Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
I was wondering what people who know Apple well think about the idea of iTunes not being about just music/music videos now. There are now tv shows, audiobooks, movies, and podcasts on iTunes, which I don't think fits the idea of iTunes being a music management application very well. What do you think the chances are of Apple renaming iTunes, or else developing another application for the movies/tv shows/audiobooks/etc. ? Also, if they weren't to change the name of iTunes altogether, do you think it could go for an icon change? I say this because of the cd in the background, and since Apple is all about digital downloads and iPods I would think that they would want CDs to seem sort of behind the times (which they almost are). Know what I mean?
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Columbus, Georgia
|
The name clearly is not descriptive enough for what it can do now. Especially since the iPhone will be using it to sync instead of iSync [ anyone else think this is dead.] iTunes is more of a media hub now, so a more descriptive name, and icon are justified.
But, what do you call it? Apple Digital Media Suite? iMedia iLife <-- Too bad that is what they call the app suite. iWhatEverFunctionWeFeelLikeSqueezingInHereOnThisRe lease I'm sure apple could do better, but they've spent too much money and time popularizing the name iTunes. Don't expect a name change anytime soon. [edit] I know we've had this discussion before. Quick search revealed this. Here. What Adobe Updater‽ What‽ What‽ WHAT‽ Last edited by EmC : 2007-01-21 at 15:55. |
quote |
Awaiting Email Confirmation
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Music still represents 90% of it's core application function...until that slips below 40% I don't see that changing....
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Inflammable means Flammable?!
|
quote |
Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
|
quote |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
I think "iTunes" is still an okay name. I read it as less "music only" and more "the iPod (and, by extention, iPhone) software." Besides, "iPod + iTunes" has been so engrained in the public concious that it'd be silly to change it now.
and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I agree with Robo. It's splitting hairs to try to give it some new "it means everything" name when the current one, iTunes, is so widely known and recognized. They'd be silly to drop it. People aren't worried about it.
Having said all that, expect Apple to announced "iHub Extreme" as the new name for iTunes Tuesday morning. |
quote |
9" monochrome
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
|
I'm all for a name change - and have been for ages - but I understand the value of branding. Pity they didn't do it sooner.
Considering el Jobso's widely reported perfectionist streak, I'd even be willing to wager that it bugs him too. As if he's going to admit it though. |
quote |
9" monochrome
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
|
Quote:
I don't think the inflammable example is good though, because inflame can mean to make a situation worse. Unflammable, like unpossible, would have been a better antonym. |
||
quote |
Veteran Member
|
I think simply renaming it "Hub" would be quite cool.
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Quote:
I'd say I'm as much of a perfectionist as Steve Jobs when it comes to certain things, and the name has been bugging me for a bit now. And I can also see not wanting to change the name because of its popularity, however that doesn't rule out developing another app altogether to manage the rest of the media. But that creates a problem as well because it destroys what Apple is working for: simplicity. It is more of Apple's style to have just one app to manage all of its media meant for entertainment, so I would definitely rule out developing another app altogether. I think Apple's best decision right now would be to think up some revolutionary new thing to add to iTunes so that when the time for the next release rolls around they could rename it. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
|
I don't know what I'd do - stick with the familiar brand name, or go for a more correct one. Even though naming is my job (I'm a creative - not a strategist).
I tend to keeping with the existing brand name. Apart from the familiarity, we have the fact that most of the other installed functionality is technical, being taken for granted, and not what the user consciously uses the application for. This may not hold for video of course, but I'm not sure how bad that is, given existing brands like "Looney Tunes" and "Silly Symphonies". Correct me if I'm wrong about that! |
quote |
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
What a country!
iTunes really is one of those branding things that more expresses an idea than a core function, IMO. To put it another way, what the f*ck does the word iPod even mean - nothing! It just encompasses the notion of media in one place, and you could ask any random person in the street what it means and they could more than likely tell you. This is unlikely to have been the original intention of the name (I would guess it likely simply did start from the music), but as has been noted, when you have such a powerful brand force, it is much more beneficial to bend it to your needs, rather than try to teach xx million (even billion?) people a new word for an old product. You can even see this with iTV - how many times did Steve call it that during Macworld? At one point I counted 3, even 4 utterances within a minute, with only one correction. And Steve runs the place! |
quote |
Veteran Member
|
Im pretty sure that iTunes expresses the core function.
|
quote |
Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
It does express the core function, but the core function is not what iTunes is focusing on anymore. I mean, what is left on iTunes that needs improvement regarding music? I would say in the next release Apple will make all music downloads in Apple Lossless, allow us to list multiple artists for one song, and (of course) a new interface. Other than that, what else could the majority of people ask for regarding music? After those few things which need improvement are done, what will Apple do? They need different content to work with if they are going to be able to come up with more ideas to improve the software.
Also, I personally feel that while music may be the core function of iTunes, the other types of media are coming up fast. I mean, when I go to the iTunes store I find that I almost never search for music anymore and that I mainly check out the music videos and tv shows and movies. I mean, why listen to just the audio when you can listen AND see things in a music video? It's obvious iTunes is moving away from being a music player. Do you think most major motion picture companies would be comfortable with the majority of their digital movie revenue coming from a music player? I would think they would prefer that their movies be downloaded on something that is geared towards all sorts of media, and not just songs. |
quote |
Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Also, I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone has any good names in mind if Apple were to change the name of iTunes. iMedia is said a lot, but that sounds really Microsoftish. I totally agree that if iLife weren't taken already that that would be a kickass rename for iTunes. I also don't know about iHub (or just Hub)... lol. I also am starting to not like the "i" prefix that much. I would much rathercall them "Tunes" and "Calendar" and "Photos" etc. than have the prefix there. What does that mean anyway?
