Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iPod Family, Software, Bad Apple, Apple
Apple Legal forces iPodder name change
We've mentioned iPodder several times before, but now it is evidently illegal to call them iPodder anymore. Okay, not really. But, Apple legal has again put their shoulder into someone's back and made them change their name. The new name for iPodder is Juice Receiver.
I have to say, I think this is kind of crappy. I mean, iTunes already is dominating the Mac market in the podcasting field, and Apple clearly is benefitting from the "pod" association of podcasting with iPod. Why go to these lengths to force a great free community resource into changing its name? Just to be the big bad bully? I don't think they really need to worry about "protecting their brand" at this point, considering how omnipresent the iPod is.
How long before we're forced to officially drop "Apple" from "The Unofficial Apple Weblog"? Eh, who cares? We're TUAW. Bring it on, Apple.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jay Tyler said 12:56PM on 11-14-2005
The point is that Apple doesn't want the iPod to become 'Sellotape' or 'Hoover' or even 'Walkman' for that matter. Sometimes a brand gets *too big* and becomes interchangable with the type of product rather than the actual product. You don't want people calling a Sony MP3 Walkman an iPod for instance - you can lose a brand very quickly that way - how many people still call a personal cassette player a walkman - I sure do.
Reply
William Bright said 12:59PM on 11-14-2005
I have to agree it's crappy. It happened to my site as well. However, upon further explanation from Apple's lawyer it was explained to me in a way that kind of makes sense.
Think about these words: Xerox, Saran Wrap, Post-It, Q-Tip. They have fallen into the public vernacular. Many of them, such as Xerox, failed to protect their trademarked name properly. Now it's legal to interchangeably use the term Xerox to mean photocopy.
Now, using my site as an example. Let's say I started offering maps for *shudder* Creative Zen Players and every other mp3 device under the sun. Over a while, the term iPod may become linked to other devices of similar capability.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm not, nor am I really doing anything malicious w/my site. And I'm sure iPodder isn't either... but the point is, it just takes one bad apple (no pun intended.) One guy might be doing something very wrong w/the term and Apple might get on his case about it.
His legal standing? "Well you let those iPodder and that iPodSubwayMaps guy do it, why not me?"
Well, this is why. It sucks but I can understand it. I was fortunate enough to have a backup domain ready (I saw it happen to i(pod)Lounge). I hope iPodder does have something like that too... :(
Reply
ChillyWilly said 2:07PM on 11-14-2005
Great post, William. I can see Apple's point in this now that it's been explained.
Doesn't change the fact that I still think it's a crappy thing to have to deal with. This is very much like the "one bad kid in class ruining it for everyone" else theory, only Apple is being proactive about it instead of waiting until the first bad apple hit the ground.
One does wonder how far they will go with this, though. I mean, what about the term podcasting and it's support for other DAP players? This app change is similar in that respect, but who knows where Apple will go with their legal prowess.
As C.K. mentioned above, what's next... Apple suing Washington state for their logo?
Reply
djones said 2:15PM on 11-14-2005
Er, I'm missing something. Is there a connection between the WS Cougar logo and Apple that I'm missing, or are you simply being sarcastic saying that they would go after things unrelated because of their hyper-proactivity?
Reply
mcwazza said 2:22PM on 11-14-2005
My 60 year old Nan calls any music player an iPod :D
Reply
PXLated said 2:35PM on 11-14-2005
"Juice Receiver"? Wow does that suck!
Reply
djones said 2:45PM on 11-14-2005
Juice Receiver? Heh, that reminds me of a little Penny Arcade friend. Maybe they are related products? :P
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/06/04
Reply
Brennan Stehling said 2:52PM on 11-14-2005
When you drop $300 for a new iPod you are buying the quality of the hardware as well as the smooth user experience with iTunes. I have used iPodder and it was often a painful experience. I would not want people confusing a faulty application with the iPod or iTunes. And remember the iPod Halo Effect? People are buying Macs after they experience the iPod and confusing people with third-party applications which are not as nice at iTunes will only hurt that perception of quality.
Reply
Danny Choo said 6:33PM on 11-14-2005
Maybe its a good idea to name a new app some sort of appley type name - then have the apple lawers burst down the door. This is great publicity - for free too. There probably should be banners like the "take back the web" firefox banners in the form of "I was sued by apple" or something. My two yen.
Reply
Laurie said 6:34PM on 11-14-2005
Like William, I do understand where Apple is coming from. I've been involved in legal actions of this nature and the sad fact is that if you don't protect your trademark consistently, you risk being screwed when the time comes that it's really been abused in some fashion.
That being said, Juice Receiver is pretty much the suckiest name ever.
Reply
Ian Orchard said 6:47PM on 11-14-2005
Quite apart from the rationale behind Apple's move (very useful comment William) maybe the unofficial Apple supporters community should co-operate to devise a set of names that can be used in lieu of the official protected names that become synonymous with the various products.
Of course it would pay to quietly copyright "Braeburn" and "whiteBook", etc, before some smartarse starts trading on them.
Reply
Graham K. Rogers said 8:34PM on 11-14-2005
One other point that works to the advantage of Juice (agree, not a good name but if it continues its success, people will not care), is that the iPodder name linked the technology too closely to the iPod. I lost count of the number of people whom I thought might be interested in podcasts (a name like William's ""xerox" now in the public domain) who think they cannot participate as they do not own an iPod. Perhaps iPod itself will go the way of xerox and personal audio players will all be called iPods. We once called them Walkmans.
Reply
Rus said 9:01PM on 11-14-2005
Here's what I wonder:
if they also went after iPodLounge ... then why don't they go after iPodGarage or LoadPod ... Bill Palmer's sites certainly give Apple a bad look.
Reply
jbelkin said 1:32AM on 11-15-2005
Just in case anyone forgot, there's that clothing company selling shirts with the multi-hue Apple logo (though no bite out of it) - the judge ruled that since Apple wasn't selling clothing, their copyright didn't extend there - hence the ipod socks ... and yes, this was in CHina but you never know ... it's sad but better to be safe than sorry - the damn lawyers win yet another one over common sense ...
Reply
mcwazza said 3:08PM on 11-19-2005
My 60 year old Nan calls any music player an iPod :D
Reply
Nick Parker said 9:41AM on 11-22-2005
It's all a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, Apple just climbed on the back of other people's markets. I think calling an iPod a Zen or an Archos is paying it a compliment that it doesn't really deserve. After all, Apple had to compensate the original Apple Music for stealing their name
Reply