Apple Making a Spreadsheet? 611
Raleel writes "It appears that apple has trademarked the word "Numbers". Speculation is that it is a new spreadsheet. It makes sense with Keynote, Pages, and Mail." That would sort of fill in the last major hole in their lineup.
The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFS:
Errant homonyms aside, this seems to make a lot of sense...after all, Apple is just a spreadsheet shy of an office suite...although between M$ Office and Open Office, I find myself wondering why they're even bothering...
Also, wasn't there an Apple spreadsheet program previously...called 'grid' or something? I seem to recall something along those lines...perhaps 'Numbers' isn't a spreadsheet after all. The assumption that 'Numbers' is in fact a spreadsheet is only speculation, after all.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Interesting)
The same guy was sent about a week later to deny that it was happening but accept that he did claim that it would
2 years later, Apple produces an internally-written, incomplete Office suite completely unrelated to StarOffice/OpenOffice
Assumption. As with the time ATi preannounced an Apple product by accident and was dumped for nVidia, Sun screwed up and Apple pulled the whole project in revenge. Pages/Mail/Keynote is the replacement. Numbers is the missing component.
History to put this Sun/Apple rumor to rest (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I was involved with this on a number of levels and can say there was no announcement. What happened was a slip up and spin control. The original article [com.com] contained quotes that were taken from the end of an interview with Tony Siress [google.com] on a completely different topic. He was mostly talking about OpenOffice.org on Mac OS X. Note the quote that was interpreted as being the "announcement" of a cooperation:
"I don't want to sell StarOffice for OS X," Siress said. "I want Apple to bundle it. I'll give them the code. I'd love it if I could get the team at Apple to do joint development and they distribute it at no cost--that it's their product. Nobody makes a product more beautiful on Apple than Apple."
Does that sound like a product and bundling announcement? Hell no. It was Tony going off on what he'd "like" to happen, that he'd "like" to have a partnership with Apple and a bundling deal. It never existed. The StarOffice team that he was talking about was the one that existed under Patrick Luby back in 2000 prior to when Sun open sourced the failed remnants of the Mac port.
It also turns out that by this time Patrick had already been working on NeoOffice/J [neooffice.org] and, being a former Sun employee and manager of the Mac port, he was beginning to show early versions of his application to people within Sun. This is one of the projects that was mentioned by Sun managers as the Java port, even though it wasn't even a Sun project. Tony himself referenced NeoOffice/J's ancestor in his interview.
Tony later explained [openoffice.org] the mixup to the OOo community, which was later picked up by the press [pcworld.com]. He was talking out his ass and made my life hell for a whole week.
CNet was embarassed, of course, since they essentially now looked like fools by "breaking" completly false information. So they ran a counter-argument [zdnet.com] story that had longer quotes from the interview. The Quartz version that he's referring to was the Quartz porting work I had been doing in OpenOffice.org. The Java version he's referring to was the early work by Patrick. It even had some quotes from a Sun PR person confirming that Tony said what he had said. Sun PR sacrificed Tony to maintain a working relationship with CNet (apparently there had been a Sun PR person involved with the original interview but they hadn't stopped Tony from making off-topic comments).
The key point you'll see in that "refutation" article that makes it known he's full of it is the quote on laptops at the bottom. He mentions Apple wanting to sell Sun PowerBooks. His "contact" at Apple was a sales rep who was trying to sell laptops, not an engineer!
After that fun blunder, Tony never really was allowed to speak to the press again, particularly on StarOffice related issues.
Conspiracy theorists love making a big deal out of this up until this day (witness the parent), but in the end it was all a bunch of bull caused by an eager manager and an overexuberant reporter "breaking" a supposed story without doing any fact checking to confirm the horseshit coming out of the manager's mouth.
