Lame Name Wars: is “iPhone” Really Worth Fighting Over?!

Cisco isn’t the only one who should be suing Apple for using the name, “iPhone.” Apple’s own shareholders should be as well. Apple is one of the world’s most famously creative companies; it is just impossible to believe that “iPhone” was the best they could come up with.

——-

Dear Mr. Jobs,

I retired 2 years ago at the age of 43 to spend more time with my wife and children, and to pursue some other goals. However, because we have 9 Windows PCs in our home — I’m not as retired as I hoped I would be.

Consequently, this last Christmas I became a first time Mac owner when I bought a 15 inch MacBook Pro for my wife, and a 17 inch MacBook Pro for me. As a former IBMer and hardcore IT guy, I thought the transition and integration of our new Macs would be at least a little bit hard, but it has been a blast. In fact, we are so impressed that we’ve decided to move our PCs out and replace them with Macs. Incidentally, I also bought 8 new iPods as “stocking stuffers” for the family and they were more excited about the iPods than their other gifts which cost much more.

At any rate, like the rest of the world (who doesn’t work for Motorola, Microsoft, or T-Mobile), I am excited about Apple’s latest product announcements. However, one thing disappointed me about the iPhone announcement: its name. In fact, I think the world was surprised by it.

Apple is one of the world’s most famously creative companies, and it is just impossible to believe that “iPhone” is the best you could come up with. Not only is it not really that good of a name, it isn’t even original.

In fact, Cisco isn’t the only one who should be suing Apple for using the name iPhone, Apple’s own shareholders should be as well.

As a former marketing major and a former CEO of a small company, I get why iPhone has some appeal to Apple. However, while this product name may fit an overall branding strategy, this product name doesn’t even fit the product! After all, it isn’t just a phone, is it?

Apple, of all companies, should be able to rise to the challenge of coming up with something great and original — it’s what you guys do!

And frankly, it is what we expect.

To get the ball rolling, here are some ideas I thought up this morning.

If you are wanting to stick to the strategy of product names beginning with the letter “i” then how ’bout:

iQuad – it’s a phone, a PDA, an Internet device and an iPod … that’s 4.
iPad
iPaw
iPal
iSay
iNewton

On the other hand, it may be better for Apple to continue with the secondary branding you have already started with products like the iPod Nano and the iPod Shuffle, and go with a name such as:

the iPod Quad
the iPod Pad
the iPod Phone
the iPod Newton

As you can tell, I like the idea of bringing back the Newton. The Newton was a device ahead of its time and it would be nice for it to take a bow now that its time has come.

Anyway, please think about it.

Most of us, if not all, would much rather see Apple resolve the iPhone name dispute with its creativity, rather than its legal department. The latter is just too Redmondian a business tactic.

Cheers,
Tom Pittman

The Myth of the Fourth Screen

Someone somewhere sometime said, (and a lot of people have said it since), that

1. The first screen was the movie screen,
2. The second screen was the television screen,
3. The third screen was the computer screen, and
4. The fourth screen belongs to portable digital devices such as telephones, PDAs and cameras.

Consequently, portable electronic devices are sometimes referred to as the “fourth screen.”

That sounded good to me, then I figured out that the emergence of screens might not have been so straight forward.

According to Wikipedia articles, the movie screen was born in the 1880s. However, “the origins of what would become today’s television system can be traced back to” 1873. Apparently, the television predates movies. Of course television wasn’t any kind of a commercial enterprise in 1873; if it were, then Regis Philbin would have been famous much sooner.

Meanwhile computer screens were in use pretty much parallel with television screens, it’s just that television screens were prominently placed in front of families in their homes, while the computers of the day (and their operators) were kept in back rooms well out of sight of mainstream modern culture. It wasn’t until computers started coming out of the closet (so to speak) that the public at large began to recognize the computer component of the screen age.

I could muddy murky waters more merely mentioning that the fourth screen could arguably be considered the first! Models of Kodak’s Box Brownie camera, as well as other early cameras, had viewer screens roughly the size of the screens of early digital cameras.

