Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Why doesn't F1 dump the FIA and run itself? [split topic]


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#51 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 00:19

Start a new series with:

- a V12, 1000bhp, 22,000rpm, built by 1 manufacturer used by all
- a 50 million cap for every team which they can spend as they like on any technological gizmo and the design of the car (which would invite the best engineers pushing the boundaries, the way F1 used to)
- the F1 safety-centered car construction rules and some added
- the flag rules of F1 and some added
- European tracks only at first (to make the transportation relatively cheap and easy)
- the races held during the weekends after F1
- refueling allowed
- 1 compound of durable dry tyre that can last a race and 1 compound of wet tyre for when it rains
- free Live HD streaming online, paid by sponsors, with an option to pay for extra cams to choose from and have detailed data access

Call it Pinnacle Racing and instead of World Champion call it Universe Champion, beat that F1. Top drivers would follow if it really caught on because of it being considered to be the pinnacle of motorsport.

I have a dream...


Final step: Watch as no manufacturer joins, no team joins, no driver joins, no tyre manufacturer makes tyres, and no sponsors sponsor anything.


Advertisement

#52 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,106 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 July 2013 - 00:40

All those are FIA recognised series, so there is no licence conflict. WRC is a FIA championship and NASCAR a series sanctioned by a FIA accredited national ASN and so if legal as far as the FIA is concerned.



NASCAR is sanctioned by NASCAR, not ACCUS. ACCUS is a member org that provides licensing and homolgation for sanctioning bodies that are members.


#53 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 July 2013 - 06:29

Seconded.

:up:

#54 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:32

NASCAR is sanctioned by NASCAR, not ACCUS. ACCUS is a member org that provides licensing and homolgation for sanctioning bodies that are members.

NASCAR is a member of ACCUS so by association it is a FIA sanctioned series.

#55 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,473 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:09

If memory serves me CART, the 80's/early 90's Indy sanctioners weren't FIA associated. And they had "World Champions".

IIRC the first six or so of the CART championship standings had an automatic right to a FIA super licence (anyway that was the case this century until CART folded) which in my view already shows a connection.

#56 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:40

One of the silliest things I have read here - ever.



Take a good look at F1 present day.

UGLY SLOW cars with tires that only last a few laps.
Racing at around 60-70% of their maxximum speed.

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.


#57 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:53

People want V12 1000hp engines and other gizmos, but forget this series would quickly go into bankruptcy.

Tony George dumped CART and started running his own series. In the end NASCAR won.:p

People have lots of dreams, but in the end economy and other realities puts a limit to what we can actually do.

#58 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,986 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:54

Take a good look at F1 present day.

UGLY SLOW cars with tires that only last a few laps.
Racing at around 60-70% of their maxximum speed.

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.


Would the Tifosi watch? Would Alonso's, Vettel's and Hamilton's fans switch over? Who would be the stars of your proposed series? Where would be the draw to the casual fan that comprises most of the fanbase?

F1 survived the UGLY SLOW cars of the 1970s, and it certainly survived the very slow 1.5 l cars of the early '60s. Also maths isn't apparently your strong point, because the cars are currently racing at more like 90% of the max pace.

#59 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:58

Take a good look at F1 present day.

UGLY SLOW cars with tires that only last a few laps.
Racing at around 60-70% of their maxximum speed.

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.


Basically you want to go back to early 2000´s. And you know what, F1 went away from that exactly because it was "dying away" both in the financial and the sporting side (**** races).

Advertisement

#60 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:11

Take a good look at F1 present day.

UGLY SLOW cars with tires that only last a few laps.
Racing at around 60-70% of their maxximum speed.

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.

UGLY SLOW cars - that sounds like a pretty accurate description of the A1GP cars when the series started.
I don't remember A1GP attracting huge crowds of true racing fans, or for that matter many fans at all, even when they gave them' Ferrari' engines.
Even a series with 'know' names such as Masters GP or whatever it was called, hardly raised a ripple on the public consciousness.

#61 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:20

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.


Ohhhh so that's the reason A1GP died? Because we aren't true fans?

:drunk:

#62 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 8,941 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:31

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.


