The more I think about it, the more I have become convinced that they need to do this rebranding because the product lines are about to branch out into so many new areas, that Apple needs to simplify their identification.
Pro Mac is the new PowerMac I think. Apple realized that two valuable assets were the iPod and Mac names. And with the iPod they developed the system of having the iPod followed by model name. So we have iPod shuffle, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod photo, iPod video etc. Likely the same will happen with Macs. MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro, MacServe(?) etc.
Pro Mac is the new PowerMac I think. Apple realized that two valuable assets were the iPod and Mac names. And with the iPod they developed the system of having the iPod followed by model name. So we have iPod shuffle, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod photo, iPod video etc. Likely the same will happen with Macs. MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro, MacServe(?) etc.
I think MacServe is the logical step.
I'm still torn between MacBook versus iMacBook. I prefer MacBook but Apple may want to capitalize on the iMac and iPod by invoking their names.
Nice of Apple to make use of New Zealand's public offices to secure its worldwide IP.
Odd to choose a country which it deems of too little significance to offer access to an iTunes Store, where we're billed in Australian dollars for .Mac and QuickTime Pro despite having a perfectly good currency of our own... I guess we're good for something.
If Apple keeps its servers, I'm not totally sure they'll change the name. After all, an XServe, while technically running Mac software, isn't really a Mac.
If Apple keeps its servers, I'm not totally sure they'll change the name. After all, an XServe, while technically running Mac software, isn't really a Mac.
The definition of a Mac is a machine made by Apple that runs Mac OS, hence even an Xserve is a Mac. There's nothing exciting about it to single it out from the crown like you suggest, who cares it lacks the speaker for the start up chime?
I don't think they will rename the iMac nor the Xserve. They wanted to get rid of the "Power" moniker, and we've seen them introduce the iMac Core Duo, when they just as well could've renamed it to whatever. Just calling it "Mac" is probably too short and is already taken, since that's what we call the lot of them since several years.. even portables. I think it'll be hard for Apple to do the naming consistently if they plan to scrap the "iBook" in favour for a "MacBook". I really would've preferred "Pro Mac" but hey.. I learned to love "iMac" once, so anything is possible.
Perhaps something like this:
MacBook mini, iBook, MacBook, MacBook Pro
Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro
Xserve mini, Xserve, Xserve Pro
While I'm at it.. I think Apple did right in renaming the PowerBook to something with "Mac" in it. Apple have everything to gain by strengthening the "Mac" trademark. Sadly.. it was the oldest trademark in use, two months older than QuickTime which is the oldest now.
1. "Earlier this month, AppleInsider was first to reveal..." Hardly. Apple has been doing this for years. I recall seeing a story about some new Apple brand in roughly 2002, and looking it up and seeing that Apple had claimed priority from an application originally filed in Singapore. I can't remember what brand it was, though.
2. Why Apple would do this: The Paris Convention, an intellectual property treaty, provides that an owner can file in one country, and then can file in additional countries up to six months later and claim "convention priority" based on the original application. In the modern world, one could never orchestrate an absolutely simultaneous filing in multiple countries (and it would be an enormously inefficient use of resources to do so). The theory is that if a company files on Jan 15 in country A, and launches their product March 1, some bozo in another country shouldn't be able to hold the product name ransom by filing in another country the next week. The treaty means that the company has until June 15 to file in other countries, and if it does, it would be treated as if it had been filed on Jan 15, so they would trump an application filed in March. This is particularly important because in most civil law countries (generally, anywhere not formerly owned by the British) rights go to the first to file, not the first to use a mark. But yes, the system does allow one to do it in reverse, and file in a secondary market, then claim priority in a primary market. And who knows where else they were doing it. If it were me, I would deliberately pick a country whose trademark office doesn't have a free, web-searchable database of applications (which is, to me, the only reason New Zealand is a surprising choice).
3. How to recognize such applications once you see them in the USPTO database. On the information screen for a mark, there is an entry for "Original Filing Basis." If the number there is 1A or 1B, the application was filed originally in the U.S. (Those mean the application was filed based on the applicant's use of the term in commerce, or bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, respectively.) If it says 44, or a number in the 60s, it means the application was based on an earlier foreign application. (The number refers to the section of the Trademark Act that allows for a particular type of application.)