So let’s recap:

• The “first screen” could have actually been the fourth,
• The “second screen” probably tied with the third,
• The “third screen” was tied with the second but people didn’t know it, and
• The “fourth screen” was probably the first.

Is everyone clear on that now?

At any rate, whatever the order of the screens, welcome to the SCREEN AGE.

Speaking of the screen age, when are airlines going to get with the program and replace those “No Smoking” icons in airplanes with icons indicating it is not a time to be using the  electronic devices we’ve brought on board with us?

Cheers!

Hey, Whiners: Crying is not Passion!

After the Pistons’ loss to Utah, Saunders paraded his ineptitude before the press as he whined about technical fouls.

“My comment is that we might as well play ‘PlayStation’ if we are going to take the emotion out of it,” Saunders said.

Boo hoo. Could someone bring poor Flip a clean diaper?

Anyone who says T-ing up crybabies is taking the passion out of basketball needs to quit embarrassing himself and watch more college basketball — especially in March. Do those teams (whose league doesn’t tolerate whining) seem to lack passion?

Because I like the Pistons, I was pulling for Flip Saunders as their coach, but now I think I understand why the Minnesota Timberwolves choked in every playoffs but one when he coached them. I used to think that Kevin Garnett didn’t have the right players around him, but now I wonder if it isn’t because Flip Saunders lacks championship mettle.

As we all know (I hope), coaching plays a far bigger role in the playoffs than the regular season. Because a team plays the same team several times in a row in the playoffs, there is very in depth analysis and adjustments that need to be made to get by a team.

It takes much more than a good game plan to win though, it takes execution. And execution requires focus (through distraction) and mental toughness (through adversity), and clearly Flip Saunders and too many other NBA professionals have neither.

Thanks to our 65″ high definition television, the multiple angles the TV broadcasts often gives us, and a DVR that lets me skip back and step forward at excruciatingly slow motion, I can say with confidence that the refs certainly do miss calls, but they don’t miss as nearly many calls as get complained about by NBA players and coaches. Time after time reviews show coaches and players complaining about the right call.

However, speaking of the big picture, it doesn’t matter if a call was right or wrong though.

Those of us without multimillion dollar shoe deals have been taught by life that it isn’t always fair. When injustices happen, and they always will, the winners in life shake it off and persevere despite the setback, while the losers wear their excuses like bumper stickers on a totaled, junk yard Lexus.

Once upon a time people used to joke that the NBA stood for “No Babies Allowed.” Now it must stand for “Nancy Boy Actors.” And overpaid ones at that. These guys are far too used to the delicate handling society gives celebrities, to the point that they demand it on the hardwood as well. This disconnection with the real world is embarrassing them and the league.

The NBA’s crackdown on crybabies is LOOOONG overdue. Just like the hand checking rule when it was new, the teams that care most about winning will quickly adjust, while the others just end up showing the world their lack of championship mojo by resisting the new reality.

BYU, is it enough?

My family and I are brand new to Utah. We moved to Orem from Alaska to be near our daughter at Brigham Young University, and because our younger children all want to go to BYU. We love this school and everything it stands for. As new residents, we barely know a handful of people here in Orem. On the other hand, I have no doubts that two well established, prominent men such as Dr. Ned Hill and Dr. Steve Albrecht have a lot of friends and supporters here, so I’m bracing myself for a negative response to this, nevertheless, I feel like someone has to say it: BYU needs to discipline Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht for their indiscretion.

To my knowledge, I have never met Ned Hill or Steve Albrecht. Dr. Albrecht was one of the authors of my accounting textbooks, and I read his book, Money Wise, when I was in my young 20’s and really enjoyed it. To me, they both seem to be outstanding men who I know I would very much enjoy knowing. Nevertheless, by all appearances, BYU seems oblivious to how egregious it was for Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht to use University resources to send a political advocacy email, and how these kinds of things may be perceived by people outside of Utah, and outside of our faith.

Here is where I am coming from.

