Maybe you guys missed this, but iwalk is in no way real

giantgiant
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
It seems some of you are dreaming a little too hard to listen to reason. I'm reminding you all once again before I get off of here for good that it is a mock up done by spymac to get your e.mail addresses.



iwalk is not a registered trademark,you can see for yourself at:

<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/tm.html"; target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/tm.html</a>;



What part of that do you not understand?



Not only does spymac have a long history of being flat out wrong, they have done this iwalk game before, and only a couple months ago. Their previous iwalk is at:



<a href="http://www.spymac.com/archive102301.html"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/archive102301.html</a>;

as well as

<a href="http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macproto/iWalk.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macproto/iWalk.html</a>;



Is this somehow unclear? There is no question as to it's lack of authenticity. I'm going to lunch.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    spiffyguycspiffyguyc Posts: 285member
    1) I'm tired of reading this every 5 minutes. Every other post, it seems, is on how iWalk is not registered.



    2) There's Apple stuff that isn't registered or wasn't at introduction, believe it or not.



    3) It's still fake



    -S
  • Reply 2 of 7
    jeffm.jeffm. Posts: 5member
    [quote]Originally posted by giant:

    <strong>It seems some of you are dreaming a little too hard to listen to reason. I'm reminding you all once again before I get off of here for good that it is a mock up done by spymac to get your e.mail addresses.



    iwalk is not a registered trademark,you can see for yourself at:

    <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/tm.html"; target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/tm.html</a>;



    What part of that do you not understand?



    Not only does spymac have a long history of being flat out wrong, they have done this iwalk game before, and only a couple months ago. Their previous iwalk is at:



    <a href="http://www.spymac.com/archive102301.html"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/archive102301.html</a>;

    as well as

    <a href="http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macproto/iWalk.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macproto/iWalk.html</a>;



    Is this somehow unclear? There is no question as to it's lack of authenticity. I'm going to lunch.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I've got big doubts about this too, but the lack of a registered trademark would just mean that spymac (whoever or whatever they really are...) just has the name wrong, not that there isn't a product of some kind that fits their description.



    JeffM.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    ambrose chapelambrose chapel Posts: 29member
    AtAT weighed in on the subject today. It's hilarious!



    "the iWalk would be exactly the PDA we'd want if it didn't lack one crucial feature: an actual existence in this plane of reality."
  • Reply 3 of 7
    logan calelogan cale Posts: 1,281member
    1) iPod was registered three days (I think) before it was released.

    2) iWalk could be the working name for it, just as iMusic was what iTunes was called before it was released and Steve messed up calling it that last MWSF.

    3) The video is definately fake.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    tmatma Posts: 76member
    Don't we already have 2 threads devoted to this? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 6 of 7
    spiffyguycspiffyguyc Posts: 285member
    Yes, there are already too many threads. And the title comment was in all of them many, many times. This one is redundant and should be done away with, please.....
  • Reply 7 of 7
    mr.potatoheadmr.potatohead Posts: 99member
    Neither is iwalk.com registered by Apple. In fact, it's been registered by <a href="http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=iwalk.com&SearchType=do"; target="_blank">someone else</a>. Not only does iWalk not make a whole lot of sense (well, about as much as iPod, I suppose), but a domain name search would have played a role in choosing a final name.



    Granted, if Apple really wanted to be secretive about a project, they would register the name under an individual rather than the company; however, this guy registered iwalk.com in April of '97; I don't think Newton was dead by that point, so the launch of a second Apple PDA at that point would seem implausible.



    So, we have a private citizen who owns iwalk.com... you know that as soon as Apple launches the iWalk (if they do), he'll want a million bucks for the domain, or some outrageous amount. A little extra brainstorming on Apple's part would have yielded a name they could have picked up for $35.



    I agree, the name of the unit is the most troubling part about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.