PDA

View Full Version : Apple and Cisco iPhone Negotiations




MacRumors
Jan 13, 2007, 01:24 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

More information about the iPhone trademark lawsuit has been coming out.

First, it appears that Cisco and Apple's negotiations (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39285440,00.htm) had continued until 8pm the night before the keynote address. Cisco had wanted Apple to ensure interoperability between Cisco's Voice over IP Internet Phone (iPhone) and Apple's new iPhone mobile phone. Apple reportedly rejected this offer.

Meanwhile, one trademark attorney claims (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236) that Cisco may have lost rights to the iPhone trademark last year by failing to provide convincing evidence of ongoing use of the iPhone trademark by the proper deadline.

If Apple can prove in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained misstatements of fact, i.e. that there was no continuous use, then Cisco's registration can be canceled.

Meanwhile, readers note that Apple has been careful to place the Apple logo in front of all references to the iPhone on their web pages (http://www.apple.com/iphone/).



mlrproducts
Jan 13, 2007, 01:26 AM
Apple Phone it is then!

valdore
Jan 13, 2007, 01:29 AM
So Apple is essentially hoping to prove that Cisco was trying the trademark equivalent of cyber-squatting. Trademark-squatting, you could call it.

BlueRevolution
Jan 13, 2007, 01:30 AM
I love that Apple is so dead-set against VoIP... this is what we get for their agreement with Cingular.

God, I love how big business works.

Oh, and the whole " iPhone" thing is new. They didn't have that on the site on Tuesday, I'm positive.

Edit: The disclaimer at the bottom is new, too:

This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

Abstract
Jan 13, 2007, 01:52 AM
The disclaimer is not new. I saw it there several days ago.

MacRumoron
Jan 13, 2007, 01:56 AM
i'm not sure about the disclaimer thing, but " iPhone" is not new..

MrCrowbar
Jan 13, 2007, 02:10 AM
This is gonna be a fun battle between Cisco and Apple. I guess that in the end, Apple will have lots of free press in the media and the the iPhone name anyway.

Even though I don't really like "iPhone" as a name for the revolutionary device that that thing is likely to become, I'm really starting to cheer for Apple to get it now. The Apple next to the iPhone name has been there from the start by the way. i though it was weird at first. Maybe Apple Inc could change to "Apple i" and just release the "phone". Apple i Phone, problem solved :p

valdore
Jan 13, 2007, 02:11 AM
This is gonna be a fun battle between Cisco and Apple. I guess that in the end, Apple will have lots of free press in the media and the the iPhone name anyway.


Apple is probably banking on that.

musiclover137
Jan 13, 2007, 02:17 AM
I agree, that apple is going with cisco losing the rights to iPhone. I know a little about copyrights and you do have to send in some sort of evidence of use at some point to prove you are using the copyright.

And the apple logo+ iPhone appears sometimes, but not everytime on the pages. Let's not over-generalize. The first word under each section for instance, does not have the logo in front of it. As well as the tab at the top of the page and countless other times...so please let's not say "all references" when that is clearly incorrect.

Xeem
Jan 13, 2007, 02:23 AM
If anyone could nab the trademark, it would be Apple's (scary) legal team.

SiliconAddict
Jan 13, 2007, 02:32 AM
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name
Cisco claims Apple used phony company to get name (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=234)


what this all boils down to is:

What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.



It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.
So what do we have here? Apple doing thy bidding my master. Until 2009 Apple is Cingular's *cough* "friend". The more I read about the iPhone the more I want to throw-up. Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/pukeface.gif

mymacluvsme
Jan 13, 2007, 02:56 AM
I love that Apple is so dead-set against VoIP... this is what we get for their agreement with Cingular.

God, I love how big business works.

Oh, and the whole " iPhone" thing is new. They didn't have that on the site on Tuesday, I'm positive.

Edit: The disclaimer at the bottom is new, too:

The "  iPhone" and the disclaimer were there from the beginning. Nothing new here.

