Here’s a question for all your marketing types out there. Whey wasn’t iPhone called iPod phone?
When Apple released the first iPod, most people that it was a strange name at best. But iPod has the benefit of being a completely unattached name; it can mean almost anything.
And for a while it did. First Apple released iPod mini, using a second word to note the specific type of iPod it was.
Then came iPod nano, iPod shuffle and iPod classic.
When all the rumors about an iPod-based phone were swirling in late 2006, I thought for sure that Apple would simply call it iPod phone. It made sense to me. And would have easily worked around the initial naming rights they had with iPhone. But iPhone it was.
Then in fall of 2007, Apple released iPod touch. So other than iPhone, every iPod now consists of iPod followed by a short, lowercase description.
But having iPhone as a separate category makes it trickier for people to talk about. Most things an iPhone can do, an iPod touch can do. I think it makes things confusing and that’s just not like Apple.
Also, Apple has noted that there iPod revenue is dropping, but that is not entirely true. The iPod nano/shuffle/classic revenue is dropping, but the iPod touch revenue is strong.
Maybe iPhone needed it’s own distinct name because of how it is sold and how the revenue is accounted for (spread out over the life of the contract rather than at point of sale).
Maybe I’m just trying to apply logic where it doesn’t belong (marketing).
Or maybe it’s just What Steve Wanted.
Your thoughts?