[InternetofJim]

Thus far, it's been a lot easier to make people think of the positive connotation and ignore the negative than is generally thought. The name is intended to evoke low heat-- blow on a coal and it glows softly red, gently warming your food.

Induction is the best kind of burner for traditional cooking, but it's not capable of either the evenness or the accuracy required. Even a copper pan can have as much as a 30-50 degree differential across the surface, regardless of how you heat it. And medium rare is a 5 degree range, caramelization is just 8 degrees for that nice sweetness, and eggs change with literally every degree. So those degrees count.

[pdabbadabba]

> The name is intended to evoke low heat-- blow on a coal and it glows softly red, gently warming your food.

Hmm. Then I think I would've gone with "ember." Though I still like "cinder" well enough, despite its burnt connotations (and this: http://libcinder.org).

In any event, it looks like a really interesting product -- makes me think of a sous-vide-like approach, only brought to the surface of a pan. (Which, of course, is much more challenging, since you need to do more than simply hold a vat of water at a constant temperature.)

[lifekaizen]

Naming is a balance of traits including availability, look, emotion, implication. And they change over time. Examples of names that are common now that seemed funny: Virgin, iPad, Gap. We really like cinder and the round logo built out of it, hope you will to.

[jsankey]

As another datapoint from someone in your target market: cinder evokes burnt for me. Glowing coals aren't typically "gently" warm, for that matter (if I'm thinking charcoal or wood fire, I'm thinking awesome for cooking but high heat).

It could be cultural, I'm coming from an Australian perspective.

[ericd]

I'm an American, I immediately thought "food, burnt to a cinder". Other than the minor branding foible, though, this looks great.

[supercoder]

I'm Australian and also thought of food being burnt.