Nah. Bernie has a history of doing his damndest to kill off a series that looks like rivalling F1.

Killed off Group C simply because more manufacturers were doing that instead of F1, and fan interest was rivalling his series. Happened to a lesser extent with CART too...

Edited by JHSingo, 21 July 2013 - 11:32.


#63 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 21 July 2013 - 12:14

Take a good look at F1 present day.

UGLY SLOW cars with tires that only last a few laps.
Racing at around 60-70% of their maxximum speed.

Now a rival series that have great looking FAST cars with tires that you can push 100% on without melting away.
TRUE racing fans would turn over to A1Gp.

F1 would die away much faster then it is right now if it had a direct competition.


Except it's not the FIA that have caused the cheesetyres, the disproportioned wings, etc. These are things that the teams and FOM have requested for "The Show ™". The FIA make the mistake of going to the teams and promoter, and asking them what they'd like. Which means they'd all like something that gets lots of viewers, so they can get lots of sponsor cash/ tv revenues. They'd all like everything technological to remain mostly the same, apart from where they think they can gain an advantage over their rivals. This is why the rules are ever more strict, and the cars have stagnated.

We're not getting a totally revamped aero rulebook because the teams doing well didn't want change, and the ones doing badly think they have a better chance of catching up if things stay the same. We're not getting the engines we should because those interested in "The Show ™ have decided to use a facile argument about noise. We've got long life this, and limited that, under the guise of cost saving, when the teams are still pissing away millions (billions between them, I'd imagine) on things that add little to the sport (not "The Show ™ ).

FOM offer corrupt, morally bankrupt, and even bloodthirsty regimes the chance to buy some global "decency" by selling them a spot on the calendar. As soon as the regime realises F1 isn't gaining them international street cred, or hasn't brought in the untold billions from tourism, they pull out before they end up broke. This isn't the doing of the FIA, though one could argue it's come about due to a certain FIA president handing that part of things to one of his drinking buddies. FOM are the ones greelighting, and even chasing after, subscription TV deals which take F1 out the mainstream public eye, and give a short term cash boost whilst ignoring the long term implications.

The FIA do meddle a little where I personally thingk they sdhouldn't - This whole notion of drivers needing to be some sort of perfect, sanitised role model when away frm teh track pisses me off immensely. They sometimes come up with some odd sporting regulations/ ideas. But the tech regs, the blood money chasing, the alienation of fans and sponsors - That's Bernie and the teams doing.

#64 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 13:20

here's a question i wanted to ask for a long time (forgot it :blush: )

why does Formula 1 has to be governed by the FIA???

it's a series owned by CVC, not FIA, what jurisdiction does FIA has and what can it do if the teams openly starts to disobey/discard the rules made by FIA altogether???? more importantly, why does the teams continue to suffer under the horrible management of FIA??? as far as i can guess, both the teams and the drivers have to pay hefty amount in-terms of license fee to make the fat bunch of the FIA even more fatter.

masochistic bunch !!! :o


case in point, Flavio briatore's ban, banned by FIA, ban over-ruled by french court (IIRC). Or what about Sirotkin's F1 super license??? if sauber decides to say '**** off FIA' and puts him in a car, what real authority (other than some written pre-historic nonsensical gibberish) does the FIA has to prevent this??? the earnings are paid by BE and CVC, not FIA.

INDYcar/nascar/autogp doesn't conform to FIA regulation, so why can't F1 self-govern itself???

atleast it'd cut down all the BULLSHIT by roughly 30 points (mclaren pt. system :cool: ) and improve the organisational/managerial speed by 20 pts.


FIA is the governing body for motorsport. Even if F1 became a non-FIA championship, they would still need the FIA to sanction it (which admittedly the FIA would have to do), but it would not alter the need for drivers to hold a superlicense and to pay the fees to the FIA. So the question becomes, why would F1 wish to ditch the FIA?