The good thing was that it pissed me and Dan off so much we created the NeoOffice project (NeoOffice/C) to prove it could be done. Eventually Patrick was convinced to open source the code Tony referred to and thus NeoOffice/J was born. Bad thing is it wrecked any chance of Sun or Apple actually providing OpenOffice.org engineering support since the PR n
Re:Careful now... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Careful now... (Score:3, Funny)
But only the ones that don't use Terminal.app for copying files.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Funny)
No, I think they've suffered enough.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if I could just get End Note to work with Pages, I could drop Word entirely.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Insightful)
Pages is not full featured enough that I'd want to be producing a monthly magazine on it, but for a church newsletter, or a notice for a school or something, it's a good choice. It doesn't do everything, but it does a lot of the basic stuff really easily.
Not to mention the output! (Score:3, Interesting)
>shudder
I had the same reaction to Pages after using PageMaker & Publisher in a production environment. Publisher is NO GOOD AT ALL.
However, OpenOffice, Pages, Word & PageMaker/Quark/Publisher/InDesign/Frame cannot be fairly compared as equals.
Pages does Word + Publisher *BETTER*
Numbers will probably do Excel + Access *APPLEY*
Remember:
FileMa
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Insightful)
They're really a bastard category of products. They're text editors pretending to be page layout programs... or page layout programs pretending to be text editors. The whole concept has always seemed somehow *wrong* to me. Kludgy and awkward.
Pages fixes that. It fills in the same category as things like Word, but goes about things in a sane way. Apple has a text editor already - TextEdit. It's pervasive across the OS X system, and technically I'm using it right now in this Safari text box. Pages is a page layout program that calls on TextEdit (I presume) to do its text functions, QuickTime to handle its graphics functions, and so on. The components are handled by system functions that handle those components well; Pages just puts them all together in a pretty, integrated package.
It's a lot like XHTML+CSS versus the old content-and-layout-in-one kludge that was earlier HTML standards, actually.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:4, Informative)
That's why I'm saying Pages is so brilliant. It's not Quark, but it's the same class of program, scaled down to the Word level of functionality.
The way I see it, the text editor paradigm works up to the feature level of text-only documents with varied font faces and sizes, alignments and justifications, line spacings, even margins and pages sizes.... so long as it's all just text.
Once you want to start adding tables and graphics and working with master pages and the like, it's time to change paradigms and act like you're doing what you real are doing: basic page layout. You're not just editing text anymore, and trying to make a fancy text editor do things other than edit text is a bad idea.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wo
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pervasive across the OS X system, and technically I'm using it right now in this Safari text box.
I didn't realise that. So do some of the GUI features in OS X work like OpenDoc or OLE? I'm not too familiar with what goes on under the hood, but I recall glossing over an Apple developer front page that described how you could easily extend features of OS X applications, like adding a menu to TextEdit that accesses iTunes. However, I wasn't aware that it also had OpenDoc/OLE qualities. Can OS X do thi
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there's nothing really like that on OS X at the system level. The text editing functionality in many applications is based on classes provided by the Cocoa framework, so you get "the same" text editing experience, by way of all the shared code.
But you don't have the situation of one application being responsible for drawing/editing content inside another application. Each approach obviously has advantages and disadvantages. It certainly
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Interesting)
Haven't used Keynote yet, but I intend to. Looking forward to Numbers. Maybe I'll get lucky and Apple will release a personal accounting package. It'd probably be called 'Accounts' or 'Finances', since 'Money' is already taken.
*hope*
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Informative)
No you're not. Technically you're using an instance of NSTextView [apple.com] which just happens to be used by TextEdit.app (you can confirm this by deleting TextEdit.app and observing that Safari will still let you type into HTML forms).
Pages is a page layout program that calls on TextEdit (I presume)
Calls on the AppKit libraries which contain all the stuff that makes NSTextViews function, actually.
It is by using the AppKit classes that all MacOS X applications get stuff, that should be standard in all (non-lightweight) GUI toolkits, like spell checking in any text box or text entry field (unless the UI design specifically disabled it). This is also why "foreign" programs such as FireFox are not as nice to use on MacOS X, nifty features such as system wide spell-checking are not available.
