[Xaaron Swiftblade]

I like the idea of 'Q', the campaign could be something horrible like "Mind your "P"s and "Q"s!" But Q5 sounds kinda neat. They could do like Mac5, but people might confuse it with the razor
The 'power' should go, and I don't think they should bring in any other hype word like 'Extreme' or 'Next' or TO THE MAX! (MACS?)

[:XI:]

Xaaron:

Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
Images may be no larger than 140 pixels wide and 40 pixels tall.
Images are required to also be under 10KB, not animated, and non-offensive.

Yours is 327*96 and 20k. You don't want to get the Mods on your case.

[Pyrrhocorax]

G5 is neater, but might seem to indicate a continuation of the same processor architecture, 970 is more relevant to the chip, but it does sound a bit clunky, so I don't think either are too great, but G5 does sound better unless a new name comes out of the hat.

One thing that might be a good idea is to additionally market the series as Macintosh Workstations, which differentiates them from 'consumer' boxes and sets it out to be more in the same mould as Unix boxes and premium high-spec business PC's, which seems more appropriate to me anyway.

I think the differentiations such as 'AGP', Gigabit Ethernet, Mirrored Drive Doors etc, etc sound rather lame, it would be nice to see some proper model naming back.

Dave

[tsukurite]

Originally posted by steavey:
This is a straight forward branding dilemma. If Apple ditch the "Power Mac G5" name and use a different one, then most of the accumulated brand equities will be lost - Apple will have to re-invest resources in marketing campaign to bring up brand recognition & awareness level. The point is, unless the company is really in trouble, it should not drastically change its brand elements.

I'd have to agree with this. However, I think the Power Mac name could stand some modification with out gutting the brand equity. I think returning the full Macintosh name is good. Add in some indication that the innards of this thing are different from anything you've seen.

Power Macintosh 64

'Course, it doesn't have much pop to it.
But it could work.

Just my .02

-tsukurite

[mvjames]

As branding of Power and PowerMac would denote a 32bit processor, Macintosh64 G5/1.8GHz would make more sense. They could still use the same G4, G5, and G6 branding in the marketing and would not alienate and confuse the non-technical users.

The only thing that may not prompt its use is the closeness to Nintendo64.

[3R1C]

PowerMac Valkrie
PowerMac Thor
PowerMac Zeus

[mkincaid]

Originally posted by mnb:
I long for the days where each line had a name and each new model was named differently, making identification easy. You say Centris 650, everyone knows EXACTLY what you mean and why it's different than a QUADRA 650 (the later model).

Besides geeks, nobody really much cares about identifying particular machine hardware revs. It's far from enough to justify a change in branding strategy. (The problem with Centris 650 and Quadra 650, of course, is that nobody BESIDES geeks knows what's meant by that! Everyone who's ever walked by the window of an Apple Store has a general idea of the difference between "iMac/iBook" and "Power Mac/PowerBook".) Even in the geek world, it's usually more important/interesting to know about the components than the machine gestalt (which gives you more information, that I have a "Gigabit Ethernet Power Mac" or that it's a G4/Dual 450 with 60gb hard drive, etc?)

There will be no G5. It's a tired old name. They completely missed the boat on emphasizing the difference between the G3 and G4 (a G4 is a big improvement from a G3, but most non-geek potential Mac buyers I know think it's just another meaningless spec.) "Velocity Engine" could have been a much better selling point if they'd run with it, but instead it got left by the wayside. (Same for dual processors, for that matter.)

Definitely time for something new.

[Dave Hagan]

Do you guys realize that Apple has not put the name of the computer on the computer since the Power Mac G4 was intro'd?

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Dave Hagan:
Do you guys realize that Apple has not put the name of the computer on the computer since the Power Mac G4 was intro'd?

According to Macbidouille, the motherboard has the name of Mach 64. The commercial slogan is supposed to be 'With Mach 64 Technology'.

Power Mac With Mach 64 Technology?

hmmm, sounds weird.


villa

[Commodus]

Something tells me that Apple won't put the Mach 64 bit alongside the PowerMac name ("PowerMac Mach," now there's an awkward name), but there's the possibility that they'll try to give it a name that shares the theme.

System names that have crossed my mind are "Mac 64" and the simple "64-bit PowerMac." They'll probably try to push the 64-bit component as much as they can (even if the OS is 32-bit) and drive home the fact that someone running an Athlon XP or Pentium 4 is on 32-bit hardware.

[unsane1]

How about Macintosh Centris 970?

[mgl]

How about:

Phat Mac

[silvergun]

My guess is they will call the new macs.....(drum roll) T-Macs as T is short for tower. Alot of research went into my idea...no really.. Personally I think a T-Mac would sound cool and the ibooks, ipods and imacs will stay the same. Let's just wait and see...

