Okay now just put that in a Minitower case with PCIe slots, sata connectors, and lots of Dimm slots. Sell it for under $1000 dollars.
I know that Apple doesn't need that machine because they are making money hand over fist but there is a big gap between the iMac and the MacPro in expandability. Maybe we could call it the iMac II ?
If only computers and add ons had stayed expensive, and would retain their computing relevance for more than 2 or 3 years, then the vast market for such things would still exist. But what you describe was only desired in most of the market in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. These days, the vast majority of computer users no longer need to account for upgradability beyond RAM and HD space. I am nostalgic for those days of yore as well, when you got a big box one year, and over the next 8 you replaced stuff in it (cpu/gnu, etc) and added stuff to it to make it as awesome as current computers. But it just isn't so necessary anymore that most consumers want these options. If you are among this (now) tiny minority that do want these options, they are available from component resellers (like newegg), but Apple was (almost) never the place to look for them. What most do these days is buy a machine and use it as is and run it into the ground and replace it a couple years later.
fair enough... I am often a little too rough with delicate flowers...
Unless pwn2own has never given away a mac, it makes absolutely no difference what the other computers are doing
You are incorrect. It is a contest for prizes. The prizes may be equal in price (they may all be $1800 laptops, or what have you), but they are not equal. The Mac is always the first to fall, and the obvious point is NOT "oh, Macs are just as insecure as everything else" or even more incorrectly as others (not you, I don't mean you!) have espoused that "Mac is the most insecure because it is the first to fall", but the truth is, because the OTHER prizes aren't as wanted they will be hacked last, if at all. Thus it makes a big difference what the other computers are, and existing is doing. If pwn2own had all Macs as prizes, one running Windows, one running Linux and one running OS X (which they could do to remove the appearance of bias), then the attack would be directed against the easiest to compromise first, because the prizes are the same. And the results would be "computers are insecure" and over years of the contest, we would actually begin to see which among the contested OS's is indeed the easiest to hack, the least secure. As it is, pwn2own will always be biased agaist the most desired machine, whether that happens to be a Mac, or a Dell, or whatever... that will always be the case.
it's proof that macs are not, in fact, as secure as those idiot commercials would have you (or at least Joe Clueless customer) believe.
What you suggest is bizarre. No one believes a commercial increases security. However, those commercials helped quadruple marketshare, which, I know this will be difficult for you to comprehend, was in fact their sole purpose.
I would also add to your statement, that this used to be the case. In Win 7, and maybe Vista, there is a section of your user profile to emulate the system folders so that poorly designed applications that unnecessarily require administrator access can run as a user. The only applications I have seen that still require admin privileges are applications which auto update, and just plain software updates/installers.
You missed the obvious point. You are suggesting that the first to fall is the least secure, because it is the first to be hacked, but this is not even remotely true. If the pwn2own contest had some other entries... such as a fictional computer that Ferrari designed, a one of a kind, with the sweetest slickest style that made nerds eyes pop out, encased in solid gold with diamonds encrusted, just a sick amount of ridiculous features, but was in fact the most secure computer ever conceived, you can be assured that would be the first to fall in the competition.
The flaw in using pwn2own as a yardstick for security is simpy that which ever computer is the most desired will be the first one hacked
If they mixed it up, call it pwn2ownTHEother, such that if you hack Wndows you get the Linux machine, and if you hack Linux you get the Mac, and if you have the Mac you get the Winbox, do you honestly believe that all the security experts would be rushing to hack the Mac first? Unlikely... in that situation, Linux would be the first hacked, and Mac the last, again, for the obvious reasons.
Go ask the guys who keep hacking Macs at the annual pwn2own contest how safe those boxes are. They'll laugh at you.
Ever wonder why the steaming pile of shit is the last to fall at pwn2own? Is a steaming pile of shit more secure? Or is it just that no one wants to win a steaming pile of shit?
Unfortunately, lots of programs don't work right if you don't run as administrator.
That is an interesting way to put it. But we know the real issue is that lots of Windows programmers don't code right if you don't force them to test their fucking code. I believe the entire point of Vista, besides the whole 'New Coke' money grab, was to retrain Windows developers to do things correctly.
I have no trouble believing the word app had been used far earlier than 1987 and never doubted its meaning, so I had no reason to look it up in the dictionary. Also, I made no Internet search. I stand by my two assertions: 1) you are an insatiable troll and 2) prior to the App Store, the term app was NOT in wide use. I know these things to be true from personal experience. There is no Internet search or dictionary definition that can prove otherwise. Your pathetic attempts to reason and then attempt to back up your baseless irrelevant claims by appealing to my oversized penis will fail.
