I have always been a proponent of a single conceptual design thread being run through an entire brand or project.  But… not if it carries the brand into questionable territory.  Adherence to conceptual thread or not, to every rule there is an exception.  Apple has had a phenomenal run with its ‘i’ line of products.  Starting with the iMac, the introduction of the iPod made the lowercase ‘i’ at the beginning of a word an ubiquitous and immediate identifier as an Apple product.  The release of the iPhone only further spread the ‘i’ dominance.  Using the pre-fixed ‘i’ effectively claimed the word it was attached to for Apple.  And somehow signaled its ‘better-ness’.  It isn’t just a phone, it’s an ‘i’Phone.  It isn’t just a pod, it’s an ‘i’Pod.  Uh… what’s a ‘pod’?

I’ll return to that in a moment.  But the initial point is that the ‘i’ branding strategy worked (and is working) tremendously well.  The problem comes when prior success has so intoxicated a brand that it becomes blind to pitfalls in the direction that it’s own brand identity is taking it.  This is where the new iPad comes into play.  Was Apple such a slave to its line of ‘i’ products, especially the run of ‘i’ followed by a ‘P’ products, that it felt compelled to name it’s newest product ‘iPad’?  Regardless of the potential for ironic connection to feminine hygiene products?  Did Apple think that the public so expected a product with a name that started with an ‘iP’ that it would overlook such an awkward association?  It looks as though the verdict is in on that one.  Over three years ago.  And… why ‘iPad’?  Does it come with an ‘iPen’ to write on it with?  Or will that be sold seperately when iPad 2.0 is released?

I think the ‘iPad’ name is a blunder.  I am certain that it is a ground breaking product.  Jobs usually makes sure that Apple products are (though it seems kinda like a super-sized iPhone…).  And I am sure that the brand will persevere through any embarrassing associations, word-plays or parodies.  But it seems as though the naming of their new tablet device betrays a slight lack of critical thinking.  Maybe an overly robust sense of self-assurance?  There’s nothing like a long string of successes to make one soft. 

Apple obviously knew that there were ‘iPad’ jokes out there already.  Why did they go ahead with it anyway?  They could have easily used another name.  Or made up a new word.  And this is where my comment about the iPod comes in.  There was no ‘pod’ in wide public use before Apple came out with the ‘iPod’.  They essentially made up the name.  So why not do it again instead of stubbornly sticking with a word that so easily leads to blush-inducing jokes?

iPak, iPlot, iPiece, iPort, iPaper, iPlume… to name but a few.  Or, why only use the Macintosh as an apple reference?  Why not use another apple variety to name this product?  Such as iPilot, iPixie, iPorter or iPomme?  There are also many apple names that begin with letters other than ‘P’ that could be explored.   I could go on… 

My point is that I think choosing the name ‘iPad’ was too easy.  And too fraught with awkwardness.  If they had put their thinking iCaps on I bet Apple could have come up with a much better name.  And avoided the weirdness.  I guess even an A+ brand like Apple can’t get everything right all the time.  Not to mention, now that I look at the images of the iPad, that the black border around the screen is awfully wide.  Or that there’s no camera.  Or that it doesn’t support Flash.  (BTW – why would Apple worry about keeping the price at $500?  To compete with netbooks?  Please.  Wasn’t the first iPhone priced at $499 or something crazy like that?  The zombies still lined up.  Is this rush to market at a low price cap a sign of Apple weakness?)  Maybe I’ll wait until the second or third version of the iPad before I rush out and buy one.  Besides… Apple has to work out the issue of AT&T’s pathetic coverage, even in New York City, before I am going to sign onto another contract for another device.  Or they will loose me to Verizon.  And Google.