stories filed under: "app store"
Apple Goes After Open Source Startup For Daring To Use The Term 'App Store'
from the butt-head-astronomer-store dept
Those of you up on your Apple history may know that the company once had a sense of humor. It once had a project that went by the code name "Sagan," and when astronomer Carl Sagan got angry and sent a cease-and-desist, Apple changed the project name to "Butt-Head Astronomer" or "BHA" (eventually leading to a defamation lawsuit that failed). So with Apple now being the insane company sending out cease-and-desist letters over something they shouldn't care about, perhaps it's time to help people rename the "app store."As you probably have heard, Apple is trying to convince the world that "app store" is not generic and that it holds the trademark on it. This has resulted in lots of people trying to invalidate the trademark, and one lawsuit against Amazon. Rather than taking a step back, Apple has become much more aggressive, lately (even though Steve Jobs has been caught calling other app stores "app stores").
We recently noted that it had threatened the developer organization Wireless Industry Partnership for daring to have a webpage that lists out alternative app stores. Carl J points us to the news that the company is now also threatening the open source startup Amahi with a similar cease-and-desist, for the app store it has for its home web server offering.
While the company is still deciding what to do, it's asking people to suggest potential alternatives:
We’d like it if you submit your suggestion for a term to use for Amahi’s store area, in every language on the surface of the earth, except of course using the term “app store.” Keep them short! We will use one of the top suggestions to name that area of our site.Anyone have suggestions that would fit with the spirit of Apple's response to Carl Sagan?
Apple Threatens Wireless Industry Group For Daring To List Out Other App Stores
from the it's-generic,-get-used-to-it dept
As we've been discussing, Apple is on a quixotic battle to claim that "App Store" really stands for Apple Store, and that only it can use the obviously generic phrase. It's even sued Amazon over this, leading to Amazon's wonderful response in which it quoted Steve Jobs using the term "app store" to refer to other app stores.And, now, just as Apple was pushing its new iOS strategy, it also sent the Wireless Industry Partnership a cease-and-desist, because it has an excellent App Store Catalog that provides a list of alternative app stores, as well as its App Store Reports, which provides some data and information about the various app stores to developers, who might find such info quite useful.
It's hard to see this as anything other than garden variety, obnoxious trademark bullying on the part of Apple. WIP isn't competing with Apple. There is absolutely no likelihood of confusion here. Apple's just being obnoxious.
WIP hasn't quite figured out how it's going to respond to the legal threat directly, but it did use the opportunity to point out how Apple seems to be attacking this resource for developers at a time when it claims that it's helping developers... and then lists out a bunch of other ways that Apple has become extremely anti-developer:
Apple can get away with pissing off developers for now, but, at some point, this is going to come back and bite them hard. And, seriously, does it really make that big of a difference if others use the term "App Store"? Honestly, going after WIP for this seems likely to do a lot more damage to Apple's relationship with developers than the idea that someone else might use the very generic and descriptive term "app store."We provide the App Store Catalog and the App Store Report as resources for developers who want to succeed, to earn a living, and to have their work enjoyed by people around the world. It is a fact that the world of mobile app distribution is highly fragmented and that not every mobile phone user has an iOS device. This means there are a wide array of "application download services" out there that developers need to consider to widely distribute their apps, and the Catalog and Report have been very well received as a resource to help them do so. Despite Apple's attempts through trademark to create the impression that it's the only game in town, it's not. Developers need resources such as these, and they've been very warmly received. Perhaps that's part of the problem.
It's a bit ironic that just as Apple flashes that $2.5 billion payout figure -- one for which it should be applauded -- it's also taken several steps that many see as thwarting developers' success:
- Obsoleting several third-party apps by building their functionality into iOS 5
- Allegedly keeping apps out of the App Store if they compete too closely with Apple's own software
- Shutting down pay-per-install marketing systems
- Rejecting apps because they include a particular feature, then later adding that feature to the OS
- Squeezing developers and publishers with its in-app payment policies
And now it hits out at our attempts to support developers by helping them navigate the maze of distribution channels available to them -- including all the alternate channels outside of Apple's own (trademarked) App Store. Apple's repeated actions to wield control over its own ecosystem creates the impression that the developers in it live at Apple's behest; its attempt to control the generic term "app store" suggests that it's trying to extend that control beyond its own ecosystem as well.
Newspapers Finally Realizing They Don't Have To Use Apple's High Priced Payment Offering, Or Locked Down App Store
from the hello,-html-5 dept
For quite some time now, we've been pointing out that for all the folks pissed off about Apple's very closed nature when it comes to the App Store, combined with it's ridiculously high 30% cut demanded on any in-app content purchases, there would be a growing trend to route around Apple as a gatekeeper, using HTML5 web apps. While such apps can't provide all the features of native apps, they can provide an awful lot. And, to be honest, a large percentage of native apps are really HTML5/javascript/CSS web apps wrapped up and compiled. But as Apple puts more and more conditions on things, people are going to route around the gatekeeper, and it's nice to see some big names realizing this. First up is the Financial Times, which has created an HTML5 web app that can be used on the iPhone/iPad without having to go through Apple's purchase process and without having to deal with Apple's restrictive rules.It may be limited right now, but more and more companies are going to recognize they don't need to go through the gatekeeper here. And as alternative means of distribution and discovery become more popular, the key advantage of the official App Store begin to fade away. I would imagine that over time, Apple may be forced to back down on some of its more ridiculous conditions and pricing, as more players realize that they don't have to go that route.