Object-X
Jan 13, 2007, 03:05 AM
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name
Cisco claims Apple used phony company to get name (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=234)


Why characterize it as "low ball"? Cisco hasn't used the name until just recently and it's obvious that the only reason they are is because of the success Apple has had with it's iMac, iPod, iTunes, ect. Apple popularized and brought the 'i' branding into the common vernacular. Cisco doesn't need it and they have been sitting on this name for just an occasion like this. Sounds to me like Apple tried nice to license it from them and Cisco took it too far; so Apple told them to f-off we'll see you in court. I'd say it was Cisco being overly oppertunistic when they are on such shakey ground. I hope Apple wins this.

dAlen
Jan 13, 2007, 03:12 AM
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name

It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.

Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/pukeface.gif

You pretty much summed it up.
I like the quote (not included in my post, but in original posters), from Cisco.
"We did not want money, etc. just keep it open."
Apple used to be like this...no longer, welcome the new Microsoft.
Bill Gates steps down, and Apple becomes what it used to be "against".

I truly hope Apples ipod/iphone flops if they continue to act in the manner they are...locking out VOIP, etc. No downloading iTunes from your ipod/iphone even...or the lack of ability to use your itunes songs for ringtones, etc.

Come on...this is too much guys.
Cingular, or New ATT&T...get a life.

The dude that came out on stage for Cingular looked like the typical fuddy duddy, overlord of "squeeze it out of them", and STeve looked so gleefully up, like "oh, my master, I am now part of the business elite".

:D

Seriously, peoples voice are able to be be heard through the internet...and let them be heard. Maybe one will rise that will not try to squeeze every last penny out of people, and still have the nice gui elements of an apple computer device, etc.

Peace

dAlen

1984
Jan 13, 2007, 03:24 AM
Cisco had wanted Apple to ensure interoperability between Cisco's Voice over IP Internet Phone (iPhone) and Apple's new iPhone mobile phone. Apple reportedly rejected this offer.


How exactly would the two phones interoperate? Why would I want to use two phones to do the job of one?

davidg4781
Jan 13, 2007, 03:35 AM
I think y'all have it backwards. Personally, I think Cingular is bowing to Apple. Look at everything about it. Whenever iPhone is mentioned somewhere, there are something like 200 replies in less than a day. No other news I know of, except for the FairTax, has generated this much excitement from pretty much everywhere. The market wants this phone, both Mac and PC users. Even on the Treo sites, a lot are talking about abandoning their beloved Treos to move to the iPhone.

As far as the name, it could just be a code name, like the iTV was. It might end up being ApplePhone. If I'm not mistaken, when Steve talked about the iTV a few months back, he called it the iTV. I also think, during the keynote, he said "They're calling it the iPhone." I could be wrong, since I saw a post somewhere or other stating he said "We're calling it the iPhone," but either way, that doesn't sound like a definite name for it, to me at least. I guess time will tell.

Personally, I could care less. Cingular in my area bites and I get a corporate discount with Sprint. A phone, as great as it is, won't get me to switch. With my Treo 650, I'm about 90% happy, and I think when I completely move to Macs and off of PCs, it'll help bring it up to about 94%. As far as hardware, though, I'm about 60%, FWIW.

gh0sted
Jan 13, 2007, 04:06 AM
I don't think Apple is bowing to Cingular on this one either. Cingular was the one who had to change their network for the "iPhone" and Cingular was the one that had to accept the 4/8GB on board memory.

What I mean by accept the on board memory, is all other phones come with very limited capacity for one reason. So you can't just load them with everything and go. They want you to use their download service and they rape you with that $2-$3 fee (compared to iTunes or ripping your own CD).

Cingular is very much giving up on their hopes to sell music over their network just to get this phone. I also think Apple wants nothing to do with VOIP when it directly competes with a market they are gunning for. Yes they could release their own hardware for VOIP but realistically they'd be building it for only Mac users which is a drop in the sea compared to cellphone users.

I don't much care to download from iTunes on the "go" either. I'd rather not waste minutes loading a 8GB player over my network when I could load my entire collection while I sleep at night at not rated charge. Not to mention it'd probably take forever to download an entire movie to a phone over a network.

On a last note, Cingular does suck, but I'd still get the iPhone once my contract expires with T-Mobile in December. :)

nosarious
Jan 13, 2007, 04:30 AM
How exactly would the two phones interoperate? Why would I want to use two phones to do the job of one?

