From John Siracusa's OS X 10.2 review starting @
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/02q3/macosx-10.2/macosx-10.2-1.html
................................
The official product name for this release is "Mac OS X Version 10.2
Jaguar." The previous releases also had "big cat" code names. Version
10.0's somewhat inappropriate code name was "Cheetah." Version 10.1 was
"Puma." But these code names never spread very far outside of Apple.
Developers and technically- minded Mac enthusiasts were aware of them, but
that's about it.
Apple has a history of using internal code names as product names.
"Macintosh" and "Newton" were project code names that were never replaced
with "real" product names. In the case of Mac OS X 10.2, the code name has
simply been appended to the version number. Nevertheless, Apple is pushing
the name "Jaguar" into the public consciousness.
The box has Jaguar fur on the side. A furry "X" logo has replaced the
translucent blue aqua-themed "X" logo from earlier versions. The comparison
is striking:
The campaign has been such a success that "Jaguar" is the most commonly
used name for Mac OS X 10.2 among enthusiasts and casual users alike. What
brought about this branding decision? I have no inside information, but I
do have a few theories...
First, the optimistic take. Historically, code names have been chosen
without much regard for how well they work as product names. This allows
code names to be strange and exotic. Examples from inside Apple include
"Brazil", "Spock", "Nimitz", "Reno", "Serrano", and even the infamous "Carl
Sagan"--later litigated into "BHA" (Butt Head Astronomer) and then finally
LAW ("Lawyers are Wimps").
Interesting and even offensive code names are a kind of high- tech
team-building tool; geeks like this kind of thing. And it is an even more
powerful reward to allow the developers to keep their code name, something
they usually acquire a significant affection for, even as the project goes
into production. This is a classically "Apple" move: rewarding the strange,
creative geeks who are down in the trenches doing the real work.
Now for a more cynical angle. The Apple of today has clamped down on
previously widespread and similarly morale-building diversions such as
software easter eggs, and has even disallowed the use of individual
developers' names in applications' credits dialog boxes. Apple software is
now created by the whole of "Apple", not by individual developers. (This
practice also supposedly keeps outside companies from poaching Apple
talent- -a dubious means to that end, in my opinion.)
Would this kind of corporation allow a code name to become a product name
simply because it makes developers happy? In this environment, it seems
more likely that not only the plan to keep the code name as part of the
product name, but also the initial selection of the code name itself took
place much higher in Apple's chain of command.
Finally, perhaps most realistically, it is likely that Apple learned
something from the introduction of Mac OS X 10.1. Despite very significant
improvements to the product, a Mac OS X 10.1 retail box looked nearly
identical to a 10.0 retail box. The difference between "10.0" and "10.1"
printed in very small type is not something that's easy to spot at a
distance. Similarly, Apple's Mac OS X 10.1 web site and other marketing
materials did not look very different than they did when 10.0 was
introduced. You've seen one giant aqua-themed "X" logo, you've seen them all.
And while the product name "Mac OS X" had good brand recognition, not all
of the connotations were good. The 10.1 release addressed the biggest
problem area of 10.0: performance. But improved performance is not as easy
to sell as a collection of whizzy new features. "Mac OS X 10.1 - now with
fewer instances of horrendous performance" is not a particularly compelling
slogan. In short, Apple did not do a good job of articulating the benefits
of 10.1 to the public.
Combine the 10.1 experience with the recent pressure from Microsoft to
speed up the adoption rate of Mac OS X and you get a catchy, fur-themed
10.2 release that's hard to miss. Jaguar is branding at its most basic--a
completely manufactured association between two totally unrelated things.
This is a well- known device for improving recall in all situations (e.g. a
waiter taking orders without writing them down), not just in marketing.
Regardless of which of the possible motivations listed above contributed to
Jaguar's branding (if any), I think it was a very wise decision.
Furthermore, offbeat maneuvers like this are part of what keeps people
interested in Apple and what makes it fun to be an Apple fan.
(...)
Of course, a company like Apple that is so strongly associated with a vegan
CEO would never think of using real animal fur in its advertising. Steve
Jobs had his other company render computer- generated fur for all of
Jaguar's marketing materials. Even the fur-themed desktop background that
ships with Jaguar is named "Faux Fur" to ensure that there's no politically
incorrect misunderstanding. So while some things may change at Apple, it's
nice to see that other things remain the same.
Finally, as a surprisingly large number of Mac users probably already know,
Jaguar--a code name that became a product name--already has a nickname:
"Jag-wire." You'll also see it spelled "Jagwyre", both with and without the
hyphen. The spelling varies because the source of the nickname is speech,
not text. Steve Jobs pronounces the word "Jaguar" so that it sounds like
"Jag-wire." Apparently this is a regional California accent, not a personal
quirk. Then again, he also pronounces "automatic" as if the first syllable
sounds like the word "owe", so who knows what's really going on. Speaking
as an easterner, "Jag-wire" sounds pretty strange to me. Apparently other
Mac users agree, and "Jagwire" has caught on as an oddball, fashionable,
and possibly even "133+" nickname for Mac OS X 10.2. What a world.
................................
---> jab | commie | http://commie.oy.com
Cthulhu F'tang! I�! I�! I� Cthulhu!
