I've written before about the fact that a person's name can influence his choices. Studies show that people named Dennis become dentists at a higher rate than you would expect. People also prefer to live in places that sound like their own names. Names matter.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/susie.pdf

I was thinking about the naming of things while watching the debate over the iPad. And by the way, for the record, I would like to say I was wrong about the iPad being a non-genius device that consumers would compare unfavorably to a laptop. According to the media, who are desperate for a savior to their dying industry, the iPad is primarily a competitor to the Kindle. On that comparison, I predict iPad wins. Apple will nail the user interface, and make it relevant for the whole family. Kindle will mostly belong to Mom or Dad. On a cost per person basis, the iPad will actually be less expensive because more family members will share it. And Apple will make it easy for old media to make the leap to a digital-only distribution model because Jobs will make people believe it can work. Apple is the only company that manufactures belief.

Back to the names of things: Much has been made of the fact that iPad sounds like feminine protection. I get that. But how does that name influence consumer behavior? Feminine protection is generally considered essential. Perhaps that subconscious connection actually works in Apple's favor.

Consider the name Apple. An apple is the Christian symbol of an irresistible urge, whereas Kindle sounds like the unimportant twigs you use to start a fire. Kindle also sounds old-timey, as in "Grandma's got her Kindle and her rocking chair."

Compared to the Kindle, Apple wins on name, coolness, interface, cost-per-person, extra applications, web surfing, and probably its media distribution model. Kindle wins on screen readability, which is mostly relevant to oldsters. Battery life will be good enough on both.