Basically, you are at home and you want to make a phone call. You whip out your iphone, it connects to your computer by bluetooth and you make a call over the internet, long distance, to that far-flung relative in Britain who struck it rich to hit them up for money so you can get that awesome operation you always wanted to make your nose bigger.

or something. Anyways, this becomes more of an in-house portable internet phone than the ones you have now. I can see how this could become more of a home appliance than just acell phone. Especially is using it over the internet saves you cell-coverage costs with the various tech that the phone can use.

But I can also see Apple's point of view as well. If a company is playing hardball (and why else would they be doing that up until the opening of Macworld) and has you over the barrel, do you delay your product and launch and disappoint countless people? Or do you call that companie's bluff?

hob
Jan 13, 2007, 04:46 AM
I would rather see a 3G iPhone (eventually) with Skype built in. It would use WiFi where available, and then the 3G data connection otherwise! Hear that cisco?! Skype!

bignumbers
Jan 13, 2007, 04:48 AM
Apple Phone it is then!

When Steve introduced the Apple TV, I figured the phone would be called the Apple Phone. I think that's a better name, and differentiates it from the iWhatever which has been wildly overused by non-Apple companies.

If it turns out Apple can't put the trademark issue to bed by June that's a possible way out.

The interoperability demand makes sense as a dealbreaker. Cisco trying to jump on the bandwagon of Apple success.

blimundus
Jan 13, 2007, 05:04 AM
I know a little about copyrights and you do have to send in some sort of evidence of use at some point to prove you are using the copyright.

Apparently, you know very little about copyright... Maybe you're talking about trademarks? :rolleyes:

aLoC
Jan 13, 2007, 05:21 AM
Apple has a crack team of lawyers, beat the Beatles. If I was Cisco I would settle.

SiliconAddict
Jan 13, 2007, 05:29 AM
NO company gets into a 2 year exclusive contract, with no ability to allow unlocked phones, witout being held over a barrel of some form or another. Sorry but this sounds very much like Cingular were the ones pulling the strings on this deal. WHich has been my assumption as to what was going to happen since day one.
The iPod had a massive following when the labels came to Apple or Apple came to them. Apple was in a situation to dictate terms. In this case while I'm not doubting that Cingular is going to get a lot of new signups because of the iPhone I HIGHLY doubt it would be a make or break situation for them if Apple went with...say T Mobile. To put it another way. Cingular has more to offer Apple then Apple has to offer them. Apple is the new kid on the block with a nifty idea.
I'm going to be frank, I've talked to about a dozen iPod carrying people in the last few days. Not a single one. Not one is interested in the iPhone. The reasons are varied but there is some aspect that they don't like about it. Now that I learned that you need to sign up for an additional 2 years if you get this thing....I expect even the Cingular customers I know are going to be iffy on it.

SiliconAddict
Jan 13, 2007, 05:30 AM
Apple has a crack team of lawyers, beat the Beatles. If I was Cisco I would settle.

Cisco has enough assets to buy a small country of lawyers. I don't think they have anything to worry about. :rolleyes:

kresh
Jan 13, 2007, 05:59 AM
There is a fine line between hype, and having something shoved down you're throat.

The more I hear of this phone the lower my opinion is of Apple.

It's now entering over-hype and my distaste for the iPhone is growing.

edit: Also if Apple dicks around with this iPhone to the point they take their eyes off the Mac platform I will be looking at Windows Vista. At least MS makes it appear that they are still interested in computers even when they enter new markets. The coolness of Apple is starting to fade with me.

wildmannz
Jan 13, 2007, 06:13 AM
Don't believe everything that Cisco says - they employ spin also (they're not stupid.)

I found this interesting quote...

Cisco doesn't want royalties on iPhone. Cisco could care less about keeping the name iPhone. These theories are all wrong.
Cisco's trying to get cool. It isn't cool now.