The last time the teams threatened to break away, which was 2009, the reasons were clear - there was a substanial difference between the regulations the FIA wanted to bring in and the regulations the teams wanted. The teams got their way. They've been getting their way ever since, so I fail to see what they would gain from breaking away from the FIA. What they would lose, however, if the benefit of an impartial body to which they can turn to resolve disputes between themselves. It's imperfect and it's not free of political influence, but it's better than what would happen if the teams had to be in charge of rules enforcement themselves - it would be like a game of football played in the park with no referee; fine if there's not too much riding on it, but hardly an appropriate way to run a World Cup match,

If we're being serious about this, there is much greater reason to break away from CVC - unlike the FIA, CVC creams off a very large chunk of the sport's income before distributing the remainder amongst the teams.If you could work out a way of organising things with just the teams and the FIA, with the commercial rights held by a nonprofit company set up by the teams that just collects the race hosting fees, advertising revenues, television money and VIP/hospitality revenue and then distributes 100% of it to the teams, that would clearly be better for the teams.

In reality, however, the teams can't agree on what day it is so they are in no position to break away from either the FIA or CVC.

#65 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:01

Given that it seems likely that Bernie will see the inside of a German Court, I wonder if they FIA can walk away from the deal with the Formula One Group and its entangled snare of companies and shareholders?

I'm not sure where that would leave CVC investors - they might have to recover their money from Bambino, there's quite a few billion of everyone's money gone into Bernie's little nest egg and Tamara can't possibly have spent it all.

Hopefully the constructors could ressurect GPWC Holdings to have some input. They never wanted F1 on pay to view TV.

Seano

#66 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:07

Given that it seems likely that Bernie will see the inside of a German Court, I wonder if they FIA can walk away from the deal with the Formula One Group and its entangled snare of companies and shareholders?

I'm not sure where that would leave CVC investors - they might have to recover their money from Bambino, there's quite a few billion of everyone's money gone into Bernie's little nest egg and Tamara can't possibly have spent it all.

Hopefully the constructors could ressurect GPWC Holdings to have some input. They never wanted F1 on pay to view TV.

Seano

Until Bernie 'bribed' them with increased TV payments and conned them into believing that Sky's 10M subscribers would suddenly start watching F1 - even though they where not all watching it before.

#67 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:12

Id be curous to know how much more money is coming out of the UK on tv rights, compared against the loss in purchased sponsor products from the smaller audiences.

Particularly given TV rights are guaranteed money, eyeballs are maybe money.

#68 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,517 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:15

I'd be curious to know whether there's really a god, but we're unlikely to get definite measurements on that either. :p

#69 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:18

The data is out there but it'd be hard to collect from all the disparate sources.

#70 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:20

I think they have already twigged that the pay per view TV deals have had a detrimental effect against their own direct sponsorship income.

If going forward not so much money is not siphoned off in to Tamara's wedding funds, they could easily afford to tell Rupert to do one. I think he'd be quite happy to walk away too. The way their audience numbers are dropping, it would be cheaper for him to send Jonny Herbert to sit on your sofa and have a 121.

Seano

#71 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:33

Depends on the sponsorship model. It's great to have 50million people watching a race but not many of those are buying the sponsor products. So do you charge for TV, or give it away for free and hope you make money later.

The real person that probably loses out is the tracks. A year's subscription to Sky Sports is about equal to a Brit GP ticket, no?

#72 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,491 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:37

The data is out there but it'd be hard to collect from all the disparate sources.

BBC/Sky deal is about £55m per year.

#73 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:46

What was it when it was BBC only?

#74 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:56

Depends on the sponsorship model. It's great to have 50million people watching a race but not many of those are buying the sponsor products. So do you charge for TV, or give it away for free and hope you make money later.

The real person that probably loses out is the tracks. A year's subscription to Sky Sports is about equal to a Brit GP ticket, no?


When a sponsor pays to advertise with FOM or with an F1 team, the money they expect to make is "maybe money". When F1 trades smaller audiences for increased television revenue, the fall in sponsor income is as predictable as the viewing figures - the more people are watching, the more sponsorship money you'll be able to attract. The only other factor that may play into the equation is the type of audience you're attracting, as potential advertisers will look at the demographics of the viewers as well as the outright numbers. So if you're only losing the viewers with the least amount of disposible income, for example, then it might not be as bad as it looks.

