Standardization of Product families, features or names?

Sorry its early in the morning, and my mind is not 100% sharp, so I hope this comes out right…

When looking at Anker’s product lines over the past couple of years, as they’ve added QC2 and QC3 to their portable chargers (i.e. battery packs)… I’ve noticed how the product names often seem close, but the products don’t contain the same features…

For example…
PowerCore+ 10050
PowerCore+ 13400
PowerCore+ 20100 USB-C
PowerCore+ mini

As a customer shopping for a portable charger and looking at Anker’s products for the first time, based on name/model, it would appear these devices should only differ in their storage capacity, and you could guess the higher capacity might have more USB ports, and of course its obvious the “USB-C” should include a USB-C port, and Mini would be small.

But its not until you open the product pages for them side by side, and dig deep into the specs and write ups that you see certain features supported only on certain models.

They could have the following features…

QC2.0 output - to charge QC2.0 capable phones faster
QC2.0 input - to charge the PowerCore itself faster using a QC2 wall plug
RapidRecharge - On the PowerCore+ 20100 USB-C listing it means charging the PowerCore faster with a 2.4amp wall charger, but on the PowerCore+ 10050 & 13400 appears to mean “QC2.0 input”

The PowerCore+ 10050 supports QC2 output and QC2.0 input, where as the PowerCore+ 13400 does NOT support QC output, but does support QC input. Based on the listing, the PowerCore+ 20100 USB-C supports neither QC2 output or input.

And the PowerCore+ Mini supports NONE of those 3 key features.

In contrast, when you look at the PowerCore product line, its more what I expect. The model names do appear to reflect differences… .
PowerCore 20000 with Quick Charge 3.0
PowerCore Speed 20000 QC

You can gather by their names, they are both 20000 mAh batteries, but the use of Speed, QC and QC3 in their names make it easy to see they will not have the same features.

Anker makes great products (otherwise I wouldn’t be here, and wouldn’t have purchased as many as I have). But this type of confusion could push potential customers away.

From a customer perspective, going forward I would love to see Anker either standardize features in the PowerCore+ line up, i.e. All products named the same, only have different capacity options, and possibly more ports on higher capacity devices. Or use some kind of naming convention that highlights feature differences.

It’s a problem commented on in a few places. I agree there’s a fair bit of ambiguity and some changes should be made to the naming to help prospective buyers.

Also, it’s past lunchtime here :wink:

I totally agree. I had mentioned this in another thread, they need to simplify stuff!

Totally agree.
It’s a shame, as this kind of detail can be seen in their products, but it doesn’t seem as though the same attention is paid to their product names.

And not just batteries, but to their headphones, too. A clearer naming structure would help customers find exactly what they need.

People want to buy Anker products - don’t make it any harder than it needs to be

Agree. It is a confusing mess of options. I’d prefer a self-selection drop-down list.

Type of device…
Name your product ideally of common ones or enter the mah if not listed
How long your device lasts now
How long you want it to last
How many devices

Then it points to the product for you.

OnePlus2 (a 3000mah battery, USB-C)
6 hours
10 hours

Then add:
Pixel C (a 9000mah USB-C)
8 hours
10 hours

What matters most:

It then points me to a Powercore 10000

Put some knowledge and math into the site and not just a list. Not everyone is sufficiently knowledgable of charging types, capacities, speeds.

I agree it would be good if the product names were a bit more structured.

Maybe in the search function there can be certain classifications you can look for, such as QC, PowerIQ, speaker, wireless, wired, and maybe this would make it easier to find?

Good point. I had never thought of it to this level. I always figured the naming structure wasn’t too bad being that it is at least separated by product type ex. Powercore, powerhouse, powerline.