First, Toronto brought us Rob Ford; now, it gave us this piece from the Star. So, basically, Toronto has a lot of apologizing to do. Like, more than even most Canadians are comfortable with.
Writing for Toronto Star, Sarah Barmak says “Call Apple’s new device anything but the iWatch” (tip o’ the antlers to @JonyIveParody).
Apple is gearing up to begin production of its new smart watch this month …
The gadget could be on wrists as soon as October, and one expert has already estimated that Apple could ship 50 million units in 2015.
So, let’s just assume that’s what’s going to happen.
The big question so far isn’t so much what the new toy will do.
Who cares what it’s going to do. Your dull-witted questions about functionality are so jejune.
The wearable computer is expected to have many smartphone features, such as email and a touchscreen, as well as the health-monitoring capabilities of the latest fitness wristbands.
It’ll do things and have doohickies and such with the beeping and the blooping and the hey, hey, hey.
The question is …
Do you smell burnt toast?
… what will it be named?
“I have literally nothing notable to say about an Apple wearable, but I have to write an article, so … here we are.”
The iWatch isn’t a terrible name. Notably, it may the first Apple product name that is also a full English sentence, and that’s something.
It is something. Something very close to nothing.
But there’s also something sadly dull and literal about the name iWatch.
“Can you believe I got a column out of this? This thing doesn’t even exist yet and I’m complaining about the name! It’s unbelievable!”
Apple cannot afford to be predictable these days.
Seeing how it’s so close to bankruptcy.
Following the death of its former chairman and CEO, Steve Jobs, and the success of challengers such as Samsung in the smartphone game …
Let’s define “success” in this sentence. It’s obvious that it must be “global market share” to Barmak and not “profit share.” It’s also now not even growth, since it seems Apple’s smartphone growth is looking better than Samsung’s.
… the California-based firm is battling the perception that it has turned from visionary leader to follower.
A ridiculous perception perpetuated by the kind of people who fret over what the company’s next device will be named, because they have nothing else to talk about.
And in the nascent but fast-growing field of wearable computers, many other firms have already debuted a version of the smartwatch, from small startups to Google.
Devices which have been purchased by Glass-wearing dudes who couldn’t start a fashion trend if they were involved in a transporter accident with Benedict Cumberbatch.
Much is riding on the splash that could be made by Apple’s version. And ever since Apple first threw that petite “i” in front of its music-playing Pods, the naming of gadgets has been very important.
What a miraculous age we live in when all things are more important than they ever were before. Well, to Apple, anyway.
Boy, the Macalope’s so old he remembers when Apple dare not name its tablet “iPad” for fear of being laughed at because literally everyone would think it was a feminine protection product. By which the Macalope means he’s older than 4 and a half years old.
For better naming inspiration, the tech giant might look to the original wrist phone—that worn by comic-strip detective Dick Tracy. … Consider the iTracy.
The iDick, though. Ah, now there’s a name.
Was this whole piece a setup for that joke? That actually makes the most sense.
These are all terrible ideas. Absolutely awful. But the iWatch is worse …
Well, unless you mean that literally in which case, no, it’s not in any way.
And the Macalope would be remiss in not pointing out that you earlier stated, and he quotes, “The iWatch isn’t a terrible name.” Technically, of course, worse than terrible is not terrible so hurray for technicalities.
… it’s boring. What’s the point of unveiling a device if we already know what it’s called?
Oh, my God.
Perhaps, dear Sarah, the fault lies not with the name of Apple’s device but with your ridiculous premise that the name is the only thing that matters. But there’s a difference between boring and simple. Apple gives things simple names that usually point to what the device is for. In fact, some of the names aren’t simple enough for many of the company’s customers—like those who call the “iPod touch” the “iTouch.”
See, the thing is, we also knew what the iPhone was going to be named. And yet it was the defining smartphone introduction of the entire product category because of its functionality. So, your premise is entirely backward and your jokes are lame. Other than that, though, it’s a great piece.