I would call the next iTunes something simple and made up (like iPod) so that it could be anything. |
quote |
9" monochrome
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
|
Quote:
As I said, I'm all for a name change - but this type of discussion doesn't seem to get much traction around here. See: here and here Maybe 10.5 will reveal something new along the lines of iPod/iPhone syncing? |
|
quote |
can't read sarcasm.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
quote |
Stallion
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
|
Bingo. Stupid name, but a well-known name.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the branding is so much more important than the function with this product. Especially since it's not a Mac-only product. If it was Mac-only it probably wouldn't matter as much because Mac users are a bit more involved in Apple products. But because it's a Windows product as well, the stong branding they've acheived is an asset they need to continue to hold on to. And despite the whole movies thing, it's still basically a music player anyway. And if Steve Jobs was a perfectionist in terms of making sure the product name described the product perfectly, why would he have named an 'internet communicator' and an iPod "iPhone"??? Phone is only one of 3 core product functions! (personally I don't like the name iPhone at all) |
||
quote |
Formerly “Oyarses”
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
I also don't like the name iPhone at all, and I think it was extremely poorly chosen. I also think that Apple is going insane with all the "i" prefixes. I don't know how you feel about them, but I get a sense of weakness when I hear i-something. I'd rather call the computer just a Mac or a Macintosh. I mean, the did replace the iBook with the MacBook, and I personally like the latter name a lot more. What is the "i" anyway? I heard it was originally just for the iMac since it was so easy to connect to the internet.
Also, what do you guys think about the CD in the icon? Don't you think Apple would want to discourage the idea of using CDs since they sell digital downloads? CDs are on their way out. I admit they aren't quite obsolete yet, but when iTunes offers Apple Lossless downloads (and, of course, DRM-free lol. jk) then they will be almost pointless to own, right? |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
|
Quote:
Let's take a look what each alternative would imply: iPod phone, phone iPod - it's basically an iPod, but with a phone. This is true, but it sounds like the phone functions are very basic. *Moreover, it doesn't seem like something a phone company may sell.* Apple Phone - it's a phone from Apple. Everyone knows what a phone is - this one is from Apple. Point. MacPhone - it's a computer phone. A really smart phone. A very small laptop. Now the "i"-prefix, that makes you a little sick, *does* communicate some aspects that the other options don't. The iPod and iMac are both famous Apple products that pretty much re-defined their product categories. "i" still stands for personal, and/or internet related. The message the little letter tells, took nearly all of Jobs' keynote. Well chosen brand names automatically claim a certain territory in your mind. They do that either tastefully or not, but you can better have an ugly name that says the right thing, than a great name which says things you don't want to say. Plus, and this is very important, right because of the "i", it can hardly become a categorical term, like "walkman" has. People could tell eachother they bought a walkman from Philips, but consumers will hardly ever call a Philips MP3 player an iPod, because despite iPaq and the likes, the "i" is rather specifically associated with Apple products. I think "iPhone" is not especially beautiful, let alone surprising, but *very* functional. I definitely think for Apple it's worth the trouble with Cisco (don't forget that if they win this case, they'll have finished that off for years to come - I think it's actually so important that Apple is in a negotiating position that is untypically bad for them). Update: I read this, and now I suppose that an outcome could be that iPhone is considered a generic product description. After all, Apple already argued that apart from Cisco and themselves, there are several similar products on the market called "iPhone", being not more different from Cisco's iPhone than Apple's. In that case, Apple could market their phone as "Apple iPhone" (" iPhone", like TV?), while Cisco offers a Cisco iPhone. Last edited by Doxxic : 2007-01-24 at 15:03. |
|
quote |
Senior Member
|
There is no way they are going to change the name. Yes the iPod, and iPhone are do more than play music. But, when you think of the Nano Shuffle and iPod you still think of music. Apple has spent a lot of money and effort branding itunes as the do all great media program, but it keeps it past of just music. If they changed the name they would have to spend more money trying to drive a new name into the brains of the consumer. It would be mildly comparable to the change between PowerBook and iBook to MacBook and MacBook Pro. The change of name took a bit of time for people to get used tot he new name, I still find myself calling my MacBook Pro a PowerBook. But that name change was in reaction to a major change in product. Because of there branding of the itunes and ipod link i would say that the safer bet is that they would not change the name of the lovely iTunes.
|
quote |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
Just make it iTune, as in 'I tune my receiver to watch videos / listen to music etc.' ... Ehh.. Nevermind
|
quote |
Senior Member
|
Just leave it as is.
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Solution found for sharing iTunes between user accounts! | torifile | Genius Bar | 5 | 2006-10-02 08:06 |
iTunes response INCREDIBLY slow since library transfer to Mac | LenrdZelig | Genius Bar | 12 | 2006-09-16 14:22 |
Disturbing Truth About Apple, iPods and iTunes | canyouhearmenow | Apple Products | 68 | 2006-05-02 17:43 |
iTunes Mini Store Privacy Debacle: Apple's solution | chucker | Apple Products | 10 | 2006-01-18 11:53 |
iTunes won't change Info | Phoenix | Genius Bar | 6 | 2005-03-11 16:21 |