An iPhone by any other name, redux
posted in Strategy |A couple of weeks ago, I posted a poll asking what Apple would call its long-rumored mobile phone, since Cisco used the iPhone trademark it owned for Linksys-branded VOIP devices. Macworld’s Jason Snell speculates on what Apple might call its phone, and the iTV, which is a code-name for the device and also a trademark owned by another company.
I agree with Jason that it makes sense for Apple to leverage the iPod franchise in naming a mobile phone. But I also think there is reason for Apple to leverage the Mac brand and what I expect to be strong connectivity between the two devices, and the likely capability of the phone to be an extension of the desktop. iPod is a sub-brand to Apple, and iPod already has a collection of sub-brands of its own (Mini, Nano, and Shuffle). There appear to be two options for nomenclature if Apple chooses to leverage the iPod brand: create one or more new sub-brands like Nano and Shuffle, or simply make voice a feature of the iPod and appending the existing sub-brands (e.g., Nano with Voice).
Neither of these is very appealing from a marketing standpoint. Though the iPod brand family has grown, it still is a rather simple product array. There are only three iPods (iPod, iPod Nano, and iPod Shuffle), with options under each such as capacity and color. Certainly, Apple could create only a fourth product in the array–such as the iPod Vox–and offer options within this sub-brand, like color and capacity. This might work. iPod Vox has the simplicity and sex-appeal that Apple seems to crave, it leverages the iPod franchise, and it keeps the product array simple, albeit growing it from three to four.
But the fundamental issue with this approach, and the alternative of appending existing sub-brands with a phrase like “with voice” is where I disagree with Jason’s reasoning. The iPod is first and foremost a music device. Thought it plays videos, connects to your sneakers, stores your phone numbers, and serves as a video game platform (among other things), the iPod is about music; all the other features are extras meant to advance the product line and position it against the competition. (This may change over the next three or so years, as video takes an increasingly prominent role in iPod development and user behavior).
For a phone to be successful, it must first and foremost be a communications device. It’s iPod-like and other features must be extras meant to enhance the user experience and distinguish the device from the competition. If Apple’s new phone can’t do for communications what the iPod did for digital music, it won’t get anywhere near the adoption it could, and won’t have the staying power that the iPod has exhibited over its five years. Make no mistake, iTunes connectivity will be a key selling point of the device, and its iPod pedigree will be a key selling point of the device. But voice or other communications will not be an after-thought to music.
The new Apple phone will likely be introduced with a few key strategic requirements. First, the user experience for common phone functions like placing/receiving calls, text messaging and picture messaging, will be the simplest there is. This alone is an incredible design challenge: the iPod hardly attempts to solve input (typing text, dialing numbers, etc.), which is a key requirement of a phone. Second, the phone will leapfrog the competition in some areas of communications, such as an iChat AV mobile that enables video conferencing and messaging, as well as backdrops and effects like in Leopard’s iChat. Third, the device will seamlessly connect with the desktop (Mac or PC, with extra features for the Mac), furthering Apple’s digital hub strategy. And fourth, iPod capabilities will indeed be a big piece of the puzzle.
So music, while one of four pillars of the new Apple phone’s capabilities, is not it’s greatest priority. Labeling the device as an iPod would suggest otherwise. Instead, I expect Apple to market its new phone in the same way it launched the latest form factor of the iMac, a product with strong design similarities: “like the iPod, you’ll love the iMac.” The new phone will clearly be a cousin of the iPod, and Apple will work hard–probably too hard–to make this known, especially initially. But it will also have its own identity. What will this new identity be? Who knows. Perhaps iChat will be extended to include the devices, or Apple will conjure a new name like iVox or iTalk. Or maybe they’ll go in another direction altogether and give the phone a completely unexpected name like LG did with Chocolate.
I still think its possible that we’ll see a new Apple Wireless moniker to cover every wireless and related product Apple offers, including the forthcoming phone. I also think its possible that we’ll see a single sub-brand to Apple with its own sub-brands (like Apple > iPod > Nano), or a wide variety of sub-brands directly to Apple for different phone models (like Apple > xPhone). But I think it would be a big mistake to make the phone a sub-brand to the iPod, unless Apple has really low ambitions for its phone, which I doubt. Expect to see, at Macworld or later in 2007, an Apple-branded phone with iPod-like capabilities. Just don’t expect to see an iPod with phone capabilities.
Other posts you might be interested in...