There’s been a lot of fuss lately about Apple’s choice of name for the third-generation iPad. While “the new iPad” smacks of marketing speak, the reality is that what Apple is ultimately calling the latest model is simply iPad, and marks a return to the company’s simplified product naming. Apple’s web site also lists the latest iMac as “the new iMac” but at the end of the day it’s really just the iMac.

For six years, the iPod was merely “the iPod.” Although there was a fifth-generation iPod, there was never an “iPod 5.” Generational designations were obviously necessary to differentiate each year’s model, and you would find them in places like Apple’s support site, knowledge base, and sometimes even in the actual order entry system, but the actual Apple Store and all marketing and packaging materials never said anything other than “iPod”.

Obviously, this was later forked into the name “iPod classic” to differentiate it from the “iPod touch” and effectively displace the former as the “flagship” iPod model. Similarly, Apple has used other designations for separate products in the iPod family (photo, mini, shuffle, nano), but each of these represent entirely different products, not simply the latest model of a current product.

The iPhone 3G changed the game in this respect, being the first product in the family to actually get a numerical designation as part of the product name. Of course, Apple wanted to highlight the newer, high-speed capabilities, but I think there was also something else at work in this case. The iPhone ended up being the first time Apple continued selling a prior year’s model alongside the new one. Although the iPhone 3G replaced the original iPhone, it remained on sale as a lower-end model when the iPhone 3GS was released. Similarly, with the iPhone 4, Apple continued selling the iPhone 3GS, and with the iPhone 4S it continued selling both of the previous models. In fact, with the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4, Apple went so far as to create an entirely new 8GB model to provide a lower cost of entry for iPhone adopters.

Obviously this year Apple has done the same thing with the iPad 2, keeping it on sale alongside “the new iPad.” Unfortunately, this creates some confusion, but I guess Apple had to rip the bandaid off sometime before it became too fully entrenched in a new product naming cycle for the iPad.

Unfortunately, if Apple tries the same thing with “the new iPhone” it will be even more confusing with four previous generations that all bore numbers. However, the flip side is that one has to ask where the numbers will stop…. Would we someday be carrying an iPhone 12? Lower numbers seem reasonable, but at some point numbered product naming just starts to sound silly, especially on Apple products.