Yes, you did. You've been blathering on about internet searches for some time now.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
Then why did you bother to comment at all?
Its quite simple. The OP was incorrect. I humbly corrected him. There is no mystery here.
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.
His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing. Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.
Either you will respond with proof of such instances of App Store in common generic use prior to 2008, or you will STFU. In either of those cases, you will be praised for your diligence. If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).
Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?
We here in the civilized world call that speaking hypothetically. In this instance, even if we grant you your unproved assertions, your point is irrelevant.
So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?
Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?
Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.
On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?
The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.
Again, you are harping on some irrelevant statements you made. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along). So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument? Clearly, you have no argument, and you are a troll, for even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree. You would be wise not to insist that others prove a negative. It is a ridiculous claim.
Private financial information was breached. That in itself is the harm, regardless of any credit theft subsequent to the breach. Even if Sony's network hadn't been breached, insecurely keeping financial records alone is in itself a harm to those individuals. Consider a bank that has never been robbed that keeps all its customers' money in piles in plain view in front of the bank. A customer could sue the bank for negligence even if there was no theft.
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument? Your ad hominem attack was irrellivant. Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"
Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.
Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack? I have a 9-inch cock. Please try again, Tiny.
I'm afraid the shit is your meal... you have provided a perfect example of AppStore (not "App Store," but beside the point) being a specific trademark and NOT some generic form of an idea. It is unfortunate for salesforce.com that they did not bother to register or claim their trademark. Sucks for them... because it now belongs to Apple.
The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede to that particular, and unrelated, point. However, it is still a straw man argument. You took my argument (that "App Store" was a reasonable trademark brand) and replaced it with a similar but different argument (that "app" cannot be trademarked).
Greeting Dragonslicer. I'd like introduce you to my good friend, the Transitive Property of Logic, and his pal, the subset. Now that you are aware of each other, I am sure you will all get along swimmingly.
No, Apple did not coin the term "app." It was in common use well before the copycats at Apple got hold of it.
First of all, you are completely wrong. "App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store. Second of all your point is a straw man argument. Is Apple suing Amazon over their trademarked term "App?" No, because they didn't trademark "App," they trademarked "App Store." Amazon is welcome to use the term "App" but prevented from using Apple's trademarked brand "App Store."
How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?
You may have a valid point. But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system? Once recognized for what it actually is, clearly "App Store" is a specific brand of either or both of those generic terms.
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
You are attempting to replace the true generic term for a specific term. In this instance, the generic term for "app" is software, and the generic for "App Store" has always been and can only be software repository. Had Apple attempted to trademark "software repository" then Amazon would have a case. But what Apple did was coin a term never used before and then market it massively. Other companies should not get to benefit for free from the work Apple has done to create this branded market identity.
"App" and "Store" together created new meaning no more than "Auto" and "Shop" together did. Should the first guy to call his shop "Auto Shop" instead of "Bill's" or "Bill's Automobile Sales and Service" have gotten a trademark on it? No, of course not. That is why nobody was dumb enough to try.
You are incorrect. The generic for "Auto Shop" is mechanic. "Auto Shop" is a term that has entered into the common vernacular, however, had a mechanic first called his business "The Auto Shop" he would have had every right to trademark it, and to protect that trademark. The fact that no one tried is not evidence that it could not have been trademarked.
Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".
You are incorrect. Prior to Apple using the term, it did not exist (and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise). But more importantly, App Store is generically both a package manager and a software repository. "App Store" is no more a generic term than "Kleenex," or "Laundromat."
... where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Oh, no! Did Apple register trademarks for Package Manager and Software Repository?! Those bastards! It's too bad Amazon (and Microsoft) can't possibly think up something new or different now, like, say, App Market, or Application Cafe, or the Amazon Repo, or Software Grocery. OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Amazon could call it the Shoe Store, and it wouldn't matter, we'd all know what it really was. How did Cydia come up with it's own name? HOW??!
Slashdot Mirror
Okay now just put that in a Minitower case with PCIe slots, sata connectors, and lots of Dimm slots. Sell it for under $1000 dollars. I know that Apple doesn't need that machine because they are making money hand over fist but there is a big gap between the iMac and the MacPro in expandability. Maybe we could call it the iMac II ?
