Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
yg17 said:
They very well could just use G6....the G doesn't neccesarily mean its a PowerPC. Of course, the issue is the Pontiac G6, Apple may not be able to use it for a processor name (and jumping to G7 is silly)
The G stands for Generation... as in G5 is the 5th generation of PPCs. The first PowerMac had a first generation PPC (the 601); the PPC 603 and 604 were the second generation, then Apple went to G3, G4, G5.

In any event, I don't think there would be a dispute about the Pontiac G6. Trademarks are industry-specific. You could open a restaurant called G5 and not be sued by Apple. Probably.

This would be a chance for Apple to break from the now-aging "PowerMac" moniker. It has been around since PowerMacs were boring beige boxes. Howzabout the Xmac? Nah... sounds too much like Xmas. Oh well.
 
Ha ha I guess all those snide references to "mactel" will be a bit quieter now...I guess Steve-O does read this site after all.
 
Mactel
Mectel...

Nah! Not sexy enough for a Processor name for Apple.

Ok G5 isn't exactly brilliant but it did have a legacy of g3 and g4. G5 sounds like a new new generation and it worked from a marketing point of view.

Mactel...could this just Apple protecting it's name? Could a PC manufacturer have used it for something a bit misleading?

Hell, it could be the first Apple phone (or phone OS) :)
 
witness said:
I agree that they will probably have to rebrand most of their line now, especially those with "Power" in the name, but I'm sure that they can come up with something a lot better than Mactel or even Macintel, they're both pretty awful.

Also, I don’t think that everything will have to change; iMac and iBook for example could stay just as they are, but with a new chip name to replace G4/G5.
Why do you say that? The "Power" moniker was used by Apple in the 68k era, years before the PowerPC chip. The "Gx" moniker is also Apple's own.
 
obiwan said:
I always thought Wintel was a derogatory term invented by Mac users, is MacTel supposed to be a compliment?

"Wintel" as a name came about as a result of Microsoft dropping support of Alpha, Mips, and PPC after the service pack 2 fiasco of Windows NT 4.0.
Windows became entirely dependent on Intel at that Time.
 
Krizoitz said:
Ok, when we had the transition from the 680x0 Macs to the PowerPC Macs did we call them MacPows? or MacerPC? No, we refered to them as 68k and PowerPC Macs. Now we just need to call them PowerPC Macs and Intel Macs. THATS IT. Mactel, Macintel, Intelintosh are all incredibly uninspired and un-Apple. Since when has Apple done something so utterly derivative? I thought Apple was all about THINK DIFFERENT. If they are tradmarking this so no one will start using it, fine. But for all of you actually using it, you should be ashamed for copying the old Wintel term. Intel Mac. Thats what you call them when you have to differentiate, seriously folks, its not that hard to figure out.
Yes, Yes, YES!!! :D
Here, Here!

Oh, I agree with you 100% BTW. :)

Intel Macs.
 
icarusflies said:
Mactel
Mectel...

Nah! Not sexy enough for a Processor name for Apple.

Ok G5 isn't exactly brilliant but it did have a legacy of g3 and g4. G5 sounds like a new new generation and it worked from a marketing point of view.

Mactel...could this just Apple protecting it's name? Could a PC manufacturer have used it for something a bit misleading?

Hell, it could be the first Apple phone (or phone OS) :)
Well, there was a clone maker called MacTel (or Mactel) back in the '90s. They were very short lived because they came out only months before Apple yanked the clone agreement.

iMeowbot said:
That there would be a Lanham Act violation. They've got to use it or lose it.
How much time does one have to "use it" before they "lose it." If the time is in years, then Apple will protect that name and pay whatever fine, etc. as a cost of doing business and consider that worthwhile. Five years from now when the new Macs with Intel CPUs are established with established model names, then no one will care about the name "Mactel" and Apple will then be willing to "lose it" and let it go.

Also, as has been mentioned already, "internal" names or "code" names can be trademarked without ever using that name for a shipping product. So as long as Apple uses "Mactel" as an internal code name, they can keep the trademark. They are not required to use the name for a product that ships. :D

The Apple phone ought to be called AirPhone, hmm, maybe iPhone. ;)
You heard it here first! :)
 
I hate Mactel. Macintel rolls off the tongue better and has the same number of syllables as Macintosh.

But, how can Apple trademark it if someone else already uses that name?
 
~loserman~ said:
"Wintel" as a name came about as a result of Microsoft dropping support of Alpha, Mips, and PPC after the service pack 2 fiasco of Windows NT 4.0.
"Wintel" was already in use by 1994, when NT 3.5 was still current.

MS didn't drop support for NT on Alpha, Compaq did. Most Alpha customers were running Tru64 or OpenVMS, so pouring money into Win2K didn't make a lot of sense. It was a 32 bit operating system on 64-bit hardware, and MS weren't in a hurry to move to 64 bits.
Windows became entirely dependent on Intel at that Time.
In real life it always was. Aside from CE, Windows on non-PC hardware never really caught on in a big way.
 
sacear said:
How much time does one have to "use it" before they "lose it."
As of now, they don't even have it. An application is just that, an application. It takes time to secure a registration, that's why these things sometimes turn up months in advance.