I personally know two state workers in Alaska who were forced to resign over similar circumstances. They were the nicest of people, but one used her work computer’s hard drive to store non-work files, and the other used a photocopier to make non-work-related copies. I know that kind of thing happens in offices all the time, but when dealing with the public’s trust, you need to be on a strait and narrow path, you know, the one with few on it. The path with everyone on it leads to destruction, and BYU of all schools should understand this.

Likewise, the Anchorage Daily News recently reported the story of Randy Ruedrich, a prominent Republican and an Alaska state worker who used state resources to send political advocacy emails. In the end, he was forced to resign, pay a $12,000 fine and admit to wrong doing.

In other words, those of us who are not from this area are accustomed to seeing these kinds of issues dealt with in a manner far different from the actions BYU has taken. I am concerned that BYU doesn’t see this infraction in the same light as others may, and that this disparity may lead BYU to further embarrassment.

To be clear, I definitely do NOT feel Ned Hill and Steve Albrecht should be asked to resign.

However, the lack of any disciplinary action communicates that, in the University’s opinion, nothing too wrong has happened, and that isn’t how many people who aren’t from this area and don’t personally know these two men see this.

There is buzz on the Internet about how BYU’s political neutrality tilts to the right.  If BYU professors have controversial yet legal theories which cast doubt on a Republican administration, they are pressured to retire, but if they break actual laws to promote a Republican, they don’t even get slapped on the wrist. That is utter nonsense and the kind of blatant manipulation the Church often suffers, — but unfortunately a lot of people can’t see that, and they certainly can’t see that BYU is doing anything that indicates it actually disapproves of the political advocacy emails.

It’s not enough to keep publicizing a position of political neutrality when there is a well publicized action out there undercutting the effectiveness of that message, “… for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words” (Alma 39:11).

After all, it was Texan Alan Gluth who brought the matter of Hill and Albrecht’s email to the attention of BYU; BYU didn’t catch it on its own. And rest assured Mr. Gluth is not the only Texan who sees it as an ethics violation — most Texans would, as would most people in Alaska, Massachusetts, and the rest of the country, including those sitting in IRS offices.

Speaking of Alan Gluth, he was being generous when he wrote that Hill and Albrecht’s e-mail was probably sent innocently. Everyone knows (or at least hopes) that part of their job is to know ethics. And with annual reminders over the pulpit that church resources are not to be used for political purposes, it is too much of a stretch to believe that Hill and Albrecht missed that message. In other words, most of us believe they knew better.

Look at it this way: if the NCAA oversaw business schools as it does athletic programs, you know BYU would be disciplined for these violations. Shouldn’t BYU’s standards be at least as high as the NCAAs?

As a father of six teenagers, I am well aware of the sacrifices people make to send their children to BYU. As a young LDS missionary and many times since, I have observed first hand the great sacrifices made by many destitute yet faithful people to contribute funds to the Church. What a slap in the face it would be then if the careless actions of two comparatively affluent men jeopardized the University’s tax exempt status, and the University didn’t take substantive measures address it.

No one wants to see two really great guys disciplined, including me, but it’s not just about them. Their misstep cast a shadow on Mitt Romney, the LDS Church, BYU, and because of the name of our business school, maybe even the poor Marriott Corporation.

As you know, BYU’s media coverage has been unusually controversial lately, and more importantly, the controversy hasn’t been about athletics or students, it has been about BYU professors!  Same sex marriage opinions, World Trade Center theories, billion dollar law suits and now the newly alleged national covert political network of Mormons probably has people wondering about us. Why leave them wondering why BYU hasn’t disciplined Hill and Albrecht when it is generally the practice to do so in cases such as this? 

Seeing how similar matters have been handled by other organizations, what would YOU think if you were looking at BYU from the outside?  Would you wonder if perhaps BYU has a culture of casual ethics which created a climate where Hill and Albrecht thought it would be okay to use tax exempt resources for political advocacy, and now that lax atmosphere is letting these risky and inappropriate acts off easy?

In another story, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the LDS church is taking “corrective action” against a church employee for using Church resources to forward a pro-Romney article. This wasn’t a person of tremendous influence using Church resources to endorse a candidate, he didn’t try to organize Latter-day Saints into a nationwide political force, he didn’t even write the article! He just forwarded it, and the Church is taking action.