If only computers and add ons had stayed expensive, and would retain their computing relevance for more than 2 or 3 years, then the vast market for such things would still exist. But what you describe was only desired in most of the market in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. These days, the vast majority of computer users no longer need to account for upgradability beyond RAM and HD space. I am nostalgic for those days of yore as well, when you got a big box one year, and over the next 8 you replaced stuff in it (cpu/gnu, etc) and added stuff to it to make it as awesome as current computers. But it just isn't so necessary anymore that most consumers want these options. If you are among this (now) tiny minority that do want these options, they are available from component resellers (like newegg), but Apple was (almost) never the place to look for them. What most do these days is buy a machine and use it as is and run it into the ground and replace it a couple years later.
Check your usernames again...
fair enough... I am often a little too rough with delicate flowers...
Unless pwn2own has never given away a mac, it makes absolutely no difference what the other computers are doing
You are incorrect. It is a contest for prizes. The prizes may be equal in price (they may all be $1800 laptops, or what have you), but they are not equal. The Mac is always the first to fall, and the obvious point is NOT "oh, Macs are just as insecure as everything else" or even more incorrectly as others (not you, I don't mean you!) have espoused that "Mac is the most insecure because it is the first to fall", but the truth is, because the OTHER prizes aren't as wanted they will be hacked last, if at all. Thus it makes a big difference what the other computers are, and existing is doing. If pwn2own had all Macs as prizes, one running Windows, one running Linux and one running OS X (which they could do to remove the appearance of bias), then the attack would be directed against the easiest to compromise first, because the prizes are the same. And the results would be "computers are insecure" and over years of the contest, we would actually begin to see which among the contested OS's is indeed the easiest to hack, the least secure. As it is, pwn2own will always be biased agaist the most desired machine, whether that happens to be a Mac, or a Dell, or whatever... that will always be the case.
it's proof that macs are not, in fact, as secure as those idiot commercials would have you (or at least Joe Clueless customer) believe.
What you suggest is bizarre. No one believes a commercial increases security. However, those commercials helped quadruple marketshare, which, I know this will be difficult for you to comprehend, was in fact their sole purpose.
I would also add to your statement, that this used to be the case. In Win 7, and maybe Vista, there is a section of your user profile to emulate the system folders so that poorly designed applications that unnecessarily require administrator access can run as a user. The only applications I have seen that still require admin privileges are applications which auto update, and just plain software updates/installers.
FTFY
You missed the obvious point. You are suggesting that the first to fall is the least secure, because it is the first to be hacked, but this is not even remotely true. If the pwn2own contest had some other entries... such as a fictional computer that Ferrari designed, a one of a kind, with the sweetest slickest style that made nerds eyes pop out, encased in solid gold with diamonds encrusted, just a sick amount of ridiculous features, but was in fact the most secure computer ever conceived, you can be assured that would be the first to fall in the competition.
The flaw in using pwn2own as a yardstick for security is simpy that which ever computer is the most desired will be the first one hacked
If they mixed it up, call it pwn2ownTHEother, such that if you hack Wndows you get the Linux machine, and if you hack Linux you get the Mac, and if you have the Mac you get the Winbox, do you honestly believe that all the security experts would be rushing to hack the Mac first? Unlikely... in that situation, Linux would be the first hacked, and Mac the last, again, for the obvious reasons.
Go ask the guys who keep hacking Macs at the annual pwn2own contest how safe those boxes are. They'll laugh at you.
Ever wonder why the steaming pile of shit is the last to fall at pwn2own? Is a steaming pile of shit more secure? Or is it just that no one wants to win a steaming pile of shit?
Unfortunately, lots of programs don't work right if you don't run as administrator.
That is an interesting way to put it. But we know the real issue is that lots of Windows programmers don't code right if you don't force them to test their fucking code. I believe the entire point of Vista, besides the whole 'New Coke' money grab, was to retrain Windows developers to do things correctly.
OS X is typically one of the first to be hacked
And this will remain true until they give away the MacBook for hacking Windows or Linux.
I have no trouble believing the word app had been used far earlier than 1987 and never doubted its meaning, so I had no reason to look it up in the dictionary. Also, I made no Internet search. I stand by my two assertions: 1) you are an insatiable troll and 2) prior to the App Store, the term app was NOT in wide use. I know these things to be true from personal experience. There is no Internet search or dictionary definition that can prove otherwise. Your pathetic attempts to reason and then attempt to back up your baseless irrelevant claims by appealing to my oversized penis will fail.