"Use it" means that they have to advertise the name, or offer a product or service for sale using that name, across state lines. That rules out internal-only use. It can be small scale outside use, but it has to be outside the company or it isn't commerce.

With a 1(b) application, if approved, the USPTO needs to receive evidence within 6 months that the mark is actually being used.

There is a grace period of inactivity of about ten years, but that kicks in after the mark has been used in commerce.
 
Krizoitz said:
Ok, when we had the transition from the 680x0 Macs to the PowerPC Macs did we call them MacPows? or MacerPC? No, we refered to them as 68k and PowerPC Macs. Now we just need to call them PowerPC Macs and Intel Macs. THATS IT.

Er, at the time you're referring to, people called the new ones "PowerMacs."

I assure you the word "Mactel" will come into common vernacular usage much as "Wintel" did. People are already using it.

"Wintel" appeared not because it was clever, but because it was a useful and convenient contraction. All previous phrases used to refer to that platform were lacking: "Windows" runs on many architectures. "Intel" runs many OSes. "IBM compatible" lasted long after IBM stopped making personal computers. "PC" just means "personal computer" -- too generic. Wintel refers specifically to that set of Intel architecture machines running a Windows operating system.

I agree that "Macintel" is more clever. It'll lose for the simple reason that it's more syllables. To get technical, also the fact that the "in" in "Macintosh" is unstressed while the "In" in "Intel" is stressed will cause a subtle confusion that will prevent it from rolling easily off the tongue.

I also agree that the term "Mactel" might not even occur to people if not for the parallelism with "Wintel," and some folks might even be offended at that similarity, but nonetheless, there it is. That's the way language works. I suspect we've never seen anyone seriously talking about the "Lintel" platform because, first, Linux is so strongly cross-platform, and second, that word already has a different definition (and pronunciation).

I rather doubt Apple will actually introduce a product called "Mactel." My guess is that, even if they don't actually slap that label on a product, when it comes into common usage Apple will have a good argument that the term is commonly understood to refer specifically to their products (they could bring poll-generated evidence similar to that used in the TigerDirect case), that appropriation of that term by some other company will cause confusion in the market (which it certainly could), and that for that reason the term warrants trademark protection, the cited provision of the Lantham act notwithstanding. For that matter, referring to the "Mactel platform" in the likes of support documents might be sufficient to establish a good-faith intent to use the mark.

On the other hand, if, for whatever reason, the term never comes into common usage, then it's unlikely anyone would ever challenge Apple's registration of the trademark, and if someone did, Apple would have little reason not to quietly back down and surrender the trademark in an out-of-court settlement.

Civil cases don't file themselves, see. Somebody has to care. Given the costs involved, somebody has to care a LOT. This is just a fair bit of forward-thinking legal protection on Apple's part. Better to try to keep the genie in the bottle in the first place than to try to catch it later.
 
ACED said:
Man ... this whole thing is becoming nightmareish!

Has Steve lost his way with his apparent determination to commoditize the Mac, to take on Dell, M$, who knows, or cares. I liked Apple the way they were

I can't think how I can be here in a coupla years when www.Macrumors.com is an Intel fanboy site

Mactel, rulz ... Steve, rulz

Think I'll hang around to what the train wreck that will be PPC sales, I want to see Steve sweat. I want to see the effect when Longhorn takes off its gloves

MacTel ... Think really different!

...then just have yourself an involutary heave...

I wouldn't worry about that. They seem pretty happy at www.pcrumors.com
 
I've been waiting for an Apple Spreadsheet program!

iMeowbot said:
In other news, Apple have in the past week also filed for the mark "Numbers", for computer software. Maybe a spreadsheet companion for Pages is finally on the way.
Oh, yes, baby! Finally. That is the best news I've heard in a long while. :D
 
yg17 said:
They very well could just use G6....the G doesn't neccesarily mean its a PowerPC. Of course, the issue is the Pontiac G6, Apple may not be able to use it for a processor name (and jumping to G7 is silly)
Pontiac also makes (or made) cars named G4 and G5 right? There was no conflict problem with those.
 
"Talking 'bout Mac Generations"

Toe said:
The G stands for Generation... as in G5 is the 5th generation of PPCs. The first PowerMac had a first generation PPC (the 601); the PPC 603 and 604 were the second generation, then Apple went to G3, G4, G5.

In any event, I don't think there would be a dispute about the Pontiac G6. Trademarks are industry-specific. You could open a restaurant called G5 and not be sued by Apple. Probably.