Filed Under: app store, apps, control, financial times, gatekeeper, html4, locked
Companies: apple, financial times
Tech Companies Fighting Apple's App Store Trademark Around The World
from the fight-fight-fight dept
While there are already court battles in the US over Apple's attempt to trademark "app store," it appears that tech companies are having to be diligent around the world. A bunch of companies are now challenging Apple's attempt to trademark "app store" in the EU as well. Honestly, this whole thing seems like a waste of time. Would it really harm Apple when others use the term "app store"? It was Apple's lawyers who, a few years back, popularized the "moron in a hurry" standard for judging the likelihood of confusion on trademarks. It seems that perhaps they should try applying it to themselves at times.Filed Under: app store, apple, eu, trademark
Companies: apple
Amazon Uses Steve Jobs Words Against Him In App Store Dispute
from the app-store-me dept
You may recall that Apple has been trying to convince the world that there can be only one "app store," first by suggesting it really means Apple Store and then by suing Amazon for its own app store. Amazon has now responded to the lawsuit by using Steve Jobs own words against him:In 2008 Apple launched its app store, which allows a consumer to view and instantly download apps for their Apple devices such as the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. In press releases, Apple has claimed that its app store is "the largest application store in the world." In October 2010, Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs called Apple's app store "the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."That certainly sounds like Apple and Jobs admitting that the term is generic. To further support its own position, Amazon notes to some linguists as well:
The American Dialect Society, a leading group of U.S. linguists, recently voted "app" as the "Word of the Year" for 2010, noting that although the word "has been around for ages," it "really exploded in the last 12 months" with the "arrival of 'app stores' for a wide spectrum of operating systems for phones and computers." Indeed, the words "app store" are commonly used among many businesses competing in the app store market.It certainly looks like Apple may have a difficult job convincing anyone that app store is not generic.
Filed Under: app store, steve jobs, trademark
Companies: amazon, apple
Apple Sues Amazon Over App Store Name
from the oh-yeah,-i-see-you've-got-one-click-going.. dept
While Apple has been making noises about how no one else can use the "App Store" name and even complaining to the Trademark board, it's finally gone legal, and has picked a big target. Apple is now suing Amazon.com for using the App Store name, claiming trademark violation. This seems pretty petty -- especially for two companies who have worked together on other things. For example, Apple has "licensed" the (admittedly ridiculous) patent for one-click buying. I wonder if Amazon can figure out a way to revoke that now...Does Your Car Need Its Own App Store?
from the apptastic dept
Many years back, I remember hearing Jonathan Schwartz (before he was CEO of Sun) predict that one day people would buy "horntones" for their cars, the same way they bought ringtones for their mobile phones. While we haven't quite reached that point yet, it appears that people may soon be buying "apps" for their cars. Slashdot points us to the news that Tesla has announced that (as many predicted) the giant touchscreen console on its Tesla S sedan will have support for third-party apps. Don't like the stereo interface? Download a new one. Want a program that provides you better analytics on your driving habits? Download it. While I'm still pretty skeptical about the appification of everything, I am intrigued by the idea of being able to customize a car via apps. The real question is if there will really be enough demand to make it worthwhile for developers... and if this means that we're going to face another standards battle as people try to standardize what in-dash apps look like.Apple Tries To Convince Trademark Board That App Store Really Means Apple Store
from the there's-no-app-for-that dept
I haven't been following too closely the ongoing trademark fights concerning whether or not Apple can trademark the rather descriptive and generic term "app store," but I do find it interesting that the company has brought on a "linguist" to declare that "App Store" is really the "proper noun" of "Apple's online store." Microsoft, in fighting this trademark, has noted that app store is totally generic... and even pointed out that Steve Jobs himself has used the phrase when talking about app stores from Amazon, Google and others (oops!). Amusingly, though, Apple then mocks Microsoft by pointing out that the company shouldn't be pointing fingers on attempts to trademark generic terms:"Having itself faced a decades-long generic challenge to its claimed Windows mark, Microsoft should be well aware that the focus in evaluating the mark is on the mark as a whole and requires a fact-intensive assessment of the primary significance of the term to a substantial majority of the relevant public."Of course, it's easy to mock both Apple and Microsoft here. In the end, this whole thing is silly. Stop fighting over trademarks on silly things, and focus on actually competing in the marketplace.
Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
from the say-what-now? dept
There's been a lot of attention paid this morning to the fact that Apple, in its typically arbitrary manner, has pulled a Wikileaks app from its iTunes store just days after it was approved. While there was a variety of speculation as to why it did so -- from the claim that it was useless to the claim that it allowed users to donate money, Apple released a statement giving similar reasons as Visa, MasterCard and Paypal did before, falsely claiming that Wikileaks obviously violated the law:"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."The thing is, Wikileaks hasn't even been charged with a crime yet, let alone found guilty of one, so it's not clear why all these companies claim that the app does not comply with he law. Also, while we're still waiting for evidence of anyone actually put in "harm's way" due to Wikileaks, that reasoning doesn't make any sense either. The information found on Wikileaks is being written about in all sorts of major news publications -- so if a Wikileaks app is putting people in harm's way, then so is the Safari browser on the iPhone that can be used to access all the same information. And, before anyone says it, yes, Apple is absolutely free to do whatever it wants with the iTunes store, including blocking apps if it doesn't like them. I'm just pointing out that it's stated reason for doing so doesn't make much sense.
Filed Under: app store, blocks, iphone, wikileaks
Companies: apple, wikileaks