[ralphh]

Originally posted by rmendis:
Although I voted PowerMac G5, Xstation sounds good

Perhaps an Xstation ought to either be a thin client for networked Macs. Or alternatively a hig powered workstation.

Though isn't that what the PowerMac is?

Sorry, Xstation sounds too much like someone crossed a Playstation with an Xbox...

[type_r503]

I8AP4.

[silvergun]

so stupid of its..its pretty obvious what they're gonna call it....think tower, think 64 bit, think apple.......yes they're gonna call it Sirald after my grand farther.....What a great old man..used to urinate himself and moan about the war..oh the good old days

[silvergun]

Every so often he sat me on his lap and fed me Worthers Originals

[jasong]

How about Macintosh Centris 970?

Damn, Unsane took my idea. I am waiting for my LC 970 to follow up my old LC III.

BTW, the Quadras were named that for a reason. They had the '040 chip in them. The LCs were "Low Cost" computers. It's not just the geeks who want an easy way to distinguish one Mac from another, people who have to support these machines want it as well. It took me about 30 minutes the other day to figure out what type of memory my PowerBook G4 takes.

-- Jason

[curan]

TowerMac? I like!

[t_hah]

Well...since it will have (we assume) a PPC 970 in it, can we call it:

MacAT

Macintosh Almost a Thousand?



t

[sambeau]

I'll take a wild guess and say that as the G4 is 4 bits wide and the new chip is 8 bits wide they'll use the 8.

M8
Mach 8

or

They'll rename them Mach and start from 1 again:

Mach 1

(allowing Mach2, Mach3 etc..)

[englabenny]

Like some have said, an X-name can be very cool if it is not sounding like xBox...
My vote goes to Macintosh X5 (with new design, in white)

[Tom Campbell]

I agree with someone above that they may consider a generational skip to G6 but they will probably come up with something cool for the 64 bit acknowledgment. Just nothing with X ... that is an overplayed marketing symbol. Oh and the good thing about doffernt product names is that you squeeze out potential mock names and jokes about your products. Isnt that why they dropped the whole multi colored apple logo?

[rambo47]

I think Apple will try to get away from the stink Motorola has left behind and we'll be done with the whole "G" thing. Apple has been mostly using the year of release to distinguish between models so I think it will be something like the PowerMac 970 2004.

[Cory Bauer]

My vote's for Powermac 970 for two reasons:

1. Continuing with the G# formula stinks of copycatting Intel's naming scheme (P2, P3, P4, and so on).

2. A 970 is a bigger number, and from a propaganda perspective "970 vs Pentium 4" gives the Powermac a distinct advantage just by reading the names It'll make an uneducated buyer think "wow, 970, that's a lot - it must be really fast!". It's sad but true that a lot of computer buyers still think this way, so Apple may as well use it to their advantage.

[Superchicken]

a 970 at 1.2ghz.... to many numbers

and if they dont' give the speed then people will assume it's a 970mhz machine... which three years ago might have sounded cool but... not now.

they might just market it as having an IBM PPC 970, or IBM might just come out with a new name... dout it though...

Either way just so long as it's not a G5. I think it would be smarter to just start a new naming scheme and either rename the G3s or just put low power 970s in the iMacs and iBooks... heck they could even do something like.

The F1 F2 and F3, F3 being a PPC 970 at speed X with a certain amount of cache on it, an F2 being either a G3 or a PPC 970 with less cache on a slower bus, and an F1 being those new chips IBM's developed for PDAs, considering Apple very well might come out with their take on a table fairly soon.

[pavo]

PowerMac X

ProMac X

Macintosh GX5

Macintosh GXPro

PowerMac^3 (cubed, in case they revive the cube for the 970!)

PowerMac Pro


hey, at least they're not all G5 Xmac, blah blah blah? anyone else willing to take a stab slightly off the beaten path?

[nek]

Originally posted by mnb:
Ever since Steve came back to Apple the Macs have had BORING names. As a matter of fact, users have to resort to stupid mechanisms to identify their mac, like MDD, or B&W or revB and the like.

I agree. Apple needs to find a better naming scheme. They should keep the Power Mac name, but use model names to with it. If they think it is OK to give major OS X releases names, then why can't they come up with good names for Power Mac revisions?

[silvergun]

1. t-mac (tower mac)
2. pro mac
3. apple powermax
4. apple iii
5. return of the mac
6. apple ii turbo
7. ted danson
8. apple matrix...yes i know it sounds rank
9. apple G4 Turbo
10. apple f-u-moto
11. apple champion edition'
12. I don't really care anymore mac

[Svenmagnus]

Originally posted by ralphh:
Sorry, Xstation sounds too much like someone crossed a Playstation with an Xbox...

