Stan Beer
Tuesday, 26 September 2006 22:50
Opinion and Analysis
Now that Apple believes that it has successfully sequestered the name "pod" from the English language, it is going hell for leather to try and shut anyone anything that uses pod in a name related to the music player business.
The latest target for Apple's protectionist
zeal are service providers in the podcast business. In fact, as far as
Apple is concerned, nobody has a right to use the word podcast in its
name without Apple's permission.
Pardon me for asking this, and please feel free to call me stupid, but
hasn't the word podcast and the concept behind it done a lot to enhance
the image and profile of Apple and its newest product in the
marketplace?
I mean, whenever the word podcast is mentioned don't we generally think
of audio content that is meant to be downloaded to and played on an
iPod? Does this not mean that everytime someone uses the term podcast,
that by association Apple's iPod gets some free publicity and mindshare?
Apple may choose to think of it as brand dilution but in reality it's brand reinforcement.
The term podacst passed into the English language of its own accord,
just like webcast or the verb Google, which reinforces the noun which
is the company.
This brand dilution obsession is a furfy and an abuse of trademark
laws, which were designed to protect companies with products like iPod
from companies that try to set themsefves with competing products
sporting names like ePod and so on.
So when companies with names like MyPodder and Podcast ready get nasty
threatening letters, Apple isn't just being a bully but it's actually
doing itself a disservice. Now I have some other work to do so I think
I'll do some research and Google a few names.