[sverhagen]

Is it smart to call the implementation after the category, or am I misunderstanding what is going on? Surely they won't be able to trademark this?

[wmf]

It's not a product; it's a command line tool that's (more or less) part of the OS. It doesn't need a fancy name.

[precompute]

You're right, it's an incredibly pyrrhic decisions that aims to wrestle the meaning of the word towards apple's implementation. I mean, the company is named "apple". This kind of raze-a-language marketing is in their DNA.

[slroger]

I was wondering the same thing

[yencabulator]

Apple has a track record of doing that: product names that are only unique if you keep repeating the "Apple" prefix.

Apple Card

Apple Pay

Apple Music

Apple TV

Apple Watch

App Store (trying to namesquat this is just evil, so it's "Apple App Store" for me)

Hence, I recommend you call it "Apple Container", and "Apple Containerization".

[juliendorra]

Microsoft did it too with Windows and Words (supposedly after a very messy trademark dispute around excel? If I remember well?). This avoids trademark dispute on names (as you can’t trademark generic name alone) and is an effective way for very recognizable brands to extend their branding without adding too much confusion