Nonetheless, if you reduce the size of the audience then you will, to some extent, reduce sponsorship and advertising income both for FOM and for the teams, as sure as night follows day. And the sad thing is that FOM only cares about its own loss of advertising income, so as long as the extra television money is enough to offset that, they will go ahead and do it even if, when you factor in the effect of the teams, it isn't worth it from the point of view of the sport as a whole. So you don't necessarily get the decision that is best for the sport, you could end up with a decision which is worse for the sport but better for the short-run interests of CVC's investors.

That's why FOTA, when it was united and strong, managed to get an agreement which limited Bernie's ability to put F1 behind a paywall in key markets, which is why RTL retains non-exclusive live coverage in Germany, and BBC retains either non-exclusive live coverage or extended highlights in the UK, etc. Now that FOTA is divided and weak, it's a rather worrying state of affairs, to be honest.

By reducing viewers you're also ignoring the long-run benefits of having extra viewers - ten year old boys are unlikely to watch an F1 race and then go out and buy a bottle of Shell motor oil or open a current account with Santander or buy a Mercedes, but if you can get them watching, you may have them hooked on the sport for the next 50 years. If you put the sport on a channel they can't watch, that's not going to happen.

#75 toofast

toofast
  • Member

  • 512 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 16:57

I'm talking about automobile championships not baseball, and I never said they have to compete all over the world to be champions

The reason why I said I recall the thing with the 'world champion', it's because it's one of the main reasons the German TV was giving (together with the circuits problems) for the split-up series not being a realistic alternative.

EDIT: Article 4 of the FIA statutes says "The General Assembly of the FIA shall be the sole international body governing motor sport, that is to say it shall hold the exclusive right to take all decisions concerning the organisation, direction and management of International Motor Sport"
Therefore, yes, it looks pretty probable, FIA are the sole holders of "world championship" rights in car racing


This is not law. It only applies to members. So, why should anyone cares?

#76 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:05

What was it when it was BBC only?


Not sure but the BBC's budget for F1 was cut in half at the end of their previous deal, so they either had to give them a 50% discount, or find another FTA broadcaster either to take over the rights or share them with the BBC, or do what they did. Steve Rider claims Channel 4 was interested in sharing the rights with the BBC, but I imagine they weren't willing to pay anything like as much as Sky, and may also have been unwilling to pay as much per race as the BBC. If the BBC were paying more than Channel 4 for the same number of races it would have been politically difficult for them, one imagines...

#77 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:18

I'm not so sure about demographics and disposable income - it kind of depends on the product you are trying to push.

Say something like mobile phone networks - I suspect that most people who are going to ever have a mobile phone, have probably got one by now.

Vodaphone's effort is about expanding market share in a pretty well fully saturated market ie the typical punter is already paying a phone network charge.

Makes you wonder what benefit Pirelli see in it.

Seano

#78 Lucass

Lucass
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:22

Given that it seems likely that Bernie will see the inside of a German Court, I wonder if they FIA can walk away from the deal with the Formula One Group and its entangled snare of companies and shareholders?

It can't and won't happen but in the hypothetical case it does then the commercial rights will just be flogged to the highest bidder who in turn will try to squeeze every penny out of their investment like CVC. There's no up-side to that for us the fans.


#79 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 373 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:36

Given that it seems likely that Bernie will see the inside of a German Court, I wonder if they FIA can walk away from the deal with the Formula One Group and its entangled snare of companies and shareholders?

It's impossible to walk away from a deal with any company just because the chief executive goes to court. Bernie is just a minority shareholder, the only reason he is still in charge is because CVC and Waddell & Reed find it easier that way.

Advertisement

#80 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:40

Who or what says it can't happen.

If FOM has been acting unlawfully in paying a bribe to a public official, I'm sure there will be something in the contract that will allow the FIA to walk to avoid reputational damage.

What the FIA would do afterwards, who knows. It isn't a company that has to maximise the return to its shareholders.

I have a feeling that they would prefer to have a decent, sustained and stable income from F1 rather like a goose that lays a modest gold egg every day rather than one that drops one massive egg and then promptly dies.

Seano

#81 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 373 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 17:53

What was it when it was BBC only?

