Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's 'iWatch' Trademarking Spree Also Includes Taiwan and Mexico [Updated]

Seems too careless for this to come out before an announcement (If there is one!)

To my mind this is protecting a name, likely to be closely associated with Apple in countries where, I hate to say, but cheap knockoffs are rife...

I'm pretty sure I've seen knockoff iWatches already in Turkey...
 
What will it do, probably GPS and siri functionality, email and messages and reminders linked up to your phone, probably a camera for projecting face to face calls, that's about it.

There's only so much you can do on a tiny screen like that. We expect it to be bigger than the nano but it's a watch at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
solor102 said:
Anyone else thinking that "iWatch" may refer to the TV, as in you watch TV, as opposed to a smartwatch?
Click to expand...

Could be onto something there!

Itv is already taken, and ATV is not a tv. A new name makes sense.
 
i.mac said:
That sme Rolex person won't mind buying an iwatch for the pool, for himself and family.
Click to expand...

Fair enough :D

He might also just dismiss it as a toy, though. If I had a Rolex I wouldn't dream of getting a "smart watch" - how would it ever get any wrist time?
 
solor102 said:
Anyone else thinking that "iWatch" may refer to the TV, as in you watch TV, as opposed to a smartwatch?
Click to expand...

Other products to be renamed concurrently:
  • iMac becomes iDoSeriousStuff
  • iPad becomes iDoFunStuff
  • iPod becomes iListen
  • iPhone becomes iTalk
  • iTunes becomes iPlay

Nouns are out. Verbs-as-nouns are in. :)
 
gnasher729 said:
Apple has used other company names before to get trademarks. You'd have to investigate who that company is.
Click to expand...

Very true. Establishing other companies has many advantages in the corporate world of business.

Many years ago, Walt Disney created 27 separate companies for the sole purpose of buying up the plethora of little motels surrounding Disneyland. It was a brilliant part of his long term plan.

As a result, when the time came to expand the land locked Disneyland he simply closed the motels and brought in the bulldozers :)
 
Tyrion said:
Tell that to people who bought an MBA in 2008 (painfully slow HDD unless you paid a fortune for the SSD option) or an iPad in 2010 (hilariously paltry amount of RAM; the device was hardly usable).
Click to expand...

I don't think you grasp what I was saying… every single model is liable to have issues. First gen, second, third. Yes, the first gen had problems. It's first. That doesn't negate the fact the current generation has bugs though. My point… you can't escape bugs by skipping the first gen.

Also 5400 RPM laptop drives have always been sloooow. That's not a bug or design flaw, it's a h/w limitation. It's just like when you go but a car and they get you in with a low MSRP based on a stripped model with lawn mower engine. Buyers had an option to bump up speed. If they were too cheap to buy a faster drive or SSD that is there issue, not Apple's.
 
frisken said:
You need to have a logical reason for using/trademarking the name other than the fact that you want to sell it to Apple. I believe it's quite similar to the way domain names are registered. If you can't prove you have an intention to actively use the name (domain name) then you have to forfeit ownership.

If anyone legitimately tried to use an "iProduct" name they had best have one hell of a logical reason for it that differentiates themselves from Apple altogether. I also doubt one would be able to trademark the name without sufficient reason/proof. Correct me if I'm wrong here?
Click to expand...

That makes sense, but what if someone took the iWatch trademark and made some standard digital watch? It's clear that they took the "i" from Apple's other products even though it previously stood for "Internet", but I don't know how that could help Apple with getting the trademark.
 
iWatch

I really hope that the iWatch is what Apple are going to call the supposed TV they come out with, and not really a watch. Sounds like a good name for a TV to me. I agree with the above posters.
 
nikicampos said:
Come on, how naive are you, it will be a small thing, not powerful enough as an iPhone/iPodTouch, it will only be a revamped iPod Nano with some speedometer/gps/motion sensor like able to connect to an iPhone and received push notifications via 3g (And i'm not that sure about the 3G)

A tiny mini iPhone if you will.
Click to expand...

How naive am I? Not naive enough to take your assumptions, stated as absolute and unyielding facts, at face value. Once again I ask you, do you know something we don't? That is, do you have any insider information or know something tangible, apart from the obvious "a watch is [physically] smaller than a handset"? If not, then would you be so kind and utilize the power of the phrases "I think it will be.." and "it'll likely be.." instead of the ever pretentious "it will be" and "it will only be"
 
As other have speculated... iWatch = TV, IMO.

A wrist-worn iDevice??? I don't know, seems like a stretch. What could it do for a user, in practical terms, that an iPhone/pod/pad doesn't?? A niche market, certainly. Apple knows they need to get into the living room and beat all these smart TV, streaming box and game/media console manufacturers back with a big stick. The market there already is huge and will continue to grow into a battlefield.

If iWatch is in fact a wristwatch-type product then I'd expect something akin to a smarter, bluetooth enabled iPod nano on a strap. Think about screen size limitations, functional ergonomics, UI limitations, physical differences in users (ladies watches are always smaller than mens for a reason), not to mention fashion concerns. It's a limiting and highly challenged concept/platform.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
I don't think you grasp what I was saying… every single model is liable to have issues. First gen, second, third. Yes, the first gen had problems. It's first. That doesn't negate the fact the current generation has bugs though. My point… you can't escape bugs by skipping the first gen.

