Confusing gadget names
They should have a simple, marketable name for consumers.
Some tech companies have a knack for creating confusing and complicated names for their products. Television manufacturers are the worst with their model names consisting of seemingly random letters and numbers.
Each TV manufacturer uses a slightly different methodology for its names. About the only number you’ll recognise in the model name is the screen size, such as 40, 49, 55 or 65. The rest are internal codes to designate a year or feature.
To make it harder, some TVs have different models numbers for different countries which makes it tricky when trying to find reviews online.
This naming convention also makes shopping for a television difficult as it’s hard to remember the models you like when comparing different products or asking shop staff for advice.
However, smartphones, laptops and cameras can also have baffling names.
Canon has used three different naming conventions for the same camera. The Canon EOS 450D was called the EOS Rebel XSi in North America and EOS Kiss X2 in Japan.
Laptops are nearly as bad as televisions with unassuming model names. I can understand internally companies need detailed model numbers, but they should have a simple, marketable name for consumers.
Research shows consumers identify with names rather than numbers. This has been shown with car models, which can have eclectic names that are designed to lure buyers. But names didn’t help Ausus. It released the both the FonePad (a 7-inch tablet that also doubles as a phone) and the PadFone (a 5-inch smartphone that becomes a tablet). Neither model sold well.
Even Apple, which is proud of its simplicity, gets criticised. The iPad was mocked when its name was released and everyone is still slightly confused why Apple skipped the iPhone 7s and went straight to iPhone 8 instead of following its traditional naming pattern.
While all of these companies probably have their reasons for creating confusing names, it makes it hard for consumers.
Navigating all the jargon, technical acronyms and specifications are tricky enough, we don’t need complex names too.