Steve Jobs isn’t our Dad

&#62; "We started formally distributing free apps in early 2005 and are among the pioneers of the modern direct-to-consumer (D2C) app store distribution space when the iPhone was just an R&#38;D project in Steve Job’s head."<p>&#62; "GetJar has been using the term “App Store” in press releases and in it’s positioning with consumers, trade, analysts and press since early 2009 and it’s only now that Apple has decided to send us a C&#38;D."<p>Is it just me, or is this actually a good argument /for/ Apple owning the term "App Store"? People keep making the claim "it is an obvious name", but apparently it wasn't for GetJar: it wasn't until Apple gave that term meaning by applying it to their product that GetJar decided to use the term.<p>&#62; "In conclusion, GetJar won’t be subject to this kind of bullying. We’re not going to “Cease &#38; Desist”. We were here long before Steve &#38; Co. We were built by developers, to help developers."<p>As for this statement... I don't know... this entire article somehow makes it sound like Apple is telling them to stop running their service, when in fact all Apple is doing is asking them to stop using the term "App Store".<p>I mean, seriously: my full time job is complaining about Apple being a closed ecosystem, but there's something about this blog post that is off-putting and misses the mark; in fact, I don't even see how Apple being a closed ecosystem is relevant to this specific argument.

We got a C&#38;D letter for App Store too. These guys at GetJar confuse the mark with the activity. And yes, there is something offputting about their response.<p>We took a different spin - an HTML5 parody videogame[1] and a name-the-store contest[2].<p>EDIT: here is our response <a href="http://bit.ly/amahi-apple-whoa" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/amahi-apple-whoa</a><p>[1] <a href="http://www.amahi.org/invaders" rel="nofollow">http://www.amahi.org/invaders</a> [2] <a href="http://www.amahi.org/name-the-store" rel="nofollow">http://www.amahi.org/name-the-store</a>

&#62; "Android was supposed to be FREE and open; yet developers can’t choose their billing solution"<p>Maybe I'm going off topic, but dev <i>can</i> choose their billing solution, distributing their apps outside android market that is not part of AOSP (Android Open Source Project) (as Gmail app to cite another one)

Uh oh. Some under appreciated heroes they are.<p><pre><code> &#62; Or does Apple care more about the fact that we’re trying &#62; to give apps away for free to consumers? </code></pre> Hardly. Apple also give apps away for free to consumers, if developer chooses to distribute it for free. Apple still makes money from selling hardware not ads. What'g getjar business model? Oh, yes:<p><pre><code> &#62; We were built by developers, to help developers. &#62; Not to help sell handsets or search results. </code></pre> No mention about selling ads? Will having more free stuff attract more visits? Will it give more opportunities to show ads?

Just call it an App Market and avoid the controversy/drama. There is also something unprofessional about their response altogether, "Steve Jobs isn't <i>our</i> dad!!"

Getjar are hardly good guys themselves. They knocked my mobile web directory mjelly.com off their index a while ago even though it had been listed in there for years. This was because they claimed it was a competitor to getjar. They recently did the same with Opera.

Little tip: If you want to express that Steve Jobs isn’t your dad don’t write like an angry teenager would.<p>They should have been much more concise, clear and confident (consequently also a lot shorter). This is just awful writing.

Direct link to article: <a href="http://blog.getjar.com/developer/getjar-vs-apple/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.getjar.com/developer/getjar-vs-apple/</a>

So why can't you guys just call it "Download Center" or something like that? What are you gaining by fighting a company with that much cash, other than free publicity (which might turn out to be not free at all if they decide to come after you, even if they lose in the end)? Is this really a battle worth picking? I'd urge you to think this through with a cool head and try to apply some common sense.

I don't get it. How can they send a cease&#38;desist for a trademark they clearly do not (yet) own? Is it premature litigation?