Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Jun 2011 22:46 UTC
In the News As we reported earlier this week, Apple is busy sending out cease and desist letters to small, defenceless projects to defend its trademark application (it doesn't actually own the trademark yet) for 'app store'. This has prompted many a discussion over the trademarkability of such a generic term, and over the origins of the abbreviation 'app'. Who came up with it? How old is it? To my surprise - the abbreviation is much older than you'd think, and in a way, it illustrates quite well the demise of the programmer. What? Read on.
Thread beginning with comment 478636
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: This is a red herring
by bassbeast on Sun 26th Jun 2011 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This is a red herring"
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

Uhhh...you mean tylenol? as that is what everyone in the states calls it no matter who makes it, same as with aspirin. As for TFA this is stupid. It isn't like chromebook or some other word cooked up by a company like Tylenol, this is too common as dirt words put side by side. Does this mean I can own any word as long as I put it with another common word that hasn't been put together yet, like "laptop store" or "computer shop"? This is just nuts.

Besides it isn't like anyone is gonna be able to confuse Apple's minimalist utopia with something made by Amazon, you can't get any farther apart when it comes to aesthetics. Same thing with that stupid Samsung lawsuit, nobody is gonna confuse a Samsung phone for an Apple one, as Apple is all about the pretty while the Samsung will be just another black square. Finally living next to an Apple centric college I can tell you talking to students the Apple name is a status thing, so buying a Samsung simply wouldn't give the appropriate response. It would be like saying putting a "my other car is a Ferrari" sticker on a Honda equals actually having a Ferrari.

I just wonder if all this craziness is due to Steve being ill. It seemed like they were mainly focused on owning new markets when Steve was around but now that he is sick it is almost like the other potential next CEOs are trying to jockey for position by seeing who can bring in the most cash by being a douche. while I don't wish the man ill not having a serious plan for his replacement will come back to bite Apple in the butt, as I have a feeling when Steve goes it'll be the Pepsi guy all over again. Between the lawsuit stupidity, the "don't say malware" stupidity, and the burning of the final cut customers, it seems like that company simply can't do right when Steve isn't there.

Reply Parent Score: 1