Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store'

As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
allpar said:
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.
Click to expand...
The Mac OS has always traditionally referred to applications in place of calling them programs or executables, and when Mac OS X came around it was a natural progression for them to be packaged as .app files which is when referring to applications as "apps" really took off.

So I can fully understand Apple's stance on ownership of the term "app store" as Microsoft and everyone else have never used the term "app" for anything until the iPhone made the term more popular than ever with it's "apps" and "app store".
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
haravikk said:
The Mac OS has always traditionally referred to applications in place of calling them programs or executables, and when Mac OS X came around it was a natural progression for them to be packaged as .app files which is when referring to applications as "apps" really took off.

So I can fully understand Apple's stance on ownership of the term "app store" as Microsoft and everyone else have never used the term "app" for anything until the iPhone made the term more popular than ever with it's "apps" and "app store".
Click to expand...

That's only because you are ignorant of the actual facts and are unwilling to research your beliefs. In fact, you could just read a couple of pages in this thread but even that was too much work, eh?

BTW, OS X didn't popularize anything when it came out. The general public wasn't even very aware of Apple as a brand. It was before the iPod came out. I think Google Apps was one of the big ones on that front. It predates the App store, however.
 
Amazon also hasn't violated anything. Since the trademark hasn't been AWARDED yet - there's nothing to violate. In fact - this IS the time where other companies are supposed to speak up/challenge the trademark.

Apple can continue to fight for ownership of the trademark - but until they actually own it - nothing has been violated.

As for the whole "apps" debate - it's moot really - anyone who's been around longer than the iPhone knows that the word Apps was well used long before Apple.

That's not even the debate. The debate is App Store. Not App. Not Store. But App Store. The combinations of both very generic words.

And as I said earlier in this thread - I don't think Amazon really cares if Apple recognizes their store as an app store or not. Who made Apple the arbiter?

My .02
 
Last edited:
Not this again! Someone needs to put Apple straight. They cannot have exclusive use to any word of their choice.
 
samcraig said:
Apple can continue to fight for ownership of the trademark - but until they actually own it - nothing has been violated.
Click to expand...

It would help if their CEO and other executives didn't completely blow their defense of the trademark in their earnings calls and other public events too. They're arming the oppositions as it stands.

The USPTO needs to get this thing to trial quick so it can be resolved one way or another.
 
THey called them widgets at launch

allpar said:
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).
Click to expand...

Actually if you go back and watch the video where Jobs introduced the iPhone, he called them widgets.

Really.

At one point he yells "YES! We've got widgets!" It's hilarious.

Apple adopted the term Apps because that's what everybody was calling them.

[NOTE: a widget is a part of something called "Dashboard," an application that no one ever uses. It is the thing in the dock that looks like a speedometer. :)]
 
burnside said:
+1000

Some of you need an app to smack you in the head. App sounds like "application", but Windows does not sound like "operating system". You get it? Obviously you don't. To those that do, keep spreading your genes around so we can filter out these idiots Darwin style.
Click to expand...

APP also sounds like Apple. Anyway, Amazon has a kindle store for its books, should Apple sell books on their own kindle store? Kindle is a generic word......
 
KnightWRX said:
It would help if their CEO and other executives didn't completely blow their defense of the trademark in their earnings calls and other public events too. They're arming the oppositions as it stands.

The USPTO needs to get this thing to trial quick so it can be resolved one way or another.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I posted that several times in this thread upon deaf ears of the Apple "enthusiasts"
 
musiciscool said:
APP also sounds like Apple. Anyway, Amazon has a kindle store for its books, should Apple sell books on their own kindle store? Kindle is a generic word......
Click to expand...

You're seriously not saying App Store is meant to be Apple Store.

No. You're not. Please. As for Kindle...

kin·dle/ˈkindl/Verb
1. Light or set on fire.
2. Arouse or inspire (an emotion or feeling).

Does the Kindle store sell "Lights or set on fire" or "Arouse or Inspire" ? Because those aren't digital or material goods...

Oh wait.. the Kindle Store is a Book Store. This would be analogous only if Amazon had called it Book Store. Kindle Store is non-descriptive and thus not related to this discussion. Please stay on topic.

samcraig said:
Yeah - I posted that several times in this thread upon deaf ears of the Apple "enthusiasts"
Click to expand...

I posted the transcript from Steve's Jobs intervention at the earning's call with the quote and all and it led to a very off-topic comment and funny comment by KingCrimson who had nothing to retort at all. His argument against the whole thing ? Apple has 60B $ in the bank... yeah, like that even matters in this discussion...

