Is it really that hard to make consistant product names?

#1

I am aware that this has been talked about before, but I want to go into more detail, and length. If an admin or mod decides to merge them, then so be it, but I believe this is a distinctly broader topic, and about more than just Anker product names.

To be clear, I am NOT hating, bashing or hitting on anyone for the problem I am talking about below. I am simply talking about how frustrating it is.

Just about every single company does this. It isn’t just Anker. I’m going to talk about Apple first, before I get into Anker. Apple is literally the most prominent tech brand in the world, and they cant seem to name their products in a coherent way. First, we had the 2g, which was weird, but at least they made it consistent with the 3g. Then, they decided to clean it up, and make the 4. :clap: Then, they made the 4s. What the why? what is the purpose of putting an S after it? Then they made the 5 and 5c at the same time. Same problem. What the why? Then, the 6, 6s, 7, hey it’s consistent now, right? Wrong. They then made the 8, and X, which is actually 10 the roman numeral? Now I’m just mad. This is so stupid. Finally, the last straw was when they made an iPhone that had a roman numeral and a letter in the same name. I’m done. I’m actually done. Anyway, Apple rant over, let’s talk about Anker.

The PowerCore line actually does a pretty good job of consistent naming, with the format being PowerCore < marketing term > < capacity >mAH. Just from looking at the page though, there are 2 inconsistencies. Where is the capacity on the PowerCore fusion, and PowerCore AC? What’s up with that? Next, we have the wireless chargers, which have a good format of PowerWave < capacity in watts > < type >. Generally, they do a good job with their car chargers, making the format PowerDrive < marketing term > < port number >. But then there is the USB-C Car Charger, PowerDrive II PD with 1 PD and 1 PIQ. Drop the first part, and condense the second part to PowerDrive 1 PD and 1 PIQ or something similar. That name is just a mess. The rest of the chargers section looks fine. Then there’s the real problem. The coords. … I don’t even know. Some of them are named somewhat reasonably, in a still weird format, of PowerLine < maybe + > < maybe II > < cable type>. But why though Anker? There’s no good reason or excuse. Then there is the “premium” Mumbai jumbo I’m not even going to try to dissect. I also think that I have given more than enough examples, so conclusion time.

I’m not attacking Anker, I absolutly love their products, that’s why I’m here. Just, please, please, please stop naming your products such dumb things. Nearly all company’s do it, and Anker is one of the best at not doing it, but they still have a lot of growing room. Anyway, I’m curious what your opinion is, so please let me know.

1 Like
#2

Second edition / version

C for Cheaper…

As for convoluted / fragmented naming schemes…some companies do it to set apart the product versions / revisions…others like Apple for example often do it so you think your getting a next gen device when in reality your often getting the same with a slight hardware spec bump…which is normally 2 years behind the rest…but hey the wheel was re-invented for hardcore users :laughing:

3 Likes
#3

Thanks for the info, but it still doesn’t fix the core problem. There’s a difference between resetting product naming schemes and making them random. Don’t even get me started on monitors, or the like.

1 Like
#4

Im gonna try and take a crack at this. It tends to break down to getting all information across to attract the correct buyers, as well as those who do not always know what they need. PowerDrive II is the second iteration of their car charger, so it is typically a given that would be there. Then you get into the PD and PIQ labels, this would be where things get murky for us that understand the chargers. Power Delivery (PD) is a format that USB-C to USB-C, Power IQ would be standard charging that adjusts to the input maximum of your device, and Power QC would be quick charge. When you have 3 styles of charging, you almost need full clarity on your box in order to make someones choice fast and easy.

If you had someone that walked into a target, looked at an Anker charger and a Belkin charger when 1 says PD and the other doesnt you will result in buyers discount one just because the answer is not clearly stated.

2 Likes
#5

As a marketing professional, I can say that for every oddly named product you can find, there was a rough and lengthy meeting to agree on said name, and that the marketing professionals at the table most likely lost the argument. Think about software versions and their infinite numbers. There’s a logic behind it - incremental change vs transformational change - but for the everyperson, it’s gibberish. Since softwares are easily updated, we don’t think too much about them. The same logic on physical products though, with the rate at which new products are launched, gives us the mess we are in. There are about four PS4 and Xbox One versions, and they were released only a couple of years ago. The iPhones lost track of the numbering system long ago - if we count every version, we are on the iPhone 12, the iOS version being the reliable numbering system. But since the brand belongs to the company, they can do whatever they think will sell more - and advancing numbers creates the need for the latest in the consumers.

6 Likes
#6

Iphones are fairly easy to identify the roads they are taking.

Iphone 5 and 5s is the main phone and then the improved model.
Iphone 5c is the budget version of a 5 (like a 4s with a 5 inch screen)
Iphone 6 and 6s is main and improved.
Iphone SE is budget version again
Iphone 7 is the main phone (no improvement as sales werent spectacular due to over recycling)
Iphone 8 was main, but the s model was foregone for the “Cadillac” model X
Again, the 8 wasn’t overly popular, so drop that one in favor of the Xr, with the Xs being an improved X.

Seems they deviated off of the numbering path as 8 iterations stopped showing improvement that warranted a new purchase every year. Main point is each S model is an update (mostly software), while each number is a slight redisign.

2 Likes
#7

But as I dressed in my original post, (although maybe not well), there are much simpler ways to put it that make more sense, like PowerDrive Gen 2 w/ 1IQ and 1PIQ, or even better just put the last part in the specs.

1 Like
#8

I kind of already knew this, but I still complain about this rediculousness, to try and make those internal, and more simplified ones external.

1 Like
#9

Yeah, it’s not that hard to understand, but you shouldn’t have to understand, it should be intuitive, like a consecutive numbering system.

1 Like
#10

It is intuitive. Just not in a simple way. The labels of anker products are for the ports they have (in the end this is most important), iphones were a numbering system, but have morphed to letters it seems to give off the impression of “new and exciting”. Even android and apple arent very simple when they move to 1.x.x, then rollback and jump forward and so on lol

#11

Intuitive: using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive. That means that you wouldn’t have to think about it, meaning that it would have to be simple.

#12

British cars had a similar thing…

L, LX, GL,GLS, GLX, GHIA, POPULAR … I think we’re fords grades

Then there’s … TDI, TCI, RSI, ETC

EVERY brand does it, it’s THEIR way of sorting things in their minds‽

I think iPhones made it quite clear, and that’s as a non iphoner! 2g for a 2g phone, then the third model 3g which also meant model 3 on 3g, but 3gs was the special version.

They all have base models… Soundcore (ankers sound stuff/audio equipment) sport (for the generic user of that type of headphone) or style (in this case, ear grips) and then various grades X for extreme, as it uses ear hooks, slightly louder n longer battery :battery:.

It mostly gets co fusing when looking at older models that look the same as newer buses.

#13

I work in electronics for a living, so the labeling is very intuitive to me, not the least bit instinctive when you mash up PD, PIQ and PQC among other labels. When you involve so many standards, you will never get your KISS method you desire, its just not really possible.

1 Like