I can't understand why other GUI toolkits don't offer similar functionality. Ii also irritates me when I see a website that implements spell-checking instead of leaving it to the users browser/GUI.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Insightful)
The services accessible in Cocoa apps really are hugely powerful, and it's a shame that Apple doesn't give them a better UI (in NeXTStep, the Services menu was at the top level, and could be torn off), since they are an incredibly flexible way of extending a program's functionality.
DTP Definition (Score:5, Informative)
DTP = Desktop Publishing
(I'll admit: I had to look it up)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, Steve made references to a spreadsheet-in-progress called "Grid". If this thing really is a spreadsheet, it's probably the same project.
Lotus Improv (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lotus Improv (Score:3, Informative)
Let's hope Numbers take its inspiration from Lotus Improv.
I just read your link and I bet you are absolutely right on that. So much of OS X has been derived from NeXTSTEP, and this part really spells it out...
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but before "Pages" there was the ugly beast called "AppleWorks"... which clearly couldn't compete with MS Word.
I think they're trying to cover their asses in case Microsoft pulls the MS Office rug out from under them.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
Hah! I remember appleworks. We had it on a 5 1/4 floppy for our Apple IIgs. It had a lot of forward-thinking options at the time, like ascii interpretations of folders, and an option to print to disk (for text files, so I could write my applesoft basic in appleworks rather than in the included "editor", which consisted of cat the program, break where you want to edit, and escape up into the program).
Wow. Blast from the past.
~Will
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
I recently bought an iMac G5, tried AppleWorks.
I didn't play around with it long before I got sick of it.
It looked like the only thing that changed was it now in a GUI intead of a TUI.
Not just Ugly, bug Fugly, IMHO.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Informative)
They still have AppleWorks [apple.com]. I think it even still ships with every Mac. Hey, check it out, can it really run on Windows [apple.com]?? It appears it can.
It's definitely still useful, though it's rudimentary spreadsheet is probably the weakest link, it's Carbon of course, and badly needs an update... although, now that I mention it, it looks like it has actually bumped a few version numbers since I las
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much. A fancy text editor. Where word falls flat on it's face is if you want to do things with graphics, or advanced multi-column newspaper-style layout, where different columns are different heights and widths. Page layout, like you said, is a problem with Word. If you just want text, paragraph layout, that kind of thing, it's about as feature-rich as you could ask for, if a bit difficult to use for all of the features.
What does a word processor do that Page
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
Maybe Apple feels like half the company it could be without a spreadsheet app.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
Maybe Apple feels like half the company it could be without a spreadsheet app.
Spreadsheet envy?
^_^
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
I'm thinking the term "Numbers" is from the TV show of the same name which is a nice twist to a SpreadSheet name as well.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
As for why they're bothering, well, all I can say is that I wish more people'd try iWork because then they'd see it's not a clone of MS Office and OpenOffice. It's not "there yet" in terms of being feature-complete enough to compete with these office suites, which is probably what's keeping their sales so low, but if you're doing something like desktop publishing or want to design a slick presentation, iWork is easier and in many cases
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Informative)
Menus are per-window instead of universal. Common shortcuts don't work, or do something different. Copy & Paste is spotty, if it works at all. Windows don't obey the same rules as other Mac apps, such as when they take focus. Dialog boxes could come in any number of shapes and sizes, instead of the Mac "slide out" sheet.
It's a major turn-off because folks are used to Mac apps behaving in a consistent manner. Oth
Menus are per-window instead of universal. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of all things on a Mac, that REALLY needs to be an option. It wasn't bad on all-in-one Macs with small screens, but on a 30" or dual-23s that universal, top-of-screen menu is all to often WAY OVER THERE...
Re:Menus are per-window instead of universal. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think I'm explaining this very well, but do you see what I'm getting at? It's a bigger issue than proximity. I realize that various window managers in unix probably are perfectly capable of treating applications in a more Mac-like manner while putting the menubar in the window, but to me it just makes it feel too Windowsish, which spills over into other issues besides the menu bar.
previous spreadsheet (Score:5, Funny)
Also, wasn't there an Apple spreadsheet program previously...