Face it, some people will go to any lengths to defend Apple, there was a scientific study done showing this is religion to some folks :

Apple causes ‘religious’ reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists

Normal people realise that what Apple is trying to do here is ridiculous. And when did it become the "App Store" anyway, it used to be called the "iTunes App Store".
 
Last edited:
KnightWRX said:
You're seriously not saying App Store is meant to be Apple Store.

No. You're not. Please. As for Kindle...

kin·dle/ˈkindl/Verb
1. Light or set on fire.
2. Arouse or inspire (an emotion or feeling).

Does the Kindle store sell "Lights or set on fire" or "Arouse or Inspire" ? Because those aren't digital or material goods...

Oh wait.. the Kindle Store is a Book Store. This would be analogous only if Amazon had called it Book Store. Kindle Store is non-descriptive and thus not related to this discussion. Please stay on topic.



I posted the transcript from Steve's Jobs intervention at the earning's call with the quote and all and it led to a very off-topic comment and funny comment by KingCrimson who had nothing to retort at all. His argument against the whole thing ? Apple has 60B $ in the bank... yeah, like that even matters in this discussion...

Face it, some people will go to any lengths to defend Apple, there was a scientific study done showing this is religion to some folks :

Apple causes ‘religious’ reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists
Click to expand...

I was going to write this nearly word for word.

Kindle Store isn't Book Store. Very different

And for those stuck on Amazon's 1-click. Try and remember the use, the fact it's a button and also that 1-click is unique vs "1Click" or "One Click" or "One-Click" - etc...
 
allpar said:
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.
Click to expand...

Not so. Google Apps for Business has been in existence since 2006, for example - so the term 'app' has been used for application prior to the launch of the app store (launched 2008).
 
samcraig said:
And for those stuck on Amazon's 1-click. Try and remember the use, the fact it's a button and also that 1-click is unique vs "1Click" or "One Click" or "One-Click" - etc...
Click to expand...

Let's see about the 1-click thing. There's presently 2 Live registrations for 1-click at the USPTO. Yes, 2. Nope, they don't both belong to Amazon.

This is Amazon's :

Typed Drawing

Word Mark 1-CLICK
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Computerized on line search and ordering service featuring the[ wholesale and ]retail distribution of literary works, music, motion pictures, multimedia products, computer software, books, publications, audiocassettes, videocassettes, compact disks, floppy disks and CD ROMs. FIRST USE: 19970923. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970923
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75413262
Filing Date January 2, 1998
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 4, 1999
Registration Number 2264368
Registration Date July 27, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) Amazon.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE P.O. Box 80387 Seattle WASHINGTON 981080387
(LAST LISTED OWNER) AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CORPORATION NEVADA P.O. BOX 8102 RENO NEVADA 89507

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20090619.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20090619
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Click to expand...

Notice the type of trademark. This is important folks. It's a drawing trademark. Amazon trademarked their 1 click logo. Not the words themselves.

So do not bring up that trademark. It has nothing to do with the case at hand. Apple is going for a character mark, not a typed drawing. Otherwise, they would have no case against Amazon since the logos are not identical at all.


Mad Pierre said:
Not so. Google Apps for Business has been in existence since 2006, for example - so the term 'app' has been used for application prior to the launch of the app store (launched 2008).
Click to expand...

You can go back much farther than that. Visicalc was hailed as the killer app for a then very young platform that just launched. I'll let you look up what that was (hint, we're on a forum about it's maker and back in those years, keyboard music was in and video was trying to kill the radio stars).
 
kdarling said:
Apparently you've never looked at a Windows directory, going back at least as far as Windows NT. See below. Also, DLLs are called "Application Extensions".

You're barking up the wrong tree. Apple doesn't claim "app". They're only trying to claim "app store".

I think they could've, before they used it so much generically themselves, even in earnings calls.
Click to expand...

DLL = Dynamic Link Library

The trouble with most of you people's arguments on the App or Application is that you don't go back to 1984. Were most of you born or even an adult at that time. I think if you were, and into computing, you would know Application was a dorky name from Apple. Hmm Apple..Application..Apple..Application.. There's a ring to that.

Over time, Apple's use of 'application' spread, even at 3% market share, and now in 2011 the term is common. This isn't hard to agree to because other terms from the Mac GUI spread into windows. Admit it, there was a lot of copying going on of Apple since they pushing a lot of technology into personal computing.

So in summary, back in 1984 it was only Apple calling programs Applications or Apps. You show me some references to applications in the Microsoft world from that time and I will shut up.
 
