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.