Yeah, I seem to remember this little known app called VisiCalc or something. It must have been a failure, because no one seems to even remember it here...
Re:previous spreadsheet (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:2)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:4, Informative)
The Macintosh had MacWrite and MacPaint bundled.
Microsoft sold a spreadsheet called Multiplan. The first commercial software for Mac.
Later, came other offerings. (Some of it interesting in concept, such as Helix.)
Eventually, I think by late 1985, thereabout, Microsoft had a new spreadsheet for the Mac called.....
Excel.
It was really great software.
Eventually, Microsoft released a Windows, and a product for it named....
Excel.
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Numbers Game: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, I would really like Apple to make iWork into a complete product. It isn't just missing an excel and access replacement. It is also missing key "Apple" functionality: applescript capability.
While keynote 2 does expose an applescript dictionary, it is completely useless. Things you should be able to do (but can't) via script:
1. Create a new document (slideshow)
2. Add a slide
3. Edit the slide
4. Set the transition effect
OK, so basically anything useful. The s
Wait till they trademark Letters (Score:4, Funny)
A spreadsheet or a spreadsheet program? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A spreadsheet or a spreadsheet program? (Score:2, Funny)
It is believed the spreadsheet program will only allow you to create and manipulate a single cell.
Steve Jobs you have done it again.
Re:A spreadsheet or a spreadsheet program? (Score:5, Informative)
You see, the 13 year olds kids that read slashdot nowadays do not know that before Microsoft Excel existed, people used paper [wikipedia.org] spreadsheets [wikipedia.org]
and that NO Spreadsheet is not a COMPUTER related term. Spreadsheet program IS a program that implements the funcionality of a REAL spreadsheet.
Re:A spreadsheet or a spreadsheet program? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A spreadsheet or a spreadsheet program? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a hole in the line-up (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a hole in the line-up (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a hole in the line-up (Score:2)
Re:It's a hole in the line-up (Score:2)
Watch your mouth, you...we won't have such unholesome talk here.
^_^
Re:It's a hole in the line-up (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a hole in the line-up (Score:5, Funny)
Haha - that joke made my hole weak.
Well you can't trademark *a* number... (Score:2)
Re:Well you can't trademark *a* number... (Score:2)
Microsoft Word (tm)
Apple Number (tm)
Microsoft Paint (tm)
A bunch of silliness...
Re:Well you can't trademark *a* number... (Score:5, Funny)
1 [uspto.gov] Dale Ernhardt Inc.
(3) [uspto.gov]Level 3 Communications
4 [uspto.gov]Swingline, Inc.
5 [uspto.gov] Chanel
31 [uspto.gov] Baskin Robbins
"33" [uspto.gov] Latrobe Brewing
57 [uspto.gov] H.J. Heinz Company
501 [uspto.gov] Levi Strauss & Co.
747 [uspto.gov] Boeing
Only fair... (Score:3, Funny)
(Couldn't find the link to the Onion story - they've pulled it)
Re:Only fair... (Score:4, Funny)
Consider it saved. [att.net]
The hole in Apple's lineup (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever (Score:2)
Numbers? Shouldn't it be iNumbers? The next word processing software will be iSentence. They can't use iWord or Ballmer will sue them silly.
Nothing wrong with OpenOffice? (Score:2)
*snort*
I'd rather use punched cards.
i numbers (Score:3, Funny)
plugin possibilities... (Score:2)
Book of... -- Statistics module with lots of frequency distribution functions.
-Charles
Next Trademark after Numbers: (Score:5, Funny)
It's the NextStep to the iBible.
Office Replacement (Score:2)
It looks like Apple might be getting prepared for the chance that Microsoft does decide to withdraw their support from the Mac. It would be an
Apple made an office suite for Windows before ! (Score:2)
Apple used to sell AppleWorks 6 for Windows - I have a copy. It's horrible. Apple's Office may also appear on Win32 eventually. Hopefully somewhat more nicely
Don't they already *have* a spreadsheet? (Score:2)
But I guess they mean 'a spreadsheet... THAT LOOKS KEWL!'