Around £40m a year

Not sure but the BBC's budget for F1 was cut in half at the end of their previous deal, so they either had to give them a 50% discount, or find another FTA broadcaster either to take over the rights or share them with the BBC, or do what they did. Steve Rider claims Channel 4 was interested in sharing the rights with the BBC, but I imagine they weren't willing to pay anything like as much as Sky, and may also have been unwilling to pay as much per race as the BBC. If the BBC were paying more than Channel 4 for the same number of races it would have been politically difficult for them, one imagines...

The BBC had the budget cuts, and they had a couple of years left on their contract. The normal procedure would have led to the BBC giving up the contract and Channel 4 replacing the BBC as broadcaster. C4 was never going to share with the BBC, but the BBC didn't want to lose F1. Instead of the normal two choices of finding the extra money or giving up F1 the BBC did the deal with Sky to share races long before the contract ran out. By all accounts Channel 4 was prepared to pay £45m+ per year and FOM would have been happy to deal with them, but because the previous BBC contract hadn't run out C4 never had a chance to put in a bid for the rights.

#82 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 18:11

Yes that's more my recollection of the deal.

License fee paying F1 fans were very shabbily treated by the BBC. They've had the money for a three course meal and only given us the starter and sweet. Probably needed our money to pay some of these redundancy packages.

Seano

#83 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 19:20

Around £40m a year


The BBC had the budget cuts, and they had a couple of years left on their contract. The normal procedure would have led to the BBC giving up the contract and Channel 4 replacing the BBC as broadcaster. C4 was never going to share with the BBC, but the BBC didn't want to lose F1. Instead of the normal two choices of finding the extra money or giving up F1 the BBC did the deal with Sky to share races long before the contract ran out. By all accounts Channel 4 was prepared to pay £45m+ per year and FOM would have been happy to deal with them, but because the previous BBC contract hadn't run out C4 never had a chance to put in a bid for the rights.


So we're talking about a £10m per year difference, approximately? It's not small change, that, but it's still hard to see why the teams would be in favour. They only see around £5/6m of that between them, and each individual team's cut is likely to be so small as to be insignificant compared to the disbenefit of having to admit to potential sponsors that the UK viewing figures have dropped significantly compared to when the sport was on FTA television.

#84 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 20:58

Because someone still needs to administer the championship and you'd have just as many problems with them as the FIA. You'd just be changing the name.

The FIA is the least of F1's problems.

Yep. If they broke with the FIA they would have to form their own independent body to make certain decisions. Which would make little sense.

#85 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 12,106 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 July 2013 - 21:05

NASCAR is a member of ACCUS so by association it is a FIA sanctioned series.


NASCAR is not sanctioned by the FIA. The FIA has no input in NASCAR and NASCAR only uses ACCUs as a licensing body. And only then for the touring series. In fact there is no reason for NASCAR to use ACCUS at all except reciprocate FIA licenses.


#86 crbassassin

crbassassin
  • Member

  • 441 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:27

what does name's rights have to do with monopoly and anti-competitive behaviours?
I'm an absolute disaster trying to understand economics and market things, but even I can understand that if I have a product with a name, nobody can use that name for his products. if the FIA has the rights on the 'world champion' title, they have the rights and nobody else.
Would you like to think you're buying a real Ferrari, just to discover you have bought a vehicle your neighbour built with an old Seat chassis and a motorbike engine that he decided to call 'Ferrari'


Your logic doesn't hold much ground in court. I don't think anyone can trade mark or patent generic every day words such as 'world championship' or 'app store' or 'pain killer'. On the other hand, words such as 'Olympia', 'Google Play' and 'Tylenol' are brand specific.

#87 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:49

Your logic doesn't hold much ground in court. I don't think anyone can trade mark or patent generic every day words such as 'world championship' or 'app store' or 'pain killer'. On the other hand, words such as 'Olympia', 'Google Play' and 'Tylenol' are brand specific.


Ironically App Store is trademarked.

#88 crbassassin

crbassassin
  • Member

  • 441 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:56

Ironically App Store is trademarked.


Yes, you are correct. There was an uproar when Apple tried to sue Amazon over the use of 'app store'.