A good and maybe ironic example of how some of the confusion is mitigated by competitors: Microsoft calling its automotive solution SYNC rather than "Windows for Automobiles".

Similarly, MeeGo in the context of automotive use will be sitting under GENIVI. So what name will be ringing in the ears of automobile purchasers? Surely GENIVI, not MeeGo.

Up to now Maemo resided on internet tablets and now mobile computers, and there were more similarities than differences between the various devices. So not so much risk of consumer confusion. In this case Maemo was the branding of the consumer layer.

But MeeGo will find its way into broader contexts. Saying "this is Maemo 4 on the N810, this is Maemo 5 on the N900" is not the same as "this is a flavor of MeeGo on your cell phone, this is a flavor of MeeGo on your refrigerator". Consumers aren't going to care about embedded versions, and they'll be confused by anyone referring to those embedded operating systems by the exact same name applied to their cell phone (when I told friends and family I had repaired my refrigerator's motherboard, they did not know how to receive that ).

So again, to Attila77's earlier suggestion, there need to be two tiers of branding for MeeGo, with MeeGo as the underlying context and some distinction added by a subbrand:

MeeGo Embedded
MeeGo Mobile
MeeGo Desktop
etc

Specifics on how to apply this and clarify the current MeeGo/Harmatttan/Mobiln2.2 muddiness-- I currently have no idea. And that's a problem, because I have enough experience with this that it *should* come easily.