14 DAY TRIAL // Former Apple ad guy Ken Segall reckons the company should think twice before releasing a third S-branded incremental version of the iPhone. Why? Because it sends a weak message allowing nay-sayers to dismiss it as incremental (in short, DOA, or dead-on-arrival).
Segall has worked on Steve Jobs’ creative team for over a decade. So when the guy makes a blog entry headlined "iPhone naming: when simple gets complicated," you feel compelled to see what he has to say in the paragraphs below.
In a recent post Segall appropriately points out that “tacking an S onto the existing model number sends a rather weak message. It says that this is our ‘off-year’ product, with only modest improvements.”
While Apple fanatics will feel the urge to dismiss anything negative about the Cupertino behemoth, those who track the company’s every move will resonate with this thinking.
“If holding off on the big number change achieved some great result, I might think otherwise. But look what happened with iPhone 5,” Segall writes.
He elaborates that “The simplest path is to give each new iPhone a new number and let the improvements speak for themselves,” which does make sense, especially when Apple’s "S" moniker has become predictable enough to be a negative influence on sales.
“If anyone wants to say that the 7 isn’t as big a leap as the 6, that’s their business. Attempting to calibrate ‘degree of innovation’ in the product name seems like a needless (and self-diminishing) exercise,” Segall explains.
The author of Insanely Simple provides a pertinent example, saying “I think it’s safe to say that if you’re looking for a new car, you’re looking for a 2013 model — not a 2012S. What’s important is that you get the latest and greatest.”
He concludes advocating for the iPhone 6 moniker this year, noting that “If it’s worthy of being a new model, it’s worthy of having its own number.”