Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho?.
I completely agree. Further, I think that they may have intended to sign an agreement, but backed out at the last minute. Maybe there was something in the terms that they didn't like. It has Steve Jobs written all over it.
[QUOTE=AgNuke1707;1024078]I think Apple has to rethink their naming on a LOT of products...
1) iPod - They pretty much have to stick with it now, but it appears to me the iPhone should have been called the iPod and the iPod something else because Pod (until Apple marketed the iPod) had little or no association with music. SInce the iPhone is an iPod + plus a phone + a wireless internet device I think it is more of a "pod" than the iPod.
2) iTunes - no longer just for tunes; movies, TV shows, music videos, ?TV and now ?iPhone .... it IS literally the center of your digital entertainment life. It should be the REAL iLife. Keep the names of iDVD, iMovie and GarageBand ... they actually say something about the software.
/QUOTE]
I totally agree.
If you do a little research, you'll learn that Apple had already trademarked the term "iPod" awhile back. It was going to be used for an Internet-enabled information kiosk. Makes sense, right? But, iPod for a music player? It seems that when they needed a name for the new device (the iPod) they looked through their list of trademarks and saw iPod. Voila.
As for iTunes, I really do think it should be called "iLife". iTunes really doesn't cut it anymore. It's not descriptive.
IF iPhone is running OSX, or at least the core services of it, then, guess what? It IS a VOIP phone. Just have to have Skype or Yahoo or Google write a customized version of their software for it, and boom, VOIP Phone. It already has 802.11b/g.
I wonder if Apple left VOIP out of the iPhone as part of the unsigned agreement with Cisco? Well, now they can change the name to phone and put VOIP back in there!
I'm rather surprised that no one replied to this yet. I think that Johnny's suggestion is excellent.
It is a good idea.
Interestingly, my VERY local paper here in Japan ran an articlae on the iPhone yesterday. It was titled: "iPod Keitai" (keitai meaning mobile phone). Only within the article did they mention the iPhone name.
Apple has bullied so many people about its trademarks and its intellectual property, that it's time for a comeuppance. As an avid Apple user, I despise its hardball tactics and general arrogance - reminds me of Microsoft during their heyday.
So, I hope Cisco sticks it to them! If the roles were reversed, Apple would be climbing up the walls - remember their comments about RealPlayer designing software to circumvent FairPlay? What they've done is no different.
Like having an older brother you love, but who bullies people, sometimes you wish someone would punch him in the face sometimes for being an a--. That's what Apple and Steve Jobs deserve - a real punch in the face!
By the way, the "'apple logo'-phone" seems a good solution. People would still likely refer to it as the "i-phone" even after legally changing the name.
PDA rings the wrong bells, SmartPhone is better but also not quite right.
Apple copyrighted "Mobile Me", maybe the should call it MePhone
So the button on the front would be called MePhone Home. Mobile Me sounds quite nice but maybe a bit too much like Mini me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
How about "Apple Seed"? :P
That idea's already used for the servers but they call it Xseed. I think it's more appropriate there and with seeding software as mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psilopsyche
I'm rather surprised that no one replied to this yet. I think that Johnny's suggestion is excellent.
iPod phone was suggested a while ago but now we know what it does, it doesn't really sum up the device. It's more than a phone + ipod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobnoble
Personally, I am waiting to invest in the pPod.
Only girls would want to buy that. Too cutesy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jer-groovy
As an avid Apple user, I despise its hardball tactics and general arrogance - reminds me of Microsoft during their heyday.
Is that a bad thing? Ethically yes but given the status of microsoft maybe it makes sense from a business perspective.
As for using the Apple logo in front of a name, it works in type but not in speech. It's easier to say 'i' something than apple something.
The name should encompass a phone, an ipod, email, chat, web browsing and generally the fact it's a computer to go. I actually thought the ipaq was quite a nice name that is used for a similar device. ipod would probably have been ok but not with its association.
I'm not actually sure why they didn't go with the Newton. That was a great name. It already had an association with Apple and Newton was someone who thought different and changed the world.
The iMac did not become what it is today because of its name.
The iPod did not become what it is today because of its name.
This "iPhone's" success does not rely on it's name.
These products became popular and successful because they revolutionized an industry. You could call them whatever you want. But because these products were the first of their kind, their names stuck. And any second generation product simply had no chance. Sure, it's cute that Apple has stayed true to their product line and called many of their new products iName, but as long as they call it something that is a common word and coherent, they should be fine. You could call it "SpamSandwich's Pinkytoe", and you know what? I'm still buying it. I'm buying it because it's a phone like I've never seen and it's going to revolutionize the phone industry.
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
I also seem to recall something to do with Bayer being 'relieved' of the rights after WWII for some lengthy period as part of the War reparations... that can't have helped them with patents on the name Aspirin after all that time if true. I may be wrong anyone know more?
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
I also seem to recall something to do with Bayer being 'relieved' of the rights after WWII for some lengthy period as part of the War reparations... that can't have helped them with patents on the name Aspirin after all that time if true. I may be wrong anyone know more?