I just downloaded it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I just downloaded it. (Score:3, Informative)
Numbers... (Score:2)
CBS Worried? (Score:2)
Trademark the word "Trademark" (Score:2)
Can you copyright a proper word? (Score:2)
It's Just In Case (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1997, to aid in Apple's revival, Microsoft initially agreed to make new versions of Office for Mac in exchange for non-voting stock options, a token deposit of $150 M in Apple's account, and under-the-table dismissal of lawsuits that Apple filed. That agreement has since expired. Although Office for Mac is healthy and profitable to both MS and Apple (since an Office version presents justification for businesses to buy Macs), Steve looks ahead, just in case, and ensures that there are Apple products that also fit the bill.
Re:It's Just In Case (Score:4, Interesting)
Incidentally this infringement lawsuit was the reason QuickTime 2.5 for Mac and Windows was released free.
You'll have to Google real hard for this as all the press-releases on it where removed from Apple's site when the Microsoft's investment where announced, but I assume some courthouse somewhere has documents on it.
It shouldn't take long... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft Numbers, heh funny name (Score:2)
wingz (Score:2)
Nah... (Score:2)
Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
Trademarking "Numbers" == Good
Maybe Apple trademarked it, simply so noone else can?
Not enough, not comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
The "real" Microsoft Office Professional has:
o Access
o Excel
o Outlook
o PowerPoint
o Publisher
o Word
Even if Apple does a spreadsheet, that's not going to be enough. The major deployment for Office in small to medium businesses is with MS Access and a bunch of Visual BASIC/VBScript glue to turn it into vertical market custom software.
I know several people who run multimillion dollar financial services businesses, each of which is under 100 employees, and their collections applications, reporting applications, etc., are all based on this model to glue things together.
If you try to buy discounted paper - e.g. you are into factor financing, or you are dealing with a Fannie May or Freddie Mac paper, or subprime credit (face it: that's most of the people trying to get credit in the first place), etc. - then you are likely in this category. Even if you aren't, the data comes from companies like Credit Suisse First Boston, Chase Manhattan, Banc Of America, etc., on CDROMs in access database or Excel spreadsheet data formats.
The thing that would switch these people over to Macintosh (don't kid yourself, many of these people want to switch - their employees are just as likely as the next huys to surf the web and end up with spyware out the wazoo) is the ability to run all the same scripts and custom code (all of it interpreted) as they can on their Windows workstation. I know at least three companies that would switch in an instant, but who aren't willing to do so now because they don't want to have to invest in something they can't make minor changes to themselves without learning how to be a programmer. Or keeping a programmer on staff full time.
And that's just one vertical market.
You can find the same issues with document storage and retrieval systems that use optical scanning to get out from under paper. You can also find the same thing with medical billing systems, and Doctors office management systems. Many insurance companies have specific client requirements for integration with their networks for electronic billing and payment processing: if you don't do it using their app., then you get to fill out paper, and they get to it when they get to it.
The deck is seriously stacked, and it's the compatibility of the database and the inter-application scripting, not the spreadsheets, which keeps Windows entrenched. It's no mistake that neither Access or the full VisualBASIC suite has made it to platforms other than Windows.
-- Terry
Re:Not enough, not comparable (Score:4, Insightful)
Also there is already Filemaker which is one of the reasons why M$ has always said they are not going to make Access for the Mac.
Re:Not enough, not comparable (Score:3, Informative)
see? much better. Now this can be modded Informative.
Seriously, I used Entourage for a long time because of the Exchange support (MS's email server which really reallly sucks ass big time). After I stopped using the stupid exchange features (because I left the company where I had that account), I finally dumped Entourage forever,
Re:Not enough, not comparable (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends on your perceptive. I can agree that a lot of large firms (the type with full IT staffs and in-house programmers/pseudo-programmers) use the "real" MS Office in the manner you describe. But a lot of people just need a word processor to /read/write letters and a spreadsheet to crunch numbers.
