Apollo product naming
16 03 2007There’s been a lot of talk around what the final product name for Apollo should be. Many people, including myself would like the code name to stick. Just think about all the publicity Apollo has gotten, would be a shame to have to go out and market a new name when there was a perfectly good one all along.
Despite some early indications that made me believe Apollo would carry through as the final product name (the rocket icon in the new Adobe icon designs, having Apollo t-shirts printed, the “Apollo for Flex Developers” O’Reilly book etc.) I’ve heard the product managers insist that this is a code name and will very likely change. The only reasons I can think of is if there are any legal concerns registering a trademark or PR and marketing are kicking up a storm about exactly how it fits into the Adobe brand.
Whatever the case may be, I think the community has been vocal enough about this and hope we’ll get to keep the name.
Its surprising to see how attached you can get to a name after just a few months of limited exposure, shows the developer relations teams are doing a great job getting the word out.
perhaps it’s worth keeping?
“Adobe Apollo” has a pleasent alliteration that rolls off the tongue
much like “hindus harmonising in the hall” or “shintoists shattering sheetglass in the shithouse”
Hope we can keep it. See I’m so attached to the name I am using “we” for it already.
Can Imagine coming up with a product name is like getting Management to decide on a URL.
Please visit http://blog.everythingflex.com/2007/03/16/apollo-the-great-debate/ and voice your opinion on the Apollo name.
Hello guys.
I just want to say that i love Apollo name too.
I really hope that Adobe could keep that name.
I am Greek and i know that this is a strong name for a strond product that will shake the entire web.
Here is a short story of Apollo God = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo
Oh i also like the air extension!
It’s so……………………airy!
But you haven’t even seen the other name(s)! Nobody should stick to the first idea without considering (lots of) alternatives. I personally expect the official name to be much better than simple “Apollo”… As this one doesn’t really say anything.
Ante to be honest with you i haven’t seen the other name(s).
I haven’t even see the Apollo “product”..(!!)
I just started playing with Flex 2 and AS3.
So i don’t know what Apollo can offer from A to Z.
But i’m sure for one thing.
Even if the name was…mmm…the worst - anythink, i don’t really care.
I’m happy that someone create a product like this, i’m even more happy that this company was Macromedia-Adobe and for sure i’m going to have a long relationship with this thing.So i don’t care about the name.I just said that i like it and that i got used to it.
Sorry for the long post and for my bad English.
Take care.
The argument that “simple “Apollo”… doesn’t really say anything.” isn’t very good, in my opinion. I mean, what do “Flash” or “Fireworks” or “Premiere” say?
Application names are anything from simple one-or two-word creative descriptions of the product (”Photoshop”, “Illustrator”), or possibly allusions or metaphors to something related to the purpose of the program (”Lightroom.” “After Effects”), to seemingly random words put together (”Dreamweaver,” “Acrobat,” “ColdFusion”) or possibly extremely uncreative descriptions of the product (”Flash Video Encoder”, “Macromedia Extension Manager”).
I’m not an Adobe/Macromedia fanboy, I just used all Adobe product names as an illustration that there are a range of methodologies for name an application, even in one company.
My point being is that if an application’s name HAD to say something, then we’d be living in a rather bland world of Microsoft-inspired software titles.
My point is that good names here traditionally come from Adobe, and bad names from Macromedia. Dru mentioned Photoshop and Illustrator–that’s one side in my opinion, and Flash and Fireworks are the opposite side. I categorize them good or bad according to what a novice user can say about their purpose. We may agree or disagree, but Macromedia would probably have done better financially if the software had more descriptive/meaningful names. (I don’t say they did bad; I say they could’ve done even better easily.)
Now there are many smart people at this new company who don’t have to continue using any existing trademarks here. Let’s see what will they come up with. It probably won’t be Apollo, but nobody should be disappointed with a good new name anyway…
Interesting point Ante — I was ready to dismiss it immediately but thinking about it product naming does seem less obvious for the old Macromedia products.
They more than made up for this by building community around these brands though.
What I do strongly disagree on is that they would’ve sold even a single license less because of product naming. I simply don’t know anyone that bases their decisions for purchasing software on product names.
You could argue that FrontPage is a better product name under your rule of thumb than Dreamweaver, yet you’ll be hard pressed to find a web professional that would choose to go with FrontPage because of that.
In as far as branding creates hype (see Apple), and hype drives revenue this might hold true but I don’t see it applied to the Adobe products.
Let’s say Microsoft’s name is Web Expression (if I remember it correctly?), not FrontPage. With name like that they can more easily target both professional and amateur (uninformed) web-developers. Dreamweaver can target true professionals only, generally speaking.
Every product has only limited reach to customers, so its name should serve to extend it. Quality is the most important factor, of course, but the branding in whole (which starts with the name) also counts..
Ante, that’s an interesting point, that Adobe came up with the names that are descriptive and Macromedia came up with names that aren’t. I’m not sure it’s 100%, because as I also mentioned, “Macromedia Extension Manager” and “Flash Video Encoder” are VERY descriptive (if not very creative), and created by Macromedia, while “Premiere” and “Acrobat” are NOT descriptive, and created by Adobe.
I would agree with Peter. though…I can’t possibly imagine anyone saying “Apollo? That’s a dumb name. I’m not buying that.”
There may be a point, though, in the amateur market; those that don’t really know what these products do in the first place. It’s hard for me to remember, because I’m so entrenched in this stuff these days, but when I was first starting out I had to figure out what “Go Live” did and what “ColdFusion” meant. However, at the same time, I had to figure out what Illustrator did that was different from Photoshop…
I can’t imagine a web-developer ditching a product because of a dumb name either, but there are so many different personalities among us, many different backgrounds, and sometimes it’s the manager that “knows best”. We may tend to look at things from our technical, analytical point of view, underestimating what pure branding and marketing can do.
The name doesn’t have to sound intelligent, it only has to feel right to the customer. And it’s easier to achieve this when application name goes along well with its purpose. No company should ever require its customers to be attracted to a name that doesn’t say anything (like Apollo), or them to prefer unclear names like Dreamweaver over Web Expression.
So, Apollo is maybe the last name (is it?) that got out of Macromedia, and I think it’s fortunate for Adobe that it’s easy to replace it… o:)