See more here:
http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/markets/activetraderupdate/10332081.html

puuukeey
Jan 13, 2007, 06:41 AM
well.. with all those comments about "it's macworld. you didn't even mention the mac!"

um... maybe its time arn switched over to applerumors.com

Counter
Jan 13, 2007, 07:45 AM
Apple really wanted people to refer to this as the iPhone. To really tie in buying by association with iPod. Now everybody is calling it the iPhone, Apple can say legally that it's full name is Apple iPhone. Printing the Apple logo before the iPhone text everywhere....as they are. Nobody will call it by it's full name now and seeing the Apple logo before the name on everything doesn't throw you off.

I say screw Cisco.

coumerelli
Jan 13, 2007, 07:53 AM
NO company gets into a 2 year exclusive contract, with no ability to allow unlocked phones, witout being held over a barrel of some form or another. Sorry but this sounds very much like Cingular were the ones pulling the strings on this deal. WHich has been my assumption as to what was going to happen since day one.
The iPod had a massive following when the labels came to Apple or Apple came to them. Apple was in a situation to dictate terms. In this case while I'm not doubting that Cingular is going to get a lot of new signups because of the iPhone I HIGHLY doubt it would be a make or break situation for them if Apple went with...say T Mobile. To put it another way. Cingular has more to offer Apple then Apple has to offer them. Apple is the new kid on the block with a nifty idea.
I'm going to be frank, I've talked to about a dozen iPod carrying people in the last few days. Not a single one. Not one is interested in the iPhone. The reasons are varied but there is some aspect that they don't like about it. Now that I learned that you need to sign up for an additional 2 years if you get this thing....I expect even the Cingular customers I know are going to be iffy on it.

This 'new two-year contract' is true whenever you change your plan with Cingular/Sprint/whoever! Seriously! Who in the last 10 years has offered a month-to-month?! c'mon! NObody. And one-year contracts are practically extinct, too.

Stella
Jan 13, 2007, 08:11 AM
I dislike the way Apple have repeatedly attempted to buy the iPhone name - i.e., by setting up a 'communications' company facade in an attempt to use that to buy iPhone.

Apple do not know the meaning of 'No'.

Cisco started using the iPhone name again since 2004, so its not so recent.

Why characterize it as "low ball"? Cisco hasn't used the name until just recently and it's obvious that the only reason they are is because of the success Apple has had with it's iMac, iPod, iTunes, ect. Apple popularized and brought the 'i' branding into the common vernacular. Cisco doesn't need it and they have been sitting on this name for just an occasion like this. Sounds to me like Apple tried nice to license it from them and Cisco took it too far; so Apple told them to f-off we'll see you in court. I'd say it was Cisco being overly oppertunistic when they are on such shakey ground. I hope Apple wins this.

This 'new two-year contract' is true whenever you change your plan with Cingular/Sprint/whoever! Seriously! Who in the last 10 years has offered a month-to-month?! c'mon! NObody. And one-year contracts are practically extinct, too.

Maybe not in the States, but in Canada, Fido does! And its really very very useful.

izzle22
Jan 13, 2007, 08:20 AM
NO company gets into a 2 year exclusive contract, with no ability to allow unlocked phones, witout being held over a barrel of some form or another. Sorry but this sounds very much like Cingular were the ones pulling the strings on this deal. WHich has been my assumption as to what was going to happen since day one.
The iPod had a massive following when the labels came to Apple or Apple came to them. Apple was in a situation to dictate terms. In this case while I'm not doubting that Cingular is going to get a lot of new signups because of the iPhone I HIGHLY doubt it would be a make or break situation for them if Apple went with...say T Mobile. To put it another way. Cingular has more to offer Apple then Apple has to offer them. Apple is the new kid on the block with a nifty idea.
I'm going to be frank, I've talked to about a dozen iPod carrying people in the last few days. Not a single one. Not one is interested in the iPhone. The reasons are varied but there is some aspect that they don't like about it. Now that I learned that you need to sign up for an additional 2 years if you get this thing....I expect even the Cingular customers I know are going to be iffy on it.

