I personally don't care about the year of release. The display size is good to know, but it doesn't tell me whether it's an IPS or OLED, which I care more about. Besides, I'm much more interested about the CPU, RAM, disk size, etc.
So should all of these be part of the product name as well, just to please me? Probably not.
Yet if the manufacturer segmented their product by arbitrary brand names (which could also be "Base", "Pro", "Max", etc. mind you; I just think these are overloaded terms, and custom terms like XPS, Latitude, etc. would be clearer), and then subdivided these with sensible model names that encoded this information, this would make more sense. Given that I as a consumer get familiar with it, which one might want to do before deciding to spend thousands on a product.
Again, I'm not saying that Dell has done a good job at this, but potentially it _can_ be done well. For example, I think MikroTik does a decent job at this[1]. It does lead to product names that are difficult to parse/pronounce like "CSS326-24G-2S+RM", but once you're familiar with the scheme, it's easy to know which product has which specs, and to compare them.
Anyway, it's fine if we disagree. I think we both made our case.
I totally get the naming scheme of practically every technical feature being exposed in the model number, but outside of selling to techie people you'll quickly lose people in trying to remember what was recommended. I don't have a problem remembering what model Supermicro board is on my router build, but I totally understand someone not having a clue what an X11SBA-LN4F is or have any clue on how to begin to compare that to some other Supermicro board.
When it comes to selling to the mass market for a single big consumer electronic good like a laptop or phone or game console or whatever, it seems to me to be way simpler to just have a few decent SKUs. Having someone try and remember "Bill said I should get the CSS326-24G-2S+RM, or was that the 3326, wait is this the one with +RM or not, hmm this is complicated I guess I'll just get something else" is a lot more challenging than having someone remember "Bill said I should get at least the Pro version; oh, that's the listing for the 2023 model I want the newer one, there we go."
You'll really burn a customer when they get confused by the naming scheme and think they're getting one thing but then when they get it home it doesn't work like their friend's because their friend is rocking the 7730-G3-M-QQ-7i gizmowidget as opposed to the 7730-G3-N-QQ-7i gizmowidget.
Sure, I agree with that, but surely there's a middle ground between cryptic model names and simple ones to the point of being meaningless. If you have to add the year and display size to your product name, then it's probably not unique enough.
Like I said, this middle ground to me are standard product line names with some meaningful product identifier, so this change by Dell seems like a regression.
So should all of these be part of the product name as well, just to please me? Probably not.
Yet if the manufacturer segmented their product by arbitrary brand names (which could also be "Base", "Pro", "Max", etc. mind you; I just think these are overloaded terms, and custom terms like XPS, Latitude, etc. would be clearer), and then subdivided these with sensible model names that encoded this information, this would make more sense. Given that I as a consumer get familiar with it, which one might want to do before deciding to spend thousands on a product.
Again, I'm not saying that Dell has done a good job at this, but potentially it _can_ be done well. For example, I think MikroTik does a decent job at this[1]. It does lead to product names that are difficult to parse/pronounce like "CSS326-24G-2S+RM", but once you're familiar with the scheme, it's easy to know which product has which specs, and to compare them.
Anyway, it's fine if we disagree. I think we both made our case.
[1]: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/Manual:Product_Naming