BYU, why aren’t you doing the same?

Pertinent Links:

LDS Offcials distance Church from Romney, Deseret News, Tuesday October 24, 2006 by Stephen Speckman.

Call to back Romney raises a legal red flag, Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Thomas Burr

LDS Church acts against employee who used his church e-mail account, Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Thomas Burr

Celebrity death match: Steve Irwin vs. Germaine Greer

“Maybe there are a lot of snobs in Australia who are embarrassed by Steve Irwin, but I guarantee you, right now there are a lot of feminists the world over who are embarrassed by Germaine Greer. At least I hope so.”

For an alleged intellectual and supposed academic, Germaine Greer isn’t very smart.

If you don’t know who Germaine Greer is, you are by no means alone — I didn’t until I read about her today. Ms. Greer’s claim to fame is as the author of the feminist book, “The Female Eunuch.”

According to CNN, Ms. Greer went on Australian TV’s “A Current Affair” news program, and said that those who mourn “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin’s passing are “idiots,” and she said possibly millions of Australians were embarrassed by him.

“It’s no surprise he came to grief,” she crowed.

When it comes to Steve Irwin, I’m indifferent. I’ve never watched a television show of his and I never saw his movie. I did think he was interesting when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I do know that my children and their friends loved to do impersonations of him, and he seemed to have a very charismatic personality. And from what I read, he has done a lot both for animals and for how people think of animals.

I realize the world lost a celebrity of worldwide renown, but to me the loss of a father to a young family is the greater tragedy.

Regardless of how you feel about Steve Irwin though, if a mature human being like Germaine Greer can’t act mature about his passing, she could at least act human!

Maybe there are a lot of snobs in Australia who are embarrassed by Steve Irwin, but I guarantee you, right now there are a lot of feminists the world over who are embarrassed by Germaine Greer. At least I hope so.

By all appearances, Germaine Greer is a bitter, elitist old lady who is as much without heart as she is common sense.

When Germaine Greer’s time comes, she’ll likely go choking on a rogue crumpet at an tea party. And ironically, when that day comes, and I’m sure she’ll hate this, she’s more likely be remembered as the lady who was bitter about Steve Irwin’s fame, than she is to be remembered for any fame she may have otherwise acquired.

The Governor of AncMatSu, Alaskette

(From Blog907.net)

 

The great philosopher, Anonymous, once said, “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.” If we who live in the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough aren’t careful, we could easily harm Alaska overall by thinking only of ourselves.

The Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday that Sarah Palin will seek the Republican nomination for governor of Alaska in 2006.

There is an old saying about not biting the hand that feeds you.

A person who plans to pursue politics as a profession pretty much needs the backing of one of the two major political parties to pull it off. Although there are 57 political parties in America at last count, of the 50 state governors in place today, 22 are Democrats and 28 are Republicans. For those of us who weren’t math majors, that’s all 50 states.

So unless you are willing to gain fortune and name recognition by dressing in speed-os and pretending to wrestle grown men (like Jesse Ventura did), you really had better be in good standing with either the Republican or the Democratic parties.

That being the case, I admire Sarah Palin for her courage to publicly stand against the ethical abuses of Republican Party of Alaska Chairman Randy Ruedrich, and former state Attorney General Gregg Renkes. [Stay tuned for a blog entry on how the Republican Party of Alaska has lost its soul -- and my membership.]

I like Sarah a lot. But I don’t know that I would vote for her.

Sarah Palin supports moving the legislature to Anchorage from Juneau — at least part time. While that probably draws applause in Anchorage and the Matsu Borough, “AncMatSu,” it draws groans from the rest of Alaska. There is something a large number of the residents of AncMatSu just doesn’t get yet.

In a poignant scene in the movie, Gandhi, Gandhi tells India’s political heavyweights that they gather and make passionate speeches, but the speeches are for themselves; the whole of India is largely unaffected. Gandhi then points out that India isn’t the concentration of people in New Delhi or Bombay, it is a huge, wondrous, vast country and all its inhabitants.

Likewise, Alaska is not the concentration of people in Anchorage or the Matsu Valley.

