWatch".... followed by an endless parade of dweebs responding with, "What's an iWatch? Is there such a product? I know what an Watch is, but what is an iWatch?"

 

[JaySoul]

Apple Watch makes more sense to me than iWatch.

You're trying to brand a luxury item, sticking an 'i' in front of it just screams 'throwaway consumer electronics' which is the wrong message.

 

[Patriot24]

I think it makes sense to go ahead and drop the "i" branding. The watch is very much the next chapter in Apple's story. Each new chapter needs new emotion, feeling, and branding.

Originally the "i" was meant to signify that the device was built for the internet age. We are now at the point where every device uses the internet as a standard feature. It has become obvious and a tired way of marketing products.

Samsung only recently got into the habit of marketing features of their products as S-<feature>. It will be interesting to see if they continue that trend or similarly change course (not implying copying so much as to say that having 50 products/features with the "S-" moniker probably loses its appeal eventually).

 

[iBug2]

Apple TV was not called iTV either. So it's not a first.

 

[solo118]

Apple Watch makes more sense to me than iWatch.

You're trying to brand a luxury item, sticking an 'i' in front of it just screams 'throwaway consumer electronics' which is the wrong message.

I agree. The WATCH is a product for the luxury buyer it does not need a gimmick or silly "i" to sell it.

FWIW I heard a few people already give it the nickname iwatch.

 

[Patriot24]

FWIW I heard a few people already give it the nickname iwatch.

Whether we like it or not, "iWatch" is going to be a term that is always used by popular culture similarly to "iTouch" for the iPod Touch. Apple has a long road ahead to untrain people from automatically applying the "i" like they taught them to for so many years.

 

[kmj2318]

I do think "i" is done with, and I think the new naming scheme is actually really good. It's ultimate simplicity. There's no confusion of what company makes it's associated with, and it can't be copied like "i" has been.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

No reason to suspect this as it didn't end with TV.