Comments on: iPhone, youPhone, we all use “iPhone”

By: karl

karl — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:19:44 +0000

I have only 3 words to say.
Amazing, Gorgeous and …

By: Hans

Hans — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:39:14 +0000

[quote]Mac Pro. iMac.
ProBook. iBook.[/quote]
With all due respect, The Steve has publicly pronounced that they wanted to get the “Mac” into all their computer names. iMac already has it, it needs no change. Neither Powerbook nor iBook had the magical moniker, therefore needed changing.

As for why the PowerMac needed changing.. I dunno. Maybe just to be consistent with MacBook Pro.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:09:29 +0000

All the folks up in arms, or getting vapors, or whatever, about Apple “ignoring” trademark law are idiots.

Apple was not ignoring anything. Apple was CHALLENGING the trademark holder. Trademarks are a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. You can’t register (or acquire) a trademark and do squat with it. If you just squat on it, the trademark can be challenged.

Apple had a plausible challenge to Cisco, and they believed they could prevail in court. Whether Apple WOULD have prevailed is a different question, but that’s for the courts to decide, not a bunch of lamers trying to criticize Apple or Teh Steve for “ignoring” trademark laws.

If Cisco had really thought they were invulnerable, they wouldn’t have negotiated a settlement with Apple. The fact they DID negotiate a settlement might be a subtle clue.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:06:46 +0000

Fair enough lol

By: The Macalope

The Macalope — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:43:43 +0000

But the PowerBook predates the PowerPC. The Macalope had a very nice 68LC040-based PowerBook.

And then why change the iBook and not the iMac?

Mac Pro. iMac.
ProBook. iBook.

Makes more sense to the Macalope, but he doesn’t get paid for these kinds of decisions.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:17:27 +0000

I think that the main reason for Apple to change the name of the PowerBook to MacBook Pro, was mainly to mark the transition to Intel processors (as you say in your comment)… It would be confusing to the consumer to buy a Apple Laptop without a PowerPC processor, but still called PowerBook… The iBook change of name just followed the change of it’s big brother…

By: Hans

Hans — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:57:56 +0000

I would just like to point out that I am not a WSJOnline subscriber, but I can see the linked article just fine, thankyouverymuch.

By: The Macalope

The Macalope — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:31:29 +0000

Blattapus, Apple would never name something the name the Macalope created or the one you did (Microsoft would). But “iPod” in particular is a totally weird name that means very little - much less than “iPhone” does, certainly. There are probably half a dozen good replacement names.

But look at the MacBook. Apple had two great names - the PowerBook and the iBook - and they threw them out the window in favor of a more confusing name just to mark the Intel transition - a transition they did not mark in the flagship Mac, the iMac. Why? Possibly just because the name was invented when Steve Jobs wasn’t at Apple.

Now the company has its customers running around asking “Do you mean the Pro or the non-Pro?” every time someone says they have a MacBook. But, still, it’s not affecting adoption of the line.

Apple could have just called the iPhone “the Phone”. And everyone on the street would have said “the Apple Phone”. I agree that the iPhone is better, but an iPhone by any other name would still be as awesome.

By: blattapus

blattapus — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:13:53 +0000

What the device is called actually matters. Would the iPod be as successful if it were called the Apple Music Player? I actually doubt it. I think that it wouldn’t be the icon mp3 player that it is today. The name is important to Apple (and consumers really) because of what it means five to seven years down the line. You can think of the iPod as an example here.

And the Blattapus rejoiced.

By: Matt Green

Matt Green — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:06:01 +0000

The vibe I got from early reports on the situation seemed to point at “interoperability” being some integration between the Linksys iPhone products and the Apple iPhone. possibly something like an app on the Apple phone that enables it to be a wifi VOIP phone connecting to a Linksys iPhone base.

The only other thing that sounds remotely reasonable in this regard would be Cisco wanting to stream to/from iTunes with some of their network storage and media extender devices. They’d probably love to be able to offer Airport Express and AppleTV functions from their own (lower cost) products, or have their NAS products officially support iTunes library sharing/syncing with Apple’s hardware.