It’s a handheld mobile platform that does so much more than make phone calls after all, so using the phone aspect as the primary designation of the device when it’s probably among the least used function seems like a misnomer.

The moniker was probably the easiest one to go with back in the day. Apple wanted to distinguish the device from the iPod, which was still a strong seller in 2007, and people associated cellular devices with nothing else other than phones, at least back then, so it made sense to call it the iPhone even when it’s “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator.”

It’s easy to see why Louie Mantia thinks the iPhone name is not a good fit but after 17 years the name has cemented itself as one of the strongest brands that has ever existed. The iPod seems like a more logical name for a multipurpose device and might have been great had Apple not felt the need to introduce the iPhone brand but I think that ship has sailed. The iPhone name has taken just as strong of a hold and recognition as the iPod in roughly the same amount of time, bland as it may be.

In four years the iPhone will be as old as the iPod was when it was retired in 2022. The iPod as a product category lasted 21 years. It doesn’t seem like Apple is a company that would make such a change after all these years and we don’t even know if the iPhone as a product category will still exist five years from now (probably will).

Might Apple resurrect the iPod name? Who knows, they resurrected the iBook name once (and retired it again in favor of Apple Books) but they no longer follow the i- convention of naming products so chances of that happening is probably pretty slim.

The iPod was a great name and its legacy lives on in podcast and AirPods and if the rumors of a touchscreen AirPods case ever come true, I’ve a feeling they’ll still be called AirPods.