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
This is called "Genericide."
Other famous examples include bikini, granola, kiwi fruit, and of course, heroin (also originally a Bayer trademark).
Comments
Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho?.
I completely agree. Further, I think that they may have intended to sign an agreement, but backed out at the last minute. Maybe there was something in the terms that they didn't like. It has Steve Jobs written all over it.
1) iPod - They pretty much have to stick with it now, but it appears to me the iPhone should have been called the iPod and the iPod something else because Pod (until Apple marketed the iPod) had little or no association with music. SInce the iPhone is an iPod + plus a phone + a wireless internet device I think it is more of a "pod" than the iPod.
2) iTunes - no longer just for tunes; movies, TV shows, music videos, ?TV and now ?iPhone .... it IS literally the center of your digital entertainment life. It should be the REAL iLife. Keep the names of iDVD, iMovie and GarageBand ... they actually say something about the software.
/QUOTE]
I totally agree.
If you do a little research, you'll learn that Apple had already trademarked the term "iPod" awhile back. It was going to be used for an Internet-enabled information kiosk. Makes sense, right? But, iPod for a music player? It seems that when they needed a name for the new device (the iPod) they looked through their list of trademarks and saw iPod. Voila.
As for iTunes, I really do think it should be called "iLife". iTunes really doesn't cut it anymore. It's not descriptive.
IF iPhone is running OSX, or at least the core services of it, then, guess what? It IS a VOIP phone. Just have to have Skype or Yahoo or Google write a customized version of their software for it, and boom, VOIP Phone. It already has 802.11b/g.
I wonder if Apple left VOIP out of the iPhone as part of the unsigned agreement with Cisco? Well, now they can change the name to phone and put VOIP back in there!
I'm rather surprised that no one replied to this yet. I think that Johnny's suggestion is excellent.
It is a good idea.
Interestingly, my VERY local paper here in Japan ran an articlae on the iPhone yesterday. It was titled: "iPod Keitai" (keitai meaning mobile phone). Only within the article did they mention the iPhone name.
So, I hope Cisco sticks it to them! If the roles were reversed, Apple would be climbing up the walls - remember their comments about RealPlayer designing software to circumvent FairPlay? What they've done is no different.
Like having an older brother you love, but who bullies people, sometimes you wish someone would punch him in the face sometimes for being an a--. That's what Apple and Steve Jobs deserve - a real punch in the face!
By the way, the "'apple logo'-phone" seems a good solution. People would still likely refer to it as the "i-phone" even after legally changing the name.
PDA rings the wrong bells, SmartPhone is better but also not quite right.
Apple copyrighted "Mobile Me", maybe the should call it MePhone
So the button on the front would be called MePhone Home.
How about "Apple Seed"? :P
That idea's already used for the servers but they call it Xseed. I think it's more appropriate there and with seeding software as mentioned.
I'm rather surprised that no one replied to this yet. I think that Johnny's suggestion is excellent.
iPod phone was suggested a while ago but now we know what it does, it doesn't really sum up the device. It's more than a phone + ipod.
Personally, I am waiting to invest in the pPod.
Only girls would want to buy that. Too cutesy.
As an avid Apple user, I despise its hardball tactics and general arrogance - reminds me of Microsoft during their heyday.
Is that a bad thing? Ethically yes but given the status of microsoft maybe it makes sense from a business perspective.
As for using the Apple logo in front of a name, it works in type but not in speech. It's easier to say 'i' something than apple something.
The name should encompass a phone, an ipod, email, chat, web browsing and generally the fact it's a computer to go. I actually thought the ipaq was quite a nice name that is used for a similar device. ipod would probably have been ok but not with its association.
I'm not actually sure why they didn't go with the Newton. That was a great name. It already had an association with Apple and Newton was someone who thought different and changed the world.
The iMac did not become what it is today because of its name.
The iPod did not become what it is today because of its name.
This "iPhone's" success does not rely on it's name.
These products became popular and successful because they revolutionized an industry. You could call them whatever you want. But because these products were the first of their kind, their names stuck. And any second generation product simply had no chance. Sure, it's cute that Apple has stayed true to their product line and called many of their new products iName, but as long as they call it something that is a common word and coherent, they should be fine. You could call it "SpamSandwich's Pinkytoe", and you know what? I'm still buying it. I'm buying it because it's a phone like I've never seen and it's going to revolutionize the phone industry.
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
I also seem to recall something to do with Bayer being 'relieved' of the rights after WWII for some lengthy period as part of the War reparations... that can't have helped them with patents on the name Aspirin after all that time if true. I may be wrong anyone know more?
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
I also seem to recall something to do with Bayer being 'relieved' of the rights after WWII for some lengthy period as part of the War reparations... that can't have helped them with patents on the name Aspirin after all that time if true. I may be wrong anyone know more?
Hey I got an echo!
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.
This is called "Genericide."
Other famous examples include bikini, granola, kiwi fruit, and of course, heroin (also originally a Bayer trademark).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...zed_trademarks
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
Check out this article
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
LMFAO. Nice.