The “iMac” could have been the “MacMan”

Are you an Apple junkie? Hell, are you a Windows fan and still simply finding yourself awestruck over the new 27″ iMac and it’s large flat glassy areas, beckoning your name and asking your to stare until the sun goes down? For the majority of people who buy computers, they buy them because of the specs. I would say a pretty favorable portion of their user base buy their computers not necessarily because they are almost always near the top of the line, but also because they look good.

Getting into the whole argument of computer aesthetics and why it does/doesn’t matter is an entirely different subject. A subject of which I’ll pass on undertaking today. But along those same form over function beliefs, not only do Apple products have to look good, they have to “sound good” with a catchy name. We hear “iMac”, “iPod”, “iLife”, “iPoop” etc. It may not seem like a name is that important to a product. However, if Steve Jobs had his way, the iMac may have become a much dorkier machine.

For years, old Apple employee, Ken Segal (the person who coined “iMac”) stayed mum on the one solitary name Steve Jobs offered up as his choice for Apple’s now flagship and most popular desktop computer. He said that the name would “curdle your blood”, cause women to go into labor early, and sheer sheep — all at the mere mentioning of the name. So how bad is it?

MacMan

Personally, I don’t think it’s that bad. I mean, it sounds dorky and stupid but not blood curdling stupid. Understand? Still, I’m thankful (thank you lucky star 1, and 2, and…) that a cooler head prevailed and we can now come home to our large glass slabs dubbed iMacs. Aren’t you?

9to5 Mac

[Image Source]

Author: Mike Norris

visit my website

Gadget lover, smartphone collector, and beer connoisseur. I've been writing about gadgets for three years now and loving every minute of it. Outside of the digital landscape, I enjoy being active outdoors. I'm always up for a good conversation, so feel free to drop me a line!