4 ms·

At any other company, the marketers or whoever would have said "well, we obviously can't call it KitKat, 'cause that's trademarked". At Google, they know they'r

• bennyg 13y ago
  What if KitKat came to them?
• lisper 13y ago
  If you scroll to the bottom you will find two buttons labelled "Learn more about Kit Kat" and "Learn more about Nexus". If you click on the first button you are taken to a page about the candy bar, not the new OS version. This was clearly a paid product placement.
  • bd 13y ago
    It's not supposed to be paid by either side: However, Google told the BBC that it had come up with the idea and that neither side was paying the other. "This is not a money-changing-hands kind of deal," John Lagerling, director of Android global partnerships, told the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938
  • anxiousest 13y ago
    Nope, not paid: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938 it's just a bit of fun.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • dobbsbob 13y ago
    Indeed, it's a totally scammy 'click here for your free Nexus' too. Surprised there wasn't a dozen popups shilling penis pills and investment advice
    • runn1ng 13y ago
      Where do you see anything scammy on the website? I see "Learn more about KitKat" and "Learn more about Nexus", both of them lead to exactly what's described.
      • dobbsbob 13y ago
        My post describes exactly what is "scammy" about it, hint: there's other links. Though you could also argue click here to learn about KitKat should give you an Android 5.0 info page since this is android.com
        • venomsnake 13y ago
          Same happened to me - expected info about the upcoming OS release not the candy on the bottom link.
      • truth_to_power 13y ago
        I think he means the primary link, not the footer links. Here: http://www.hersheys.com/kitkat.aspx http://www.hersheys.com/kitkat.aspx (A dreadful site by the way.)
        • runn1ng 13y ago
          Oh, OK, I am not in US, so that links lead to Nestlé's KitKat site - http://kitkat.com/ http://kitkat.com/ - that explains it.
  • NicoJuicy 13y ago
    You know why it's probably not a sponsored deal? It's google award for KitKat for being very active on G+ (it's the first thing i thought about checking after i saw this, and i was right) - also, haven't found such big "communities" except Google's own. Probably they also were joining G+ from the start and i couldn't find any article about the default smartphone the employees of KitKat receive :) . PS. I believe KitKat's competitors aren't really happy about this :)
    • lisper 13y ago
      So there is a quid-pro-quo, even if there is no money changing hands.
      • tomkarlo 13y ago
        Err, no. What he described is not a quid-pro-quo, unless they knew that being active on G+ would result in this. From wikipedia: Quid pro quo ("this for that" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.
        • lisper 13y ago
          Whatever happened behind the scenes, two things are clear: 1. Nestle gave Google permission to use the trademark 2. Google is providing advertising for Kit Kat So I see only two possibilities: 1. Google asked Nestle for permission to use the trademark for no compensation, Nestle agreed, and Google subsequently decided out of the goodness of their heart to advertise the candy bar in a manner that is unprecedented in the history of the company, or 2. Google asked Nestle for permission to use the trademark, and Nestle agreed in exchange for the aforementioned advertising, i.e. a quid pro quo. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more plausible. But the Google+ thing is a red herring (except insofar as it might provide some insight into why Google decided to give Nestle such a sweetheart deal). [UPDATE] Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything at all sinister about this deal. In fact, I think the coordinated campaign is rather clever.
          • 13y ago
• wutbrodo 13y ago
  > But would another big company even have tried? Yes. iPhone was a registered trademark of Cisco's, and this was something that Apple was fully aware of[1]. They pulled the same thing a couple of years later with iOS. If anything, it's much more likely that the KitKat name was done with Nestle's approval, given that they're at least getting recognition/a product tie-in. [1] http://www.cultofmac.com/143006/how-steve-jobs-steamrolled-cisco-on-the-name-iphone/ http://www.cultofmac.com/143006/how-steve-jobs-steamrolled-c...
  • noblethrasher 13y ago
    Apple Inc. (née Apple Computer) has a pattern of willful trademark infringement. After several litigated disputes with the Beatles' Apple Corps, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business but reneged when they launched iTunes[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
    • beagle3 13y ago
      It should be noted, though, that a judge did not find them in breach of the agreement, and ordered Apple Corps to pay Apple Computer. Furthermore, Apple offered money beforehand, despite believing (and being able to convince a judge) that they didn't have to. So it seems at least in that case they aren't the bad guys.
  • dudus 13y ago
    iPhone is trademarked in Brazil to another company called Gradiente. They even recently launched a new version of their iPhone running Android. http://www.gradiente.com.br/smartphone-linha-g-gradiente-iphone-modelo-neo-one-gc-500-sf-dual-chip-android-23-3g-wi-fi-camera-5mp-cartao-2gb-grafite-23.aspx/p http://www.gradiente.com.br/smartphone-linha-g-gradiente-iph...