Also 5400 RPM laptop drives have always been sloooow. That's not a bug or design flaw, it's a h/w limitation. It's just like when you go but a car and they get you in with a low MSRP based on a stripped model with lawn mower engine. Buyers had an option to bump up speed. If they were too cheap to buy a faster drive or SSD that is there issue, not Apple's.
Click to expand...

Saying that every generation of every tech product ever has "bugs" is a truism. Thing is, the "bugs" I mentioned regarding the first iPad/MBA were simply much, much more egregious than those that afflicted and continue to afflict more recent versions of these products. I know, I owned the first iPad - it was catastrophic; Safari could only keep like two tabs in memory without having to reload for sheer lack of RAM. Now, someone who bought the iPad 2 has issues too, obviously - they don't have the nice Retina display, for one. But the device is still very usable today, which can't be said of the iPad 1. It was crippled out of the box.
 
Scallywag said:
As other have speculated... iWatch = TV, IMO.

A wrist-worn iDevice??? I don't know, seems like a stretch. What could it do for a user, in practical terms, that an iPhone/pod/pad doesn't?? A niche market, certainly. Apple knows they need to get into the living room and beat all these smart TV, streaming box and game/media console manufacturers back with a big stick. The market there already is huge and will continue to grow into a battlefield.

If iWatch is in fact a wristwatch-type product then I'd expect something akin to a smarter, bluetooth enabled iPod nano on a strap. Think about screen size limitations, functional ergonomics, UI limitations, physical differences in users (ladies watches are always smaller than mens for a reason), not to mention fashion concerns. It's a limiting and highly challenged concept/platform.
Click to expand...

The screen size is clearly biggest stumbling block. Just can't make something great if it's no bugger than a nano.
 
dilbert99 said:
For me, having my watch vibrate when I am leaving the house without my phone (i've forgotten my phone before but never my watch.
Click to expand...
But how common is that? I mean, I'm in my twenties and always wear a watch out, but maybe half of my friends don't wear a watch (may not even have one at all) as they just check the time on their phone now.

I don't agree with doing it, but it's not going to be easy to sell an upgrade to a device they don't see the need for in the first place.

This is why my suspicion is that an iWatch would really need to be more of a widget-watch; although handy as a watch, it's main appeal would be in widgets that interact with other iOS devices, but it wouldn't be a full-blown iOS device in its own right (i.e - you wouldn't be thinking of gaming on it, watching video on it or storing your music library on it), otherwise it would become too complex to really function as a watch anymore as it would heavier and heavier, and less and less battery efficient.

But lots of the rumours suggest something that is practically an iPhone on a wrist-strap, albeit smaller of course, but that seems excessive in the extreme due to a limited screen and different requirements for what makes a watch.
 
Has anyone considered the timing of this trademarking in comparison to the iPad? I think it was July when the iPad name was first trademarked, and it launched the next January. Could we see an early 2014 launch for the "iWatch"?
 
pgiguere1 said:
Evolution-of-the-smart-watch-Part-2-macworld-australia-5.jpg
meta-watch.jpeg

39395-metawatch_teaser.jpg
pebble_watch-100020692-large.jpeg

inwatch-verge-013_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg
Motorola_MOTOACTV_35163040_35163042_01_1_610x458.jpg

vitashotsdsc00207mat600.jpg
lg-watch.jpg

article_img.jpg
agent-smart-watch.png


There has been a variety of unsuccessful smartwatches in the past. Nothing major but the situation is similar to the iPad and the pre-iPad "tablet PCs".

If the past repeats itself again, competitors following Apple in the smartwatch trend should still make mistakes in their first iterations and take like 2-3 years to catch up. That's enough for Apple to make some $ and secure itself the advantages associated with a good marketshare for the future (large app selection, third party accessories, content deals)...
Click to expand...


+1

Apple has a pattern of doing this. iPod, iPhone, iPad. I think that wearable accessories are needed especially when smart phones have become more of a staple. Having a quick glance is something that would be welcomed to many. (ie. bikers)
 
Tyrion said:
Now, someone who bought the iPad 2 has issues too, obviously - they don't have the nice Retina display, for one. But the device is still very usable today, which can't be said of the iPad 1. It was crippled out of the box.
Click to expand...

The iPad 1 is still very usable. My dad has one and for his purposes has no issue with it. I had no issue with it either when I had mine (bought my Day One). It's overreaching to say it was crippled out of the box b/c if that were true it would have been a flop.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
The iPad 1 is still very usable. My dad has one and for his purposes has no issue with it. I had no issue with it either when I had mine (bought my Day One). It's overreaching to say it was crippled out of the box b/c if that were true it would have been a flop.
Click to expand...


Honestly, it was to me. I only started to enjoy the experience with the second generation, first-gen was just too slow. The iPad 3 I'm using now basically has the same problems. It's sluggish as hell and just doesn't have enough RAM. I guess it's gonna take another few years until we get a completely smooth tablet experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back