Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:41 UTC
Apple "Apple could face disruption to its iPad sales in China after a court rejected its claim to own the iPad trademark in the country and a rival sought to halt sales of the tablet device in two Chinese cities. The developments are the latest in a long-running dispute between Apple and Proview Technology (Shenzhen), a struggling Taiwanese-owned company that registered trademarks for the name IPAD in many countries long before Apple conceived its smash hit tablet computer." Apple is clearly copying from this innovative Chinese company. If Apple fanatics are actually consistent (*), they would condemn Apple for this clear case of theft.
Thread beginning with comment 499356
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ephracis
by ephracis on Thu 8th Dec 2011 00:58 UTC
ephracis
Member since:
2007-09-23

As I was reading this right below the story there was a huge advertisement for something iBank. ;)

Can someone tell me just what the deal with the i-prefix is? Does it have any meaning, like the e-prefix?

Of course, I realize that in the case described in the article it seems that there was no actual i-prefix, just the four letter IPAD in uppercase.

Maybe I should start a naming scheme with a upperletter R suffix...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ephracis
by LeeZH on Thu 8th Dec 2011 02:00 in reply to "Comment by ephracis"
LeeZH Member since:
2010-10-21

Personally, I think the i-prefix was used when the e-prefix was starting to feel old.

I remember watching a film somewhere in which a business man was trying to smooth talk that it encompass intelligent, interconnected, or something like that. Or it could've been Dilbert. I'm not too sure. ;)

Maybe we should start popularising the p-prefix. That way I'll be in stitches whenever someone mentions the p-cam.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by ephracis
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Dec 2011 05:57 in reply to "Comment by ephracis"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The first iThing was the iMac in 1998, it stood for Internet.

After that it became a marketing thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ephracis
by Moredhas on Thu 8th Dec 2011 07:53 in reply to "RE: Comment by ephracis"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Before then, I think it was commonplace to prefix things with "Intelligent" or "Intelli", but I could be misremembering. This was more than half my life ago ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ephracis
by tupp on Thu 8th Dec 2011 15:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by ephracis"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

The first iThing was the iMac in 1998, it stood for Internet.


No.

"IThings" were around long before Apple had them.

Here is the Lowel iLight: http://www.bwitekblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ilight1.jpg

The iLight first appeared in 1985, as did it's trademark.

There are other earlier examples, and there has been at least one thread on OSNews on the subject.

Again, Apple just doesn't actually originate much.

Edited 2011-12-08 15:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by ephracis
by zima on Thu 8th Dec 2011 09:20 in reply to "Comment by ephracis"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

"i" stands for imaginary (also, notably: i^2 = -1 )

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by ephracis
by Laurence on Thu 8th Dec 2011 12:47 in reply to "Comment by ephracis"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Maybe I should start a naming scheme with a upperletter R suffix...

...or uppercase K prefix, oh that's already been done

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ephracis
by jabbotts on Thu 8th Dec 2011 17:01 in reply to "RE: Comment by ephracis"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ah yes.. it's confusing and conveluted when KDE bases a naming convention around it's overall product suite. but when Apple develops a naming convention not related to it's company name and primary Mac brand, it's magic and revolutionary.

But then, I've found the people who get hung up over the name rather than the actual merits of the thing don't usually have anything of substance to offer beyond the superficial title.

Reply Parent Score: 2