I realized this after i already posted the poll. What was i thinking? Xstation? i should have known better.

[silvergun]

dunno if this is of any importance but ive heard the name mach 64 going around..maybe..?

[mfessenden]

Originally posted by steavey:
This is a straight forward branding dilemma. If Apple ditch the "Power Mac G5" name and use a different one, then most of the accumulated brand equities will be lost - Apple will have to re-invest resources in marketing campaign to bring up brand recognition & awareness level. The point is, unless the company is really in trouble, it should not drastically change its brand elements.

That's not a bad thing; the G4's are regarded as slower than Windows counterparts...hardly fitting for pro machines.

Apple's branding campaigns have never been predictable or boring...I doubt they'll want to keep the "G" moniker for these newer machines...look at the variances in past naming conventions, plus the current prefixing ("i","x" and "e") and come to your own conclusion.

[FB Eye]

My vote goes for ProMac 970...

They have the eMac for education, iMac for home users, then the next logical step is ProMac because they target, well, the professional market...

Simple AND logical

[Sealobo]

If the 970 is really gonna be closing the gap, or excel against the competitions, Apple will definitely ditch the G_ designation to emphasis the significancy.

I guess it will still be called the Powermac... just to be consistant along with the Powerbook line... with a completely new subfix. Maybe

Powermac Evolution 970

[DeathMan]

Maybe cash in on the nano-tech buzz (assuming they were going to get down the the .9 process) they could call it the Nano64

Nano sounds cool and technilogical and really advanced. Nano64, has a nice ring.

[rmendis]

A moniker i wonder why Apple never used is X1 and X2 or superscirpts (i.e exponents) to designate single and dual processor PowerMacs.

G5 x1
G5 x2

Or

G5
G5^2

Or just:

X1
X2
X4?

[MindFad]

I like just Power Mac 970

Or I970 (i970). Or Power Mac G5 -- I don't see how they should have to ditch the "G" thing.

[DrBoar]

I agree PowerMac 970 plain and simple.thumbsup:

The 970 will hopefully mean that Apple will dare to compare the CPU with other current CPUs, and not as now brag about the fact that two current G4 beats an almost 4 year old single G4....
http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

Tossing in the name IBM there just as they mention ATI and nVIDIA in other specifactions would be a good thing.

[Commodus]

ProMac is an interesting idea... simple, but differentiates itself from what has come before. Might get people on the "outside" thinking about Macs again.

[macmad]

I like ProMac too.
How about MacX80 (goto the Max?), to show its 64bit? (with or without the 'Power' or 'Pro' prefix). ProMacX80?
I think there's more to this naming thing than meets the eye!

[kisol007]

Since it hasn't been mentioned, what about the Power Mac i7 or i70. After all, that is how we got the "g" was because the chips were a 7xxx.

Just a thought.

[mo]

Power Mac Wankel Rotary, or Apple IIIGS. Either one.

[Simon]

Originally posted by kisol007:
Since it hasn't been mentioned, what about the Power Mac i7 or i70.

Sounds like Intel...

After all, that is how we got the "g" was because the chips were a 7xxx.

And I always thought the G came from generation...

[Gul Banana]

I'm hoping for "Ubermac".

[jcadam]

Originally posted by mac freak:
Power Mac G5 all the way!

"Xstation" is far too reminiscent of "Xbox" (as is any x-name). People have been hyped over the "G5" for years, give 'em what they want!

Hmm... Xstation.. sounds like... NEXTStation...
yea. You could also make a PPC 970 cube and call it a NEXT Cube.





Oh, wait a minute..........

[Commodus]

Something I've been thinking about today, and I'm sure that it's not a new thought, is that Apple in a post-G4 era will simply start naming the pro Macs with "X" followed by something that reflects their design. This would mean that the lineup would look like the following:

* Xbook (PowerBook)
* Xtower (PowerMac)
* Xserve

The other systems would retain their naming conventions (eMac, iBook, and so on). I think it could work: it would let Apple sound like they were revolutionizing their product line (which they would be, to a degree) and help to shake off the stigma that the PowerMac now has associated with it.

Speaking of revolutionizing, this PowerMac concept image from the SpyMac gallery seems interesting to me. Not especially likely (since Apple hasn't sent a cease-and-desist letter), but interesting.

[Eugene Fields]

Originally posted by Svenmagnus:
What do you think?

LOL The next PowerMac will Be Called iTunes5 lol

[Cadaver]

How about "PowerMac 64"?
...the new 1.8GHz PowerMacintosh 64.

Market the 64-bit-ness of it.

[Mark Tungston]

I think the "ASSMASTER" would be a great name!