A Tlingit Elder once told me, “Anchorage is not Alaska. Anchorage is a nest of lower 48ers who come to Alaska but want to make it look, smell and feel like where they came from.”

That is probably true. If Anchorage is all you have seen of Alaska, then chances are you have seen more of McDonalds, Fred Meyer, Costco, Walmart, Taco Bell, Nordstrom’s, REI, ski resorts and hotel chains than you have the things that Alaska is famous for. Like most Anchoragans, even most of the Alaska souvenirs that you can buy in Anchorage are imports.

Anchorage is 1,956 sq. miles (Portage to Eklutna). The Matsu Borough is 25,000 square miles. Combined, that puts the size of AncMatSu at 26,956 square miles. Alaska is 656,425 square miles in size, meaning AncMatSu is just 4 percent of Alaska. Four percent!

The problem is, this 4 percent area plainly wants to dominate the political machines of the state so as to further benefit this more populated Alaskette, even if it comes at the expense of sparsely populated Alaska.

About 331,000 of Alaska’s 655,435 people, or 50.5 percent of the people of Alaska, live in the 4 percent area of AncMatSu, Alaskette. I am one of them. I live over 10 miles out of downtown Eagle River, next to the Eagle River Nature Center. My nearest neighbor, if we don’t count the near daily moose and occasional bears we see out our windows, is acres from me. And like many AncMatSuians, while my freezer may be full of fish, my cupboards are bursting with oversized packages from Sam’s Club and Costco. And yes, my trash contains an occasional sack from McDonalds or Taco Bell.

The great philosopher, Anonymous, once said, “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.” If we who live in the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough aren’t careful, we could easily harm Alaska overall by thinking only of ourselves.

Politically speaking, the majority in AncMatSu is so powerful that if it doesn’t want something to happen, no matter how good it is for someplace else in the state, it just isn’t going to happen. However, for AncMatSu to tell Bethel how their area should be run is exactly akin to Los Angeles telling Anchorage how it should be run. Communities outside AncMatSu are different groups of people with starkly different needs, and we shouldn’t be able to bully anyone in Alaska just because we are bigger than they are.

Because of the tremendous population distribution disparity in this state, if the right thing for Alaska is to ever get done, it is going to take a lot of us who live in AncMatSu to put the interests of the state as a whole ahead of our personal or local interests. We need to acknowledge that we are our brothers’ keeper.

Economically speaking, Juneau is to Southeast Alaska as Anchorage is to Southcentral Alaska. And just as Anchorage is the transportation hub for most of Alaska, Juneau is the transportation hub for Southeast Alaska. Juneau, and all of Southeast Alaska, needs to keep the center of state government to keep that area economically sound.

Which brings me to the real reason to move the capital.

For all the academic and philosophical arguments for moving the capital, the practical reality is that AncMatSu gets plenty from the Alaska’s political system, even though the capital is in far away Juneau.

The truth is, AncMatSu land and business owners stand to benefit immeasurably more by a capital move than the typical Alaskan citizen would. Capital move proponents are pirates, flying the innocent flag of government access over a vessel full of drooling businessmen dreaming of the treasures they might loot from their brothers to the southeast. Moving the capital will without question devastate economies in Southeast Alaska.

Does it make sense to harm a large part of Alaska in order to benefit a part of Alaska that is already doing better than any other part of the state?

Only greed could make a person answer yes.

While moving legislative sessions from Juneau to Anchorage might be good for the concentration of people who live in AncMatSu, Alaskette, it absolutely would be bad for Alaska. The issue should be dropped once and for all and our attentions put to more worthwhile efforts.

India is not just New Delhi and Bombay. Alaska is not just Anchorage and the Matsu. Government is not just for the urbanites.

Sarah had the courage to put the interests of Alaska ahead of those of her political party. However, until Sarah does it again and puts the interests of all Alaska ahead of her local AncMatsu constituents, I’ll be holding out, hoping for a gubernatorial candidate for ALL Alaska.

On the other hand, I’d be thrilled if the Republican ethical champion, Sarah Palin, reconsidered her position on moving the legislature.