Re: Lose the name...

Me, I like SliMP3.  It _is_ an MP3 device and it is a slim device and 
a Slim Device.

The next device should be called SlimTV.

-dean


>I'd suggest using the company name (w/Slim) as a prefix and
>follow with a descriptive product name rather than trying
>to combine them. (E.g., Microsoft Windows, Lotus Notes...)
>
>I offer:
>     Slim Devices AudioPipe
>     Slim Devices Mp3Pipe
>     Slim Devices EtherAudio
>
>(tm's, spaces and hyphens up to you and your lawyers...)
>
>mike
>
>--- In [email protected], Sean Adams <sadams@w...> wrote:
>>
>>  > Love the players, *hate* the name.  Has all the classic problems:
>hard to
>>  > read, hard to type, confusing to pronounce, doesn't really convey
>any useful
>>  > information...
>>
>>  I agree with you. Obviously, the "SliMP3" name was supposed ot be a
>clever
>>  play on words, but it didn't really work. I'll cc slimp3-users to
>see if
>>  anyone else has ideas.
>>
>>  The "mp3" part of "SliMP3" certainly makes it:
>>    - funny looking
>>    - hard to pronounce
>>    - limited to the MP3 codec
>>
>>  However, those simple three characters have such enormous
>recoginition
>>  that I couldn't resist making it part of the product name. For
>example,
>>  would you have the slightest clue what an "Audiotron" does, just
>from the
>>  name? I'll admit it sounds cool, but it could be absolutely
>anything audio
>>  related. At least SliMP3 gives you some idea.
>>
>>  The least drastic change I can think of would be to go with "Slim
>MP3". I
>>  don't think this name is ideal, by any means, but at least it
>retains the
>>  existing recognition of the SliMP3.
>>
>>  I think it was a mistake not to go with "Slim MP3" in the first
>>  place.
>>
>>  > ...no sex appeal.  How good is being "slim"?  I keep reading it as
>>  > "simp3" which is sort of like "wimp".  Another problem is that if
>you
>>  > are successful, you'll probably outgrow the name.
>>
>>  I am pretty happy with "Slim Devices", despite the fact that it's a
>little
>>  bit phalically-self-denegrating. Bill seems to have done okay with
>>  "Microsoft".  :)
>>
>>  We haven't really developed the word "Slim" as our whole marketing
>>  concept, but that was the original intent. "Slim" defines the
>extreme of
>>  thin computing - products which really leverage the power of other
>>  machines on the Internet to provide them with their brains, storage,
>>  higher-level comm protocols, etc.  It's also an obvious and unique
>aspect
>>  of the SliMP3's physical appearance. This wouldn't necessarily be
>true of
>  > future products, but it's a good tie-in to have whenever it's
>possible.
>  >
>  > > You might make invisible devices, nano devices, virtual devices,
>no
>  > > device at all devices.  Danny Hillis once told me that the name
>>  > "Thinking Machines" was chosen because it represented an
>unreachable
>>  > goal.  Contrast something like "GigaByte Disks".
>>
>>  Thinking Machines is a great name.
>>
>>  > Why not use a name that's more like a stereo component name? 
>Here are some
>>  > (bad?) ideas:
>>  >
>>  >     Audio/Digital
>>  >     Adams   (Lots of high end audio has names like this)
>>
>>  I like my name just fine, but for some reason, naming the
>product/company
>>  after myself just didn't appeal to me. I agree with you though
>names like
>>  "McIntosh" and "Bang and Olufsen" have worked really well, and
>there's
>>  definitely something "high-endish" about using the founder's name.
>>
>>  >     Silicon Audio   (Well, Silicon Graphics eventually grew out
>of this, but
>>  >                      it worked at first, could use SAI as a
>nickname.)
>>
>>  I'm sure that's taken, and we don't want to limit ourselves to
>audio, by
>>  any means. Still, that's a good name per se.
>>
>>  >     Omega Audio     (Omega is the last one you'll want...)
>>
>>  Almost anything greek/latin makes for a good product name, even if
>you
>>  just make up words and stick "us" and "um"  on the end...
>>
>>  "Slim Phonicus" (or something)
>>  "Slimabo, Slimabas, Slimabat..." (j/k)
>>
>>  >     Audio Solutions
>>
>>  eh.
>>
>>  > You have to distinguish the product name from company name.
>  >
>>  I'm not so sure. You can tie the product name to the company name in
>>  varying degrees. eg:
>>
>>  Just make sure they sound good together, even if you normally only
>refer
>>  to the product name:
>>
>>  Sun Sparc, Apple Macintosh
>>
>>  Always prefix the company name to the official product name:
>>
>>  DisneyWorld, DisneyLand, DisneyTV, Disney Magazine, etc
>>
>>  Or, tightly integrate part of the company name with the product
>name:
>>
>>  Big Mac, Egg McMuffin, McNuggets, etc
>>
>>  > I'm running out
>>  > of ideas, but if I have any good ones, I'll send them along.
>>  >
>>  >     M-Player
>>  >     Connected Deck
>>  >     MP3 Deck            (Like a tape deck?)
>>  >     Digital Deck
>>  >     Digital 1
>>  >     Alpha
>>  >     X1
>>  >
>>  > You get the idea.
>>
>>  I'm still partial to doing something with a Slim prefix.
>>
>>  Sean
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company - FREE
Guide from industry leader VeriSign gives you all the facts.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lWSNbC/WdiDAA/yigFAA/rIp0lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/