FakeWozniak said:
DLL = Dynamic Link Library

The trouble with most of you people's arguments on the App or Application is that you don't go back to 1984. Were most of you born or even an adult at that time. I think if you were, and into computing, you would know Application was a dorky name from Apple. Hmm Apple..Application..Apple..Application.. There's a ring to that.
Click to expand...

Old Unix (even older than Apple's stuff) had these things called APIs... I wonder what that acronym stands for... A... programming interface.... what is that A again... ;)
 
FakeWozniak said:
So in summary, back in 1984 it was only Apple calling programs Applications or Apps. You show me some references to applications in the Microsoft world from that time and I will shut up.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I'm also pretty sure my palm pilot had APPS

And you're naive if you want to link "App" with "Apple" as a "defense". Pretty lame duck defense at best.

And as it's been said - that's irrelevant to the actual argument. This is about a trademark of "App Store."

Try and keep your "defense" to the actual issue. App Store = Generic.
 
macsmurf said:
That's only because you are ignorant of the actual facts and are unwilling to research your beliefs. In fact, you could just read a couple of pages in this thread but even that was too much work, eh?

BTW, OS X didn't popularize anything when it came out. The general public wasn't even very aware of Apple as a brand. It was before the iPod came out. I think Google Apps was one of the big ones on that front. It predates the App store, however.
Click to expand...

Were you alive in 1984? Did you own a Mac and PC in 1984. I worked daily on each of them in 1987. Apple popularized the term Application in the personal computing world with the Macintosh.

Here, let me go back to 1984 on Google or Wikipedia to prove it. Oops, they didn't exist for another decade. What, no Internet, bummer! I better dial in to my FIDO BBS at 300 baud to ask the sysop.

KnightWRX said:
Old Unix (even older than Apple's stuff) had these things called APIs... I wonder what that acronym stands for... A... programming interface.... what is that A again... ;)
Click to expand...

Sure, API means application programming interface. But it's not the same because APIs were actual definitions of function calls to access software modules, in the API context. In older computer science lingo, an application referred to "applying functionality", the literal definition from a dictionary, i.e. doing something in a generic sense.

I recall Unix, VMS, etc referred to programs as executables (e.g. mode/chmod drwxr-xr-x for unix) as it could be a shell script, binary program, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FakeWozniak said:
Were you alive in 1984? Did you own a Mac and PC in 1984. I worked daily on each of them in 1987. Apple popularized the term Application in the personal computing world with the Macintosh.

Here, let me go back to 1984 on Google or Wikipedia to prove it. Oops, they didn't exist for another decade. What, no Internet, bummer! I better dial in to my FIDO BBS at 300 baud to ask the sysop.
Click to expand...

Get off your ageist high horse LOL - By 1984 I already had two games (the code) published in Compute Magazine.

Again - the issue isn't "apps" - the issue is that app store is a description which is generic. It's also really a non issue since I doubt Amazon cares if Apple acknowledges its store as an app store.

I also notice you have nothing to respond to the fact that Cook and Jobs themselves refer to other companies having App Stores very publicly.
 
samcraig said:
Yeah - I'm also pretty sure my palm pilot had APPS

And you're naive if you want to link "App" with "Apple" as a "defense". Pretty lame duck defense at best.

And as it's been said - that's irrelevant to the actual argument. This is about a trademark of "App Store."

Try and keep your "defense" to the actual issue. App Store = Generic.
Click to expand...

And I finally deleted my older PalmOS development CodeWarrior environment from my file server, darn. I wrote a programmers calculator application that was very popular. But I seem to recall I am a Mac person and so were most Palm developers I knew, so it was logical.

Anyway, the logic of my argument was that Apple popularized the use of Application and App. They should get some recognition for that. When I think about it, this is for lawyers and consultants and experts in that area, so I can't say what is right/wrong in that regards, but I do know Apple had the first "App Store", and they popularize the term, so throw them a bone already.
 
FakeWozniak said:
And I finally deleted my older PalmOS development CodeWarrior environment from my file server, darn. I wrote a programmers calculator application that was very popular. But I seem to recall I am a Mac person and so were most Palm developers I knew, so it was logical.

Anyway, the logic of my argument was that Apple popularized the use of Application and App. They should get some recognition for that. When I think about it, this is for lawyers and consultants and experts in that area, so I can't say what is right/wrong in that regards, but I do know Apple had the first "App Store", and they popularize the term, so throw them a bone already.
Click to expand...

Oh good - we get to the hear of the matter. You want Apple to get recognition. Maybe we can bake them a cake and have a parade?

What kind of recognition should they get specifically do you think. You think a trademark on a generic phrase?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top