I read MSI x570... i was like how the crap did this guy get ryzen 2 7nm already? lol.... the naming conventions... sigh... the industry really needs to get better at this, its stupid
I've never really understood that, myself... why do all of these products always seem to want to live in each other's shadows? I don't think it's ever wise to force comparisons like that. For me, on a very fundamental level it gets me thinking of the second adopter of the convention as a knock-off, even when they're not the same type of product. And even a moment later when I realize that is not the case, it's still kinda like that in a subtle way. The psychology runs deep, though I feel like it isn't hard to grasp. In fact, it's very intuitive. If you dye an orange red, it kind of looks like an apple from a distance, but you kinda gotta just know that everybody is gonna know it's not an apple long before they pick it up and try to bite in. And if they don't... well good luck with the whole "getting people to trust you" thing.
In this case, why is it so easy to associate a dated, low-midrange GPU with a bleeding edge mobo chipset? Why is that ever a thing? More importantly, why is that ALWAYS a thing?
But honestly it's bigger than little things like what we just saw here for me. It all drives me up a wall.
When I see one cop the other's name, they might as well be saying to me "Hey, you know that awesome thing everybody's talking about? Well forget about that! Here's... well... NOT that... yeah. But we think it's pretty neat! Mhm..." It's obvious they're trying to place their product unnaturally closer to its similarly-named counterpart than people would otherwise be inclined to. Because truly, one is not an answer to the other. To me, it serves as a reminder of what the latter product doesn't have, that the former does. Like that lower-classman student emulating his upperclassmen. He just wishes so much to be like the cool kids. One day he will be... but he'll still forever be just one step behind - those kids are just older than him.
I don't actually feel that way about AMD - I'm emphatically impressed with their CPU's. I trust the performance enough to put them in commissioned builds. But having a similar name to their competition really only highlights the long-standing reputation they have for being stuck standing in Intel's monolithic shadow.
But maybe for people who don't spot the tactic, especially newer people, it works and they put them on equal footing somewhere in their minds. If you don't know the performance and the history well, you might think they're the same, only one is cheaper, when really they are two completely different things in different leagues with different advantages for different people with different needs.
Which is why it doesn't make sense to have the names be so similar. The product families just aren't. They both have their own appeal - a different niche that's being filled by either of them. And the names ought to reflect that, from both a clarity and a marketing perspective.
I will always think it's a lame and childish tactic, when it is used as a tactic, anyway. Even when it isn't intentional, it is a confusing and non-functional way to represent your product. At best, people momentarily have trouble telling the two apart. At worst, not only are they annoyed by it, but the product is forever less likely to stand out for whatever merits it does have. It's a terrible connotation to have to shake. It will forever be just an alternative to something good, when what they really want is for there to be no alternative in the first place... there is only your product and then there is "everything else." "Substitute" is kind of an ugly word in cultures of innovation, isn't it? Should be the obvious thing to avoid, right?
I feel like this is one of those things some marketing guy came up with to keep his salary going and everybody else just followed along... probably with some psycho-social bullshit, tenuous-but-nice-looking statistics, and "recent studies." In my personal opinion, he should be fired for sabotaging his company, confusing its potential customers, lying to his team members, and just generally being an unlikable dick. Even when it works, it's still just kind of a blatantly tactless and poorly-thought-out thing to do. This goes for both the deliberate nut-hanging and bumbling unintentional juxtapositions.
I don't get it... isn't the idea to make your product stand out? Doesn't marketing 101 say that your products' names should be consistent, as easy as possible to register/understand/associate with what you offer, and chosen to make the product stand out from other products within a market? I mean... how often do people actually win at talent shows by copping the best prospect's act? Maybe in fiction... sure, people want to think they'll beat some prick at their own game (makes for a satisfying underdog story,) but in reality it usually works better to trust YOURself and play to YOUR own strengths. You can't take someone's title while there is still room for debate... not without people refusing to take it seriously, anyway. Doing so just screams of the jealousy of someone unable to do thier own thing like it has never been done.
Another example - if you were an aspiring musician, you wouldn't want to literally become the same as your idol - you want to be something newer and better than them. You can't surpass them by just doing what they do and calling it a day. People will say that you're a lazy artist... that you're forgettable. You are then just a glorified cover artist - and it's hard to get out of that once you're there. "Oh hey, it's that guy that sounds like that guy! Look at him go." "Eh, yeah he's pretty good but he'll never be as good as..."
It says to me, "I don't really believe in my product, and I want to hide the fact that I chose not to or wasn't good enough to surpass my competitors effort and ingenuity in any way." It comes off as thoughtless. Like all you really care to do is have a piece of the latest fad.
Don't even get me started on naming conventions within lines of products from the same companies. Slightly different implications, but some of the same principles apply. You're just living in your own shadow instead. They all need to learn when to distinguish and when to bolster association. It's not complicated. In fact, by nature, it relies on simple and logical progressions. Pick one and stick to it. And for god's sake, never ever stagger names that move forward in conjunction with one another (looking at you Zen 2/Ryzen 3.) When people have to write informative blog entries and do videos for newcomers attempting to tell all of your products apart, you're probably fucking up somewhere. The best marketing is intuitive and works on a level below consciousness. If they have to stop to contemplate what it means, you've already lost them.
AMD, Intel, and Nvidia all have products that are truly great and in categories of their own, but sometimes I think their marketing people are among the worst of any industry I've seen. So many reasons, really. The naming conventions are simply one embodiment of everything wrong with their mindsets towards representing themselves. I don't think my descriptions are true of any of them. That's just how it comes off when they copy each other's names... that or bastardize, convolute, or cannibalize their own. These naming schemes are terrible representations of who they are and what they have to offer.
...but hey, everyone's PCs are looking nice lately. Uh... good job guys.
I'm down to minor aesthetic things now.
having a microfiber cloth helps a lot with that.