But i didn't even make the initial comment,
Yes, you did. You've been blathering on about internet searches for some time now.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
Then why did you bother to comment at all?
Its quite simple. The OP was incorrect. I humbly corrected him. There is no mystery here.
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.
His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing. Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.
Either you will respond with proof of such instances of App Store in common generic use prior to 2008, or you will STFU. In either of those cases, you will be praised for your diligence. If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).
Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?
We here in the civilized world call that speaking hypothetically. In this instance, even if we grant you your unproved assertions, your point is irrelevant.
So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?
Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?
Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.
On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
Any more questions, troll?
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?
The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.
Again, you are harping on some irrelevant statements you made. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along). So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument? Clearly, you have no argument, and you are a troll, for even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree. You would be wise not to insist that others prove a negative. It is a ridiculous claim.
Private financial information was breached. That in itself is the harm, regardless of any credit theft subsequent to the breach. Even if Sony's network hadn't been breached, insecurely keeping financial records alone is in itself a harm to those individuals. Consider a bank that has never been robbed that keeps all its customers' money in piles in plain view in front of the bank. A customer could sue the bank for negligence even if there was no theft.
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument? Your ad hominem attack was irrellivant. Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"
Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.
Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack? I have a 9-inch cock. Please try again, Tiny.
I'm afraid the shit is your meal... you have provided a perfect example of AppStore (not "App Store," but beside the point) being a specific trademark and NOT some generic form of an idea. It is unfortunate for salesforce.com that they did not bother to register or claim their trademark. Sucks for them... because it now belongs to Apple.
Agreed. Clearly, the creator and seller of this inferior operating system should be forced to recall the product— and forced to fix it.
The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede to that particular, and unrelated, point. However, it is still a straw man argument. You took my argument (that "App Store" was a reasonable trademark brand) and replaced it with a similar but different argument (that "app" cannot be trademarked).
Greeting Dragonslicer. I'd like introduce you to my good friend, the Transitive Property of Logic, and his pal, the subset. Now that you are aware of each other, I am sure you will all get along swimmingly.
No, Apple did not coin the term "app." It was in common use well before the copycats at Apple got hold of it.
First of all, you are completely wrong. "App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store. Second of all your point is a straw man argument. Is Apple suing Amazon over their trademarked term "App?" No, because they didn't trademark "App," they trademarked "App Store." Amazon is welcome to use the term "App" but prevented from using Apple's trademarked brand "App Store."
How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?
You may have a valid point. But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system? Once recognized for what it actually is, clearly "App Store" is a specific brand of either or both of those generic terms.
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
You are attempting to replace the true generic term for a specific term. In this instance, the generic term for "app" is software, and the generic for "App Store" has always been and can only be software repository . Had Apple attempted to trademark "software repository" then Amazon would have a case. But what Apple did was coin a term never used before and then market it massively. Other companies should not get to benefit for free from the work Apple has done to create this branded market identity.
"App" and "Store" together created new meaning no more than "Auto" and "Shop" together did. Should the first guy to call his shop "Auto Shop" instead of "Bill's" or "Bill's Automobile Sales and Service" have gotten a trademark on it? No, of course not. That is why nobody was dumb enough to try.
You are incorrect. The generic for "Auto Shop" is mechanic. "Auto Shop" is a term that has entered into the common vernacular, however, had a mechanic first called his business "The Auto Shop" he would have had every right to trademark it, and to protect that trademark. The fact that no one tried is not evidence that it could not have been trademarked.
You mean like things like "Windows" right?
Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".
You are incorrect. Prior to Apple using the term, it did not exist (and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise). But more importantly, App Store is generically both a package manager and a software repository. "App Store" is no more a generic term than "Kleenex," or "Laundromat."
... where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Oh, no! Did Apple register trademarks for Package Manager and Software Repository ?! Those bastards! It's too bad Amazon (and Microsoft) can't possibly think up something new or different now, like, say, App Market, or Application Cafe, or the Amazon Repo, or Software Grocery. OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Amazon could call it the Shoe Store, and it wouldn't matter, we'd all know what it really was. How did Cydia come up with it's own name? HOW??!
It wasn't my cat, but Schrödinger might be a bit miffed since he preferred it both alive and dead at the same time.
That's just something he came up with so he wouldn't have to explain death to his kids.
"Daddy, what's wrong with Mr. Whiskers?" "Well, see, if we put him in this box ..."
I doubt that... Schrödinger hated kids. But he hated cats more.