Well, That's very strange. Everybody I talk to(even non Apple people)wants this phone and said they will switch from Sprint, Verizon or T-Mobile just to have this phone. You must be in high school or college and your circle of friend must not have the money for the phone. All the negative things I've read is mostly from people who can't afford the phone anyway.

hagjohn
Jan 13, 2007, 08:21 AM
Why characterize it as "low ball"? Cisco hasn't used the name until just recently and it's obvious that the only reason they are is because of the success Apple has had with it's iMac, iPod, iTunes, ect. Apple popularized and brought the 'i' branding into the common vernacular. Cisco doesn't need it and they have been sitting on this name for just an occasion like this. Sounds to me like Apple tried nice to license it from them and Cisco took it too far; so Apple told them to f-off we'll see you in court. I'd say it was Cisco being overly oppertunistic when they are on such shakey ground. I hope Apple wins this.

Cisco still has first use rights... as they are selling a product "now"... Apple will not sell one till June.

RichP
Jan 13, 2007, 08:34 AM
I agree with izzle; in NY, people EVERYWHERE are talking about it. And they are willing to change contracts, etc to get one. I certainly hope the iPhone is "smarter" than we have been recently told (no 3rd party apps, etc) but honestly, all the phones out there are a far cry from what a phone could be as a user experience.

Ive never seen the contracts as a huge deal. All the phone companies just extend them out when you need a new phone, and they are under $200 to break, which is no chump change, but, when you think about it, it just about covers the subsidized cost on most mid-to-upper tier phones.

The rest of the world is no different, either. You either pay now for the phone (europe) or you pay over time (US with contract)

And VOiP on the iPhone? Thats not part of the apple experience. When people want to make a call, they want to dial or select the person from contacts, and press Send. No finding Wifi, no entering WEP keys. A few years, when WiMax and other technologies are out there, THEN iPhone will have such features.

papaburgundy
Jan 13, 2007, 08:50 AM
I will enjoy looking back on these threads years from now. It really does remind me of the reaction to the ipod. What was Apple doing? This thing will never fly. People on this thread are acting as though Mr. Jobs has just laid down all of his cards. He hasn't. Just as he released the ipod with a larger vision in mind, iTunes. I think Apple is still "thinking different". We just need to be patient and let the "master" work.:)

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jan 13, 2007, 08:53 AM
LMAO! I love this photo...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/images/cit200_470.jpg

"Wait, see, we have an iPhone! It's the same model as before, we just slapped a iPhone label on the plastic wrapping. But we CLEARLY are selling an iPhone."

thedonga
Jan 13, 2007, 08:53 AM
Meanwhile, readers note that Apple has been careful to place the Apple logo in front of all references to the iPhone on their web pages
This is not true. The main page says only iPhone, and the top menu shows no apple logo

JoeG4
Jan 13, 2007, 08:57 AM
From this old mac zealot, I imagine I'm gonna piss some people off when I say this:

I think cisco deserves the name more than apple.

Sure, the linksys iphones are nothing all that impressive, some of them are previous models that just got rebranded, but last I checked, they're sorta innovative.

The iPhone has a nifty touchscreen that supports gestures. Otherwise, it's an overpriced, underfeatured phone. And when I say overpriced, boy do I mean it.

There's nothing like spitting in the faces of your customers like telling them they don't mean a crap. Somehow, Steve Jobs did it pretty well, and while he didn't say half the things we've been reading about, let's reiterate:

Cingular only until 2009
No replaceable battery
No 3rd party apps allowed (because apparently we're all stupid and don't want them)
No unlocking (Apple plans to take action against people that TRY)

And as far as I'm concerned, it's the tackiest looking thing Apple's made since ... ever... I think. I keep saying to myself it's just a prototype, but I can't get over the shape (reminds me of a PSP but .. squarer) nor the materials (matte black AND aluminum backend, and... shiny black front, with a tasteless chrome ring that spans half the thickness of the phone?!)

I suppose it's natural for me to reject it. I don't have any reason to buy one and it'll cost 3x or maybe even 4x what I could possibly afford (I can't even afford cingular service - it starts at $45 a month with taxes and that's for their cheapest PHONE SERVICE... add in smartphone internet stuff and it's probably 70++++++)

Ouch. :eek:

Stella
Jan 13, 2007, 09:07 AM
Apple have always treated their customers as if they are retarded.

- Ship a one buttoned mouse because we aren't clever enough to have two buttons ( we get a proper mouse from elsewhere ).

- dumbed down iLife apps such as iWeb that are too basic to be usable.