This would be a chance for Apple to break from the now-aging "PowerMac" moniker. It has been around since PowerMacs were boring beige boxes. Howzabout the Xmac? Nah... sounds too much like Xmas. Oh well.
Just to add to what you said. Gx is Apple's moniker, not IBM's or Motorola's. The naming convention for Power Mac models (Gx or otherwise) is independent of the actual processor. Gx is the sub-model (generation) name of the machine and the name of the CPU (not the name of the chip itself as manufactured) as given by Apple, not IBM or Motorola (now Freescale).

The first PPC (601 series) Mac models were called Power Macintosh (1994-1998). The sub-models being 6100, 7100, 7200, 7500, 8100 and 8200. The PPC 601series was the first generation PowerPC. The second generation consisted of the PPC 603 series and the PPC 604 series, Mac models 44xx, 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx. PPC 750 (Apple's G3) then being the third generation.

G3 was the third generation of the PPC chipset CPU and the third generation of Power Macintosh, now called Power Mac (please note the space in the name). Then continuing accordingly.

"...said Mac generations baby."
 
sacear said:
Pontiac also makes (or made) cars named G4 and G5 right? There was no conflict problem with those.

NOPE. I do not believe that pontiac made cares named G4 or G5. Grand Am, Grand Prix, GTO and G6.

Those are all the G's I could find.
 
camomac said:
NOPE. I do not believe that pontiac made cares named G4 or G5. Grand Am, Grand Prix, GTO and G6.

Those are all the G's I could find.
Yeah. It's just the replacement for their Grand Am (G+6 letters)
 
icarusflies said:
Mactel...could this just Apple protecting it's name? Could a PC manufacturer have used it for something a bit misleading?
That's the best explanation I've heard yet.

"Mactel" sounds pretty awful and un-Apple-like. I can see them protecting it just so Compaq doesn't come out with the MacTel a week after the first Intel Macs come out, in an attempt to skim off stupid customers (like various companies keep trying to do with iMac and iPod clones).

Of course, if that is the right explanation, then we've wasted another five pages of discussion on something totally irrelevant. Not that this would be the first time. :rolleyes:
 
springdaddy said:
Would you folks just chill out. They are obviously protecting the name from any use; it will never see the light of day.

With trademarks, it's not that simple. They can't just sit on it and never use it. Constructive use only lasts so long. They'll have to make a decision eventually as to whether they intend to do anything with it.
 
ldburroughs said:
With trademarks, it's not that simple. They can't just sit on it and never use it. Constructive use only lasts so long. They'll have to make a decision eventually as to whether they intend to do anything with it.
Perhaps they'll name the AirPort antenna "MacTel" and print the name with the TM symbol right on the antenna connector (inside the computer). There, they used it. :)
 
Pontiac G4 & G5 coming?

camomac said:
NOPE. I do not believe that pontiac made cares named G4 or G5. Grand Am, Grand Prix, GTO and G6.

Those are all the G's I could find.
Hmm, maybe those models (G4 & G5) are in the planning stages then. I found this...
Pontiac-

Aztek- The Aztek will finally make it’s exit after the 2005 model year.

Bonneville- Bonneville will be cancelled after 2005.

G4/G5- It is rumored that Pontiac will get a mid-sized Kappa sedan based off the Holden Torana TT36 show car. It would likely have a high performance V6 powertrain and be slightly smaller than a BMW 3 series. If this car is produced, don't expect to see it before 2007.

G6- Coupe and hard-top versions (in that order) of the G6 will arrive in late 2005 as 2006 models. In 2006 a G6 GTP will be added powered by a 240 HP version of the new 3.9L OHV engine. A G6 GXP powered by a 270hp+ version of the 3.9L will also come into play after 2007.

G8- Large RWD Sedan based of Zeta Platform with debut around 2007/08. Will be powered by both a 3.9L V6, and 5.3/6.0L V8's. Replacement for the Bonneville, and possibly the Grand Prix

Grand Prix- The Grand Prix will receive a GXP version in late MY 2005 as a 2006 model. It will be powered by a 280-300 HP 5.3L LS4 powertrain.*unfortunately, the 4 speed automatic transmission will remain until 2007 (at the earliest) when it is replaced by a 6 speed automatic. Also, the current 3800 engine series will be discontinued in 2006/07, replaced by the 240 hp 3.9L V6. In 2008, the Grand Prix will either be replaced by the G8 sedan, or carry on along side it.

Solstice- The Solstice is set to arrive in late 2005, as a 2006 model.* Starting in 2007 Pontiac will offer a GT version of roadster.* The GT will have a turbocharged version of the 2.0L Ecotec engine, and a revised front fascia.

Torrent- Pontiac will introduce it’s own Theta-based SUV in 2006.* It is said to share the body panels with the Equinox, and have the 3.5L, followed by the 3.9L in 2007.
 
sacear said:
Hmm, maybe those models (G4 & G5) are in the planning stages then...
Maybe Pontiac's new cars will be running OSX. The new OSX Motorvehicle 10.5.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.