4. Trademarks are not Patents. People here are reading a lot into the description of goods or services. It's not at all like a patent, where the patent claims must describe with specificity what the invention does. The trademark description of goods or services merely identifies the goods to which the mark will be applied, or the services that will be promoted using the mark. Think of BONJOUR, or FIREWIRE, or AIRPORT. Marks like those could appear on an enormous variety of goods, from base stations, to music software, to cameras, to hard drives, to laptops, desktops, printers, to a wifi cell phone, to instant messaging software, to the package of international power plugs you can buy for your AP Express. It's really hard to tell what the core uses of a mark like MOBILE ME are.
Perhaps someone familiar with patent strategies would know if this kind of thing is done just to cover the bases, or possibly to throw off obsessive compulsive Apple watchers by burying some actual planned products in a haystack
That's always possible, but it sounded as though it was something that he planned to say. If you watched the way he said it, and waved his arm in a dismissive way, it seemed final.
The fact that those of us like you and I have to explain to people that "Power" came before the PPC shows that most people don't know much from that far back. The name has become associated with the chip.
It's too bad, really, it was a good name. It sounded professional.
Comments
Originally posted by Nautical
Pro Mac is the new PowerMac I think. Apple realized that two valuable assets were the iPod and Mac names. And with the iPod they developed the system of having the iPod followed by model name. So we have iPod shuffle, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod photo, iPod video etc. Likely the same will happen with Macs. MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro, MacServe(?) etc.
I think MacServe is the logical step.
I'm still torn between MacBook versus iMacBook. I prefer MacBook but Apple may want to capitalize on the iMac and iPod by invoking their names.
Odd to choose a country which it deems of too little significance to offer access to an iTunes Store, where we're billed in Australian dollars for .Mac and QuickTime Pro despite having a perfectly good currency of our own... I guess we're good for something.
Originally posted by ecking
I knew it! I as soon as I heard MacBook Pro, Mac Pro was the logical next step.
Expect iMacBook instead of ibook. Search the forums you'll all see I called it.
I don't think there will be an iMacBook. I am betting on the following:
MacBook (replaces iBook)
MacBook Pro (replaces PowerBook)
Mac (replaces iMac)
Mac Pro (replaces Power Mac)
MacServe (replaces Xserve)
I know the iMac G5 was just replaced with iMac Core Duo, but I think it will be replaced again with the Mac, on Apple's 30th anniversary.
http://www.mandrake.demon.co.uk/Appl....html#macserve
Originally posted by CosmoNut
If Apple keeps its servers, I'm not totally sure they'll change the name. After all, an XServe, while technically running Mac software, isn't really a Mac.
The definition of a Mac is a machine made by Apple that runs Mac OS, hence even an Xserve is a Mac. There's nothing exciting about it to single it out from the crown like you suggest, who cares it lacks the speaker for the start up chime?
I don't think they will rename the iMac nor the Xserve. They wanted to get rid of the "Power" moniker, and we've seen them introduce the iMac Core Duo, when they just as well could've renamed it to whatever. Just calling it "Mac" is probably too short and is already taken, since that's what we call the lot of them since several years.. even portables. I think it'll be hard for Apple to do the naming consistently if they plan to scrap the "iBook" in favour for a "MacBook". I really would've preferred "Pro Mac" but hey.. I learned to love "iMac" once, so anything is possible.
Perhaps something like this:
MacBook mini, iBook, MacBook, MacBook Pro
Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro
Xserve mini, Xserve, Xserve Pro
While I'm at it.. I think Apple did right in renaming the PowerBook to something with "Mac" in it. Apple have everything to gain by strengthening the "Mac" trademark. Sadly.. it was the oldest trademark in use, two months older than QuickTime which is the oldest now.
Originally posted by TednDi
In time for Mac World Paris Apple should register Le Royale as well!!
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Or would it be Le Royale Pro?
You two got it wrong.
A Big Mac is still a Big Mac. Everywhere.
It is the Quarter pounder that is called Le Royal because of the metric system.
But then it wouldn't have been avery good pulp fiction reference either!
Perhaps they could cool the Le Big Mac with special sauce!!
++++++++
[VINCENT]
I know, baby, you'd dig it the most.. But you know what the funniest thing about Europe is?
[JULES]
What?
[VINCENT]
It's the little differences. A lotta the same shit we got here,
they got there, but there they're a little different.
[JULES]
Example ?
[VNCENT]
Alright, when you .... into a movie theatre in Amsterdam, you can buy beer.
And I don't mean in a paper cup either. They give you a glass of beer
And in Paris, you can buy beer at MacDonald's.
And you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
[JULES]
They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?
[VINCENT]
No, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
[JULES]
What'd they call it?