- no Php or other scripting tools in .Mac

- iPod doesn't have a user replacable battery because we don't think your clever enough to replace it yourself. Instead, send us the iPod to replace and we'll charge you $$$ for the service. ( Yes, you can get replacement batteries from elsewhere )


- and as you say, No 3rd party apps for you because we don't think you need them and you don't need them. On top of that, you may bring down an entire cellular network!! LOL.


From this old mac zealot, I imagine I'm gonna piss some people off when I say this:

I think cisco deserves the name more than apple.

Sure, the linksys iphones are nothing all that impressive, some of them are previous models that just got rebranded, but last I checked, they're sorta innovative.

The iPhone has a nifty touchscreen that supports gestures. Otherwise, it's an overpriced, underfeatured phone. And when I say overpriced, boy do I mean it.

There's nothing like spitting in the faces of your customers like telling them they don't mean a crap. Somehow, Steve Jobs did it pretty well, and while he didn't say half the things we've been reading about, let's reiterate:

Cingular only until 2009
No replaceable battery
No 3rd party apps allowed (because apparently we're all stupid and don't want them)
No unlocking (Apple plans to take action against people that TRY)

And as far as I'm concerned, it's the tackiest looking thing Apple's made since ... ever... I think. I keep saying to myself it's just a prototype, but I can't get over the shape (reminds me of a PSP but .. squarer) nor the materials (matte black AND aluminum backend, and... shiny black front, with a tasteless chrome ring that spans half the thickness of the phone?!)

I suppose it's natural for me to reject it. I don't have any reason to buy one and it'll cost 3x or maybe even 4x what I could possibly afford (I can't even afford cingular service - it starts at $45 a month with taxes and that's for their cheapest PHONE SERVICE... add in smartphone internet stuff and it's probably 70++++++)

Ouch. :eek:

bbydon
Jan 13, 2007, 09:09 AM
This suit is not good for apple.
It makes them look bad, and if they win (i hope they settle or lose) then it is bad for all trademarks out there.....and it will make apple out to be a big bully....like M$.

Apple should just rename it and call it a day. save some money and some face

hscottm
Jan 13, 2007, 09:09 AM
NO company gets into a 2 year exclusive contract, with no ability to allow unlocked phones, witout being held over a barrel of some form or another. Sorry but this sounds very much like Cingular were the ones pulling the strings on this deal. WHich has been my assumption as to what was going to happen since day one.
To put it another way. Cingular has more to offer Apple then Apple has to offer them. Apple is the new kid on the block with a nifty idea.
Now that I learned that you need to sign up for an additional 2 years if you get this thing....I expect even the Cingular customers I know are going to be iffy on it.

I've been thinking about similar things. However a few things to note.

0) I remain surprised at the rumor mill about locked phones. I havent seen anything official from Apple on it though so I wont comment anymore on it. I would have otherwise expected Apple to make an unlocked phone, but if they have a carrier exclusive that answers that for the short term. Once 2009 comes it could easily be unlocked by default.

1) At some point a year or so ago in design/development, Apple would have had to make one of many "go/no go" types of decisions based on whether they felt the telcos were going to allow them any kind of fair entrance into the market at all. Regardless of whether we think Cingular is giving them a "fair" deal, Apple needed some kind of guarantee to keep working on this, otherwise they risked getting to the end point with a great product, and a much less accomodating industry that had even less accomodating terms. I dont know WHEN they agreed upon the conditions, but the alternative could have been much worse - ie much less leverage despite having a great product. A big thing not getting much attention is that the phones will sell for $500 or $600 "with subsidies from contract" - that implies its at least $100-200 more "at retail cost" which means Apple needs to get a bunch out there and made, to bring costs down. If they didnt have an agreement like this, think how few people would be interested in a $600+ unlocked phone.

2) the "2 year" exclusive is really only 18months when you consider the phone wont be out until June 2007. I know thats picking nits, but its important. ALso, when does APple ship things on time? It could end up being a 3 month exclusive ;)

3) As with Leopard, iTV, etc, I am guessing that there are unannounced possible features even in the launch model phone. eg if it runs OSX as announced (even a stripped down version), it could run skype. Basically skype ability would have to be "forbidden" rather than "enabled". So I think