Seriously, go drive/walk to you town/city center and look around. You'll probably see banks, maybe an accounting firm or small engineering firm that needs VB/Access functionally. But keep looking. You'll also see things like barber shops, a Ma & Pa convenience store, maybe a store front for plumber, graphic artist, and so on. These people probably wouldn't know what a database or scripting language was if you hit them over the head with one.
As long as they can read whatever Office formats that are sent to them (and thankfully that may actually happen [slashdot.org]), the combo of Pages/Keynote/Numbers will be enough for the great majority of small businesses.
Given the number of small businesses [census.gov] in the U.S., I think the potential market is higher than one might expect, especially if you think business=megacorp
Why not build their own office? (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting question is whether Steve decides that now is the time to end the unholy deal with Microsoft where MS provides Office for Mac so long as the Mac never tries to become mainstream. (Mainstream seems to be defined as >10% of PC sales for this purpose.) Being on iNtel means they could produce as many machines as they could sell. And if they played their cards right and cut HP or Dell in on the action they could probably move a metric assload of machines come next Xmas season.
Yes it would be the return of the clones, but if they really want to be a player they have to find a way to gain a significant installed base. They can't do the deal with Hollywood they so obviously lust after unless they can show an ability to get enough installed base to be worthy of signing a major content distribution deal with.
The perfect spreadsheet... (Score:4, Interesting)
So what WOULD make a good spreadsheet? Here's some ideas...
1) start with Lotus Improv - the key idea here is the separation of sheets, temporary work, and formulas
2) add 3D sheets from Stories, they would fit into Improv's "sheetlette" idea perfectly
3) there's got to be an idea or two from Spreadsheet 2000 worth using
4) Now make every *&%&^% part of it AppleScriptable
THAT is the spreadsheet you want.
In the office game, it's all about document format (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they can slap their famous user interface on it and watch adoption grow. If they go on their own again - with no PC support for the format - fuhged it...
Re:In the office game, it's all about document for (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In the office game, it's all about document for (Score:3, Informative)
Wait for them to name the word processor.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Spelling? (editors) (Score:2)
Re:Patenting a _word_? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like: Apple?
Re:Patenting a _word_? (Score:4, Informative)
So yeah, you can trademark the word "trademark" in regards to a specific product or market. You could sell TradeMark(tm) cookies, if you liked, or call your car company "trademark". Anyone else selling cookies or cars and using the word trademark in certain ways might be found in violation. On the other hand, I believe common words are considered "weak trademarks" and can be tougher to enforce than made-up words or proper names.
Re:Patenting a _word_? (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me: some grocery stores here (Canada) are selling "No Name" brand products (which are much like "President's Choice" and other home brands). And "No Name" is a registered trademark.
Re:Patenting a _word_? (Score:2)
Common words are trademarked all the time in all sorts of businesses (As are just plain numbers contra a previous post. "76" Gasoline, 501 Blue Jeans, 505 both blue jeans and a cleaning solution, and of course Channell No. 5)
Trademarks don't prevent other people from using the word it just prevents people from naming their product, in the same industry, the exact same word that you already have. Or, to use one that is close enough to either cause confusion or to trade on your popularity.
Re:Trademarks Out of Control (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been trademarking common words since trademarks were invented. It's nothing new and aside from completely made up words it's hard to avoid.
The more common the word in the industry it's used in the less protection your trademark gives you. A completely made up word (c.f. "Exxon") and you can claim infringement in almost any use by your competitors. "Apple" is just an arbitrary word in the industry it's in so it still gives them pretty good protection. Apple could certainly stop a competitor (but not an orchard) from being named "Apple Systems, Inc." "Numbers" is NOT arbitrary, it's descriptive so Apple would probably have to live with a company in a related field called "NumberSystems Inc." or a product called "Number Cruncher" even if a similar use of a more arbitrary trademark would have been a violation of their trademark.
Re:Article is an obvious troll (Score:3, Funny)