[VINCENT]
They call it Royale with Cheese.
[JULES]
Royale with Cheese. What'd they call a Big Mac?
[VINCENT]
Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac.
[JULES]
Le big Mac ! Ahhaha, what do they call a Whopper?
[VINCENT]
I dunno, I didn't go into a Burger King.
But you know what they put on french fries in Holland instead of ketchup?
[JULES]
What?
[VINCENT]
Mayonnaise.
[JULES]
Goddamn!
[VINCENT]
I seen 'em do it man, they fuckin' drown 'em in it.
[JULES]
Uuccch!
1. "Earlier this month, AppleInsider was first to reveal..." Hardly. Apple has been doing this for years. I recall seeing a story about some new Apple brand in roughly 2002, and looking it up and seeing that Apple had claimed priority from an application originally filed in Singapore. I can't remember what brand it was, though.
2. Why Apple would do this: The Paris Convention, an intellectual property treaty, provides that an owner can file in one country, and then can file in additional countries up to six months later and claim "convention priority" based on the original application. In the modern world, one could never orchestrate an absolutely simultaneous filing in multiple countries (and it would be an enormously inefficient use of resources to do so). The theory is that if a company files on Jan 15 in country A, and launches their product March 1, some bozo in another country shouldn't be able to hold the product name ransom by filing in another country the next week. The treaty means that the company has until June 15 to file in other countries, and if it does, it would be treated as if it had been filed on Jan 15, so they would trump an application filed in March. This is particularly important because in most civil law countries (generally, anywhere not formerly owned by the British) rights go to the first to file, not the first to use a mark. But yes, the system does allow one to do it in reverse, and file in a secondary market, then claim priority in a primary market. And who knows where else they were doing it. If it were me, I would deliberately pick a country whose trademark office doesn't have a free, web-searchable database of applications (which is, to me, the only reason New Zealand is a surprising choice).
3. How to recognize such applications once you see them in the USPTO database. On the information screen for a mark, there is an entry for "Original Filing Basis." If the number there is 1A or 1B, the application was filed originally in the U.S. (Those mean the application was filed based on the applicant's use of the term in commerce, or bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce, respectively.) If it says 44, or a number in the 60s, it means the application was based on an earlier foreign application. (The number refers to the section of the Trademark Act that allows for a particular type of application.)
4. Trademarks are not Patents. People here are reading a lot into the description of goods or services. It's not at all like a patent, where the patent claims must describe with specificity what the invention does. The trademark description of goods or services merely identifies the goods to which the mark will be applied, or the services that will be promoted using the mark. Think of BONJOUR, or FIREWIRE, or AIRPORT. Marks like those could appear on an enormous variety of goods, from base stations, to music software, to cameras, to hard drives, to laptops, desktops, printers, to a wifi cell phone, to instant messaging software, to the package of international power plugs you can buy for your AP Express. It's really hard to tell what the core uses of a mark like MOBILE ME are.
Understandable legalese - I thought that was an oxymoron.
Z
Using/saying Mac Pro is like putting the cart before the horse
or the shaw before the rick...
Originally posted by ascii
I don't think there will be an iMacBook. I am betting on the following:
MacBook (replaces iBook)
MacBook Pro (replaces PowerBook)
Mac (replaces iMac)
Mac Pro (replaces Power Mac)
MacServe (replaces Xserve)
I know the iMac G5 was just replaced with iMac Core Duo, but I think it will be replaced again with the Mac, on Apple's 30th anniversary.
my call is MacBook replaces iBook, Macbook Pro, XServe (remains), iMac (remains), Mac Pro replaces PowerMac, Mac mini (remains)
sorry, MacServe sounds really bad.
what about XMac?
Originally posted by addabox
Perhaps someone familiar with patent strategies would know if this kind of thing is done just to cover the bases, or possibly to throw off obsessive compulsive Apple watchers by burying some actual planned products in a haystack
Kindred sentiments.
Originally posted by melgross
That's always possible, but it sounded as though it was something that he planned to say. If you watched the way he said it, and waved his arm in a dismissive way, it seemed final.
The fact that those of us like you and I have to explain to people that "Power" came before the PPC shows that most people don't know much from that far back. The name has become associated with the chip.
It's too bad, really, it was a good name. It sounded professional.
It is a good name. It was a good name.
Originally posted by sunilraman
my call is MacBook replaces iBook, [snipperdesnipsnip]
i hope you're wrong, suni
as i previously mentioned just after the stevenote