An iPad by any other name would still be an iPad. And another name would probably have been a better choice for several reasons.
One: as many folks have pointed out, it sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
Two: it’s too close to iPod. You can bet that there’ll be articles in which an understandable typo will say “iPod” when it means “iPad.” And vice versa.
Three: there are other claims to the name: STMicroelectronics, ST, a French-Italian company, uses the IPAD name in chips sold to mobile phone makers. IPAD stands for “Integrated Passive and Active Devices.
What’s more, apparently Fujitsu owns the iPad trademark for handheld computing in the US. Apple has reportedly taken advantage of the fact that Fujitsu stopped responding to requests by the US Patent and Trademark Office, who declared the “iPad” name “abandoned,” then began pursing it again last year. Apple has filed three petitions to extend the deadline to Feb. 28 to take the name away from Fujitsu.
I have little doubt that Apple will end up with rights to the iPad name. Still, I wish Apple had chosen another moniker. Of the rumored names before the product was unveiled, I didn’t like iTablet (since, until now, tablet computers haven’t taken off). iSlate was a bit better, but I think Apple could have some up with another, catchier name—perhaps even one without the “i” designation.