4 ms·

The reason it's named that way is because of Google's trademark on Android. Per Rich Turner @ Microsoft: "As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not about

The reason it's named that way is because of Google's trademark on Android. Per Rich Turner @ Microsoft: "As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's not about positioning of words, it's about the legalities of trademark usage; we cannot lead a product name with a term trademarked by someone else." Source: https://twitter.com/richturn_ms/status/1245742145119510529 https://twitter.com/richturn_ms/status/1245742145119510529

dataflow 4y ago
This keeps coming up and I keep saying that, if the issue is the leading term, they could've just called it the Windows Android Subsystem. (I suspect the real issue is that "for" makes it clearer this is a third-party thing, but nobody ever mentions that.)
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  I believe Android branding guidelines explicitly only allow the use of it by third parties in the form of "for Android".
  - gpm 4y ago
    Android branding guidelines are very unlikely to matter at this point, given that it's descriptive use (not forbidden by trademark law in the first place) anyways...
    - gibolt 4y ago
      This is Microsoft using Google branding. That isn't a risk worth taking, even if more Android access benefits Google
    - czx4f4bd 4y ago
      I don't think that's what descriptive fair use means. > Descriptive Fair Use: Found at 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4), the descriptive fair use defense protects your ability to use ordinary words to describe your own goods or services, even if those words happen to be part of someone's trademark. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others Since the Windows Subsystem for Android actually runs Android, "Windows Subsystem for Android" is a product name and not just a description, and "Android" isn't a generic descriptive term in this context, it seems to me that Microsoft is using Google's Android trademark in a way that isn't protected as fair use.
      - gpm 4y ago
        Right, I should have said "nominative" rather than "descriptive", at least as far as US law is concerned. It's directly below "descriptive" in your link. Really I wasn't trying to name the exact defence but gesture at the principal that trade marks prevent competitors from using names that might confuse customers, but they don't prevent competitors (or anyone else) from talking about the product. It was just a coincidence that I used a word that happened to also be the name of a specific kind of fair use.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    Does Linux have the same branding guidelines? Because this started before Android.
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      That's actually sort of false! WSL was originally designed for Android, to enable Android apps on Windows Mobile phones. (I have a Lumia which has a test build of this from back in the day.) I'm unsure when the branding decision was made, but the possibility of again involving Android support was probably considered.
      - dataflow 4y ago
        Amazing! Thanks.
      - lloeki 4y ago
        I am quite sure this has not much to do with Android, given that this, including the naming scheme, traces back to 1999 with "Windows Services for UNIX". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX Funnily enough it lacks "subsystem" but its ancestor was in 1993 "Microsoft POSIX subsystem". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    Here is a cite confirming that statement[0] [0] https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/android/docs/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/android/docs/distribu...
  - asveikau 4y ago
    They should say "for Android apps". Boom. Makes more sense. I'm sure there are other phrasing tweaks that would also work. But it's just like Microsoft to blindly settle on a name that doesn't make sense, based on advice from legal, and not probe it a bit more, or play with it to make more sense while still fitting the guidelines of legal advice, and to cite the legal guidance as the reason it has to be mediocre and cannot change. (Source: I once worked for MS.) Edit: to be clear, I'm also reacting to the "windows subsystem for Linux", which they used the same justification for.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Someone at Microsoft must have considered "Windows Can Now Run Android/Linux/Mac". Wonder why they didn't take that or another route.
  - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
    Windows Can Run <> or WCRX would actually be a killer name.
    - dcow 4y ago
      Indeed.
- weird-eye-issue 4y ago
  That is very terse and puts "Windows Android" directly next to each other which isn't that clear and could be trademark infringement
- naikrovek 4y ago
  it's a subsystem, of Windows, for Android. Windows Subsystem for Android. it's not hard.
- jahewson 4y ago
  No that’s a very dubious take.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  It's a continuation of their Windows Services for Unix naming scheme.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    This. Until and through Windows 2000, Windows NT had subsystems for various platforms such as Windows Subsystem for POSIX and Windows Subsystem for OS/2. The Win32 environment is also a Windows Subsystem: Windows Subsystem for Win32. Most if not all of the subsystems were removed from Windows XP onwards, except for Win32, due to obsolescence but the architecture and scheme came back in Windows 10 with Windows Subsystem for Linux and in Windows 11 with Windows Subsystem for Android. As an aside, WinRT is a subset of Win32 and is not its own subsystem.
- obert 4y ago
  “Windows bridge to Android” would have been a better choice
tomrod 4y ago
Windows API used by Android/Linux works great.
ggm 4y ago
Well, I was wrong as to why. You can't go past a source like that. I still don't like it. But thats just down to me, and linguistic taste.
pie_flavor 4y ago
They sure could have picked an acronym that wasn't also the winsock function prefix, though.
captainmuon 4y ago
Which is... exactly about the positioning of words, if you can or cannot lead with a certain word. Nevertheless, you are always allowed to use a trademark in a factual sense, as in "Windows can now run Android apps on the Desktop" (modulo some TM or R sign, I guess). That they gave this feature a marketing name at all is a marketing decision - it doesn't have to have a noun. Or it could use a cryptic, non-trademarked internal name like WOW64 does. Or you could go for "'nix subsystem" or "penguin subsystem" or "APK subsystem". This is why I am convinced even if there we no legal reasons, they would call it "Windows Subsystem for Linux / Android". I think they want to psychologically distance the product from the Windows NT idea that you can have multiple types of applications on equal footing, instead of just "Apps" (see how they are muddling the names of Modern/WinUI/UWP/App SDK/... Apps). But in the end, no one can know and it is just interesting kremlinology...

dataflow 4y ago

This keeps coming up and I keep saying that, if the issue is the leading term, they could've just called it the Windows Android Subsystem. (I suspect the real issue is that "for" makes it clearer this is a third-party thing, but nobody ever mentions that.)

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
I believe Android branding guidelines explicitly only allow the use of it by third parties in the form of "for Android".
- gpm 4y ago
  Android branding guidelines are very unlikely to matter at this point, given that it's descriptive use (not forbidden by trademark law in the first place) anyways...
  - gibolt 4y ago
    This is Microsoft using Google branding. That isn't a risk worth taking, even if more Android access benefits Google
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    I don't think that's what descriptive fair use means. > Descriptive Fair Use: Found at 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4), the descriptive fair use defense protects your ability to use ordinary words to describe your own goods or services, even if those words happen to be part of someone's trademark. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others Since the Windows Subsystem for Android actually runs Android, "Windows Subsystem for Android" is a product name and not just a description, and "Android" isn't a generic descriptive term in this context, it seems to me that Microsoft is using Google's Android trademark in a way that isn't protected as fair use.
    - gpm 4y ago
      Right, I should have said "nominative" rather than "descriptive", at least as far as US law is concerned. It's directly below "descriptive" in your link. Really I wasn't trying to name the exact defence but gesture at the principal that trade marks prevent competitors from using names that might confuse customers, but they don't prevent competitors (or anyone else) from talking about the product. It was just a coincidence that I used a word that happened to also be the name of a specific kind of fair use.
- dataflow 4y ago
  Does Linux have the same branding guidelines? Because this started before Android.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    That's actually sort of false! WSL was originally designed for Android, to enable Android apps on Windows Mobile phones. (I have a Lumia which has a test build of this from back in the day.) I'm unsure when the branding decision was made, but the possibility of again involving Android support was probably considered.
    - dataflow 4y ago
      Amazing! Thanks.
    - lloeki 4y ago
      I am quite sure this has not much to do with Android, given that this, including the naming scheme, traces back to 1999 with "Windows Services for UNIX". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX Funnily enough it lacks "subsystem" but its ancestor was in 1993 "Microsoft POSIX subsystem". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
- Someone1234 4y ago
  Here is a cite confirming that statement[0] [0] https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/android/docs/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/project/android/docs/distribu...
- asveikau 4y ago
  They should say "for Android apps". Boom. Makes more sense. I'm sure there are other phrasing tweaks that would also work. But it's just like Microsoft to blindly settle on a name that doesn't make sense, based on advice from legal, and not probe it a bit more, or play with it to make more sense while still fitting the guidelines of legal advice, and to cite the legal guidance as the reason it has to be mediocre and cannot change. (Source: I once worked for MS.) Edit: to be clear, I'm also reacting to the "windows subsystem for Linux", which they used the same justification for.
fragmede 4y ago
Someone at Microsoft must have considered "Windows Can Now Run Android/Linux/Mac". Wonder why they didn't take that or another route.
- CuriousCosmic 4y ago
  Windows Can Run <> or WCRX would actually be a killer name.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Indeed.
weird-eye-issue 4y ago
That is very terse and puts "Windows Android" directly next to each other which isn't that clear and could be trademark infringement
naikrovek 4y ago
it's a subsystem, of Windows, for Android. Windows Subsystem for Android. it's not hard.
jahewson 4y ago
No that’s a very dubious take.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
It's a continuation of their Windows Services for Unix naming scheme.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  This. Until and through Windows 2000, Windows NT had subsystems for various platforms such as Windows Subsystem for POSIX and Windows Subsystem for OS/2. The Win32 environment is also a Windows Subsystem: Windows Subsystem for Win32. Most if not all of the subsystems were removed from Windows XP onwards, except for Win32, due to obsolescence but the architecture and scheme came back in Windows 10 with Windows Subsystem for Linux and in Windows 11 with Windows Subsystem for Android. As an aside, WinRT is a subset of Win32 and is not its own subsystem.
obert 4y ago
“Windows bridge to Android” would have been a better choice

tomrod 4y ago

Windows API used by Android/Linux works great.

ggm 4y ago

Well, I was wrong as to why. You can't go past a source like that. I still don't like it. But thats just down to me, and linguistic taste.

pie_flavor 4y ago

They sure could have picked an acronym that wasn't also the winsock function prefix, though.

captainmuon 4y ago

Which is... exactly about the positioning of words, if you can or cannot lead with a certain word. Nevertheless, you are always allowed to use a trademark in a factual sense, as in "Windows can now run Android apps on the Desktop" (modulo some TM or R sign, I guess). That they gave this feature a marketing name at all is a marketing decision - it doesn't have to have a noun. Or it could use a cryptic, non-trademarked internal name like WOW64 does. Or you could go for "'nix subsystem" or "penguin subsystem" or "APK subsystem". This is why I am convinced even if there we no legal reasons, they would call it "Windows Subsystem for Linux / Android". I think they want to psychologically distance the product from the Windows NT idea that you can have multiple types of applications on equal footing, instead of just "Apps" (see how they are muddling the names of Modern/WinUI/UWP/App SDK/... Apps). But in the end, no one can know and it is just interesting kremlinology...