Yeah, they have a market cap of slightly under £5B, but a more important figure is their cash, which is likely around £150M. If Apple offered them 50+M they'd be stupid not to accept it. After all this a physical product, not a channel. Apple should just name it iTV and then challenge them in court. They don't make hardware after all.
Surely what really matters is the value of the ITV brand to them.
A 'Smart Television' and a 'Television Broadcaster' are confusingly similar, this isn't Computer vs Music Label in the 70s when computers beeped. I expect ITV would laugh £50m out of the door.
However I think Apple will just have the product be called Apple TV.
Yea. iTV has a point on this one. They own that name fair and square and have spent decades marketing and building up that brand. Apple will have to come up with a lucrative arrangement for them, or just use another name.
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
By the way, what's with this point in the article about "not the first time iTV has reached out to Apple?" This hardly sounds like reaching out. If they were smart, they'd simply try to license or sell their name for a boatload of money.
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
By the way, what's with this point in the article about "not the first time iTV has reached out to Apple?" This hardly sounds like reaching out. If they were smart, they'd simply try to license or sell their name for a boatload of money.
Under your proposal, I could create a phone operating system and call it iPhone and Apple would have no say to stop me. I HIGHLY doubt that would fly, although by your statement one is hardware and the other is not.
Why in the world would ITV publicly warn Apple over something that doesn't exist? There is no iTV device, it's all speculation at this point. If/when Apple does come out with a new device my guess is they will continue to call it Apple TV. Not everything in their product line is named "i" whatever.
The simple and obvious solution is for ITV to change it's name.
lol, yes of course. A television corporation with more than sixty years history and owner of four channels with over 20 million regular views and various associated production companies, news outlets and web presence should change it's name to accommodate apple's new product?
iAmusement is too long. iMuse would be great and even sounds cultural/intellectual. But it's too high-brow.
iPleasure sounds like porn. iPlease is too vague and general.
iRecreation is too vague and long.
iRelaxation is too long and iRelax sounds like something to put us to sleep.
iFun sounds like something Steve Jobs would like, but it's vague. Making a double by using iPun, pronounced like iFun, it'd also continue the tradition of using "P" words. But it's even vaguer than iPod.
iEnjoy is too vague. iJoy promises too much.
iInterest is too general and too cold.
iDiversion is too cold and too broad.
iShow is perhaps the best of all. It's short, specific and clear. It's only failing is that it isn't a 'p' word.
iPerformance shorten to iPerform gives the wrong impression. This is for watching.
iPresent sounds like a business tool.
iProduction or iProduce sound like the production end of TV.
iExtravaganza is too long and too much.
iSpectacle is too exaggerated.
iPageant sounds like a Miss American contest.
The best of the lot, by far, is iShow. A distant second, faulted mostly for vagueness, is iFun/iPun.
Besides, iShow reminds me of Ed Sullivan in the golden days of television with his "really big show."
--Michael W. Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
I think iCenter is appropriate. It will be so much more than TV - it will be the intelligence center of the home - tv, internet, security (sensors, cameras, etc), environmental monitoring (CO, radon, etc). Why limit it to TV with iTV or Apple TV?
The pundits are coining the phrase iTV not apple. Nowhere has apple said it would call the successor of the "Apple TV" the "iTV". Nothing to see hear move on the click bait is done.
Why in the world would ITV publicly warn Apple over something that doesn't exist? There is no iTV device, it's all speculation at this point. If/when Apple does come out with a new device my guess is they will continue to call it Apple TV. Not everything in their product line is named "i" whatever.
apple could easily avoid all of this type of thing by getting away from the tired 'i'
So call it iTV everywhere except GB, which is the only place anyone has ever heard of ITV.
And canada, australia and most of Europe. There is a world outside of the USA, and the market outside of the USA is where Apple makes a majority of it's profit.
Yeah, they have a market cap of slightly under £5B, but a more important figure is their cash, which is likely around £150M. If Apple offered them 50+M they'd be stupid not to accept it. After all this a physical product, not a channel. Apple should just name it iTV and then challenge them in court. They don't make hardware after all.
I'm not sure 50 mil would quite be in the ballpark. I've been through a couple corporate rebrandings, both realatively minor, and both costing millions of dollars each. And that was for a company not nearly as publically known as ITV is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
I'm not sure I agree with those saying these are entirely differnt things. Apple's TV isn't going to be just a TV. It's going to be internet connected and also a source of TV content from multiple channels through Apple's online storefront. And ITV isn't just a channel. They also have an online version and also have several channels of content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
So call it iTV everywhere except GB, which is the only place anyone has ever heard of ITV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm
And canada, australia and most of Europe. There is a world outside of the USA, and the market outside of the USA is where Apple makes a majority of it's profit.
I also have to laugh a bit at my fellow Americans for being so ignorant of the rest of the world at times. I've met a lot of Americans that assume that if people in another country speak English it's because they want to communicate with Americans. Forgetting the long history (not always pretty) and continuing ties those countries have with the UK. And those continuing ties include probably more UK TV networks (BBC, Sky, ITV) than US ones. Outside of CNN, I've seldom seen US networks in other countries (US shows, yes, but not US networks).
Wow what a suprise (sarcasm intended). ITV told the verge it has not talked with apple at all about this issue. No letters were sent. here is the link:
The pundits are coining the phrase iTV not apple. Nowhere has apple said it would call the successor of the "Apple TV" the "iTV". Nothing to see hear move on the click bait is done.
That's right. I suspect the new Apple TV will be called the Apple TV or some derivative of that name. But if Apple really wanted to the thing called iTV they could achieve that by calling it Apple iTV. Virtually everywhere, except perhaps the UK, the thing would be referred to as the iTV.
I suspect that if Apple does release an Apple TV proper, it will not come on its own but will come with additional services (content deals) and possibly even some new networking hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if they also open the thing up to apps.
How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?
How can that be fair?
O.K. The clue is in my user name - I'm from the U.K. so I have a perspective different to U.S- based subscribers however this comment and others of similar ilk just show the overwhelming chauvinism and lack of respect a few Americans have for other cultures - this is fuelled by such channels as Fox News, which don't go out of their way to present a balanced approach. Let's just pretend that for some reason Apple needed to call their new TV a 'CBS', little pipsqueak company? Not multi-national, buy them up! Shut them down! Who are they to stand in the way of the richest company in the world? Kick sand into the face of the 100 lb weakling!
The millions of British people who have grown up with the name ITV don't count after all they're not from the U.S. so stop moaning.
I love Apple and America but there are so many pumped-up hyper-nationalists there who really don't believe that all men are created equal - certainly if you're a 'furriner' you can just be steamrollered or bought - end of!
Incidentally if I was ITV I wouldn't mind sharing the name at all because of the 'halo effect' but this would be achieved by normal negotiation not by bullying.
Comments
Yeah, they have a market cap of slightly under £5B, but a more important figure is their cash, which is likely around £150M. If Apple offered them 50+M they'd be stupid not to accept it. After all this a physical product, not a channel. Apple should just name it iTV and then challenge them in court. They don't make hardware after all.
Surely what really matters is the value of the ITV brand to them.
A 'Smart Television' and a 'Television Broadcaster' are confusingly similar, this isn't Computer vs Music Label in the 70s when computers beeped. I expect ITV would laugh £50m out of the door.
However I think Apple will just have the product be called Apple TV.
Yea. iTV has a point on this one. They own that name fair and square and have spent decades marketing and building up that brand. Apple will have to come up with a lucrative arrangement for them, or just use another name.
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
By the way, what's with this point in the article about "not the first time iTV has reached out to Apple?" This hardly sounds like reaching out. If they were smart, they'd simply try to license or sell their name for a boatload of money.
all these comments are a waste of time.
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
By the way, what's with this point in the article about "not the first time iTV has reached out to Apple?" This hardly sounds like reaching out. If they were smart, they'd simply try to license or sell their name for a boatload of money.
Under your proposal, I could create a phone operating system and call it iPhone and Apple would have no say to stop me. I HIGHLY doubt that would fly, although by your statement one is hardware and the other is not.
iCanSeeYou
...oh wait, the last one is the name of Google's soon-to-be-announced competing offering, complete with a new "privacy" statement
would not surprise me! lol
Why in the world would ITV publicly warn Apple over something that doesn't exist?
Because Apple has a history of infringing on trademarks.
The simple and obvious solution is for ITV to change it's name.
lol, yes of course. A television corporation with more than sixty years history and owner of four channels with over 20 million regular views and various associated production companies, news outlets and web presence should change it's name to accommodate apple's new product?
Using Apple's own thesaurus comes up with these terms for entertainment:
amusement, pleasure, leisure, recreation, relaxation, fun, enjoyment, interest, diversion.
along with:
show, performance, presentation, production, extravaganza, spectacle, pageant.
Taking suggestions from that list:
- iAmusement is too long. iMuse would be great and even sounds cultural/intellectual. But it's too high-brow.
- iPleasure sounds like porn. iPlease is too vague and general.
- iRecreation is too vague and long.
- iRelaxation is too long and iRelax sounds like something to put us to sleep.
- iFun sounds like something Steve Jobs would like, but it's vague. Making a double by using iPun, pronounced like iFun, it'd also continue the tradition of using "P" words. But it's even vaguer than iPod.
- iEnjoy is too vague. iJoy promises too much.
- iInterest is too general and too cold.
- iDiversion is too cold and too broad.
- iShow is perhaps the best of all. It's short, specific and clear. It's only failing is that it isn't a 'p' word.
- iPerformance shorten to iPerform gives the wrong impression. This is for watching.
- iPresent sounds like a business tool.
- iProduction or iProduce sound like the production end of TV.
- iExtravaganza is too long and too much.
- iSpectacle is too exaggerated.
- iPageant sounds like a Miss American contest.
The best of the lot, by far, is iShow. A distant second, faulted mostly for vagueness, is iFun/iPun.Besides, iShow reminds me of Ed Sullivan in the golden days of television with his "really big show."
--Michael W. Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
I think iCenter is appropriate. It will be so much more than TV - it will be the intelligence center of the home - tv, internet, security (sensors, cameras, etc), environmental monitoring (CO, radon, etc). Why limit it to TV with iTV or Apple TV?
How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?
How can that be fair?
pipsqueak company? Are you joking, or are you really that ignorant?
$4.9B actually.
My source might be wrong then:
Itv Market Data
TIDM \tITV
Ticker Code \tITV.L
ISIN \tGB0033986497
Currency \tGBX
Issue Country \tGB
Sector Ticker \tNMX5550
Year End \t31-Dec-11
Shares in Issue \t3,889m
Market Cap. \t£2,359m
Market Size \t60,000
PE Ratio \t11.52%
Earnings \t6.90p
Dividend \tn/a
Yield \tn/a
# of Trades \t1,535
Vol Sold \t2,703,454
Vol Bought \t3,734,079
52 Week High \t95.85p
52 Week High Date \t3-Mar-11
52 Week Low \t50.75p
52 Week Low Date \t12-Sep-11
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-fundament...=ITV&share=itv
The current conversion rate is: 0.63444
What is your source?
Why in the world would ITV publicly warn Apple over something that doesn't exist? There is no iTV device, it's all speculation at this point. If/when Apple does come out with a new device my guess is they will continue to call it Apple TV. Not everything in their product line is named "i" whatever.
apple could easily avoid all of this type of thing by getting away from the tired 'i'
they should go with:
Apple Douchebox (tv)
Douchepad
Macdouche pro
So call it iTV everywhere except GB, which is the only place anyone has ever heard of ITV.
And canada, australia and most of Europe. There is a world outside of the USA, and the market outside of the USA is where Apple makes a majority of it's profit.
Yeah, they have a market cap of slightly under £5B, but a more important figure is their cash, which is likely around £150M. If Apple offered them 50+M they'd be stupid not to accept it. After all this a physical product, not a channel. Apple should just name it iTV and then challenge them in court. They don't make hardware after all.
I'm not sure 50 mil would quite be in the ballpark. I've been through a couple corporate rebrandings, both realatively minor, and both costing millions of dollars each. And that was for a company not nearly as publically known as ITV is.
That may not be true. Apple's iTV is not the same product. It's (presumably) and actual TV set, not a channel. The point is Apple may be able to argue that its product will not be confused by the average person.
I'm not sure I agree with those saying these are entirely differnt things. Apple's TV isn't going to be just a TV. It's going to be internet connected and also a source of TV content from multiple channels through Apple's online storefront. And ITV isn't just a channel. They also have an online version and also have several channels of content.
So call it iTV everywhere except GB, which is the only place anyone has ever heard of ITV.
And canada, australia and most of Europe. There is a world outside of the USA, and the market outside of the USA is where Apple makes a majority of it's profit.
I also have to laugh a bit at my fellow Americans for being so ignorant of the rest of the world at times. I've met a lot of Americans that assume that if people in another country speak English it's because they want to communicate with Americans. Forgetting the long history (not always pretty) and continuing ties those countries have with the UK. And those continuing ties include probably more UK TV networks (BBC, Sky, ITV) than US ones. Outside of CNN, I've seldom seen US networks in other countries (US shows, yes, but not US networks).
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/13/27...-apple-warning
The pundits are coining the phrase iTV not apple. Nowhere has apple said it would call the successor of the "Apple TV" the "iTV". Nothing to see hear move on the click bait is done.
That's right. I suspect the new Apple TV will be called the Apple TV or some derivative of that name. But if Apple really wanted to the thing called iTV they could achieve that by calling it Apple iTV. Virtually everywhere, except perhaps the UK, the thing would be referred to as the iTV.
I suspect that if Apple does release an Apple TV proper, it will not come on its own but will come with additional services (content deals) and possibly even some new networking hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if they also open the thing up to apps.
How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?
How can that be fair?
O.K. The clue is in my user name - I'm from the U.K. so I have a perspective different to U.S- based subscribers however this comment and others of similar ilk just show the overwhelming chauvinism and lack of respect a few Americans have for other cultures - this is fuelled by such channels as Fox News, which don't go out of their way to present a balanced approach. Let's just pretend that for some reason Apple needed to call their new TV a 'CBS', little pipsqueak company? Not multi-national, buy them up! Shut them down! Who are they to stand in the way of the richest company in the world? Kick sand into the face of the 100 lb weakling!
The millions of British people who have grown up with the name ITV don't count after all they're not from the U.S. so stop moaning.
I love Apple and America but there are so many pumped-up hyper-nationalists there who really don't believe that all men are created equal - certainly if you're a 'furriner' you can just be steamrollered or bought - end of!
Incidentally if I was ITV I wouldn't mind sharing the name at all because of the 'halo effect' but this would be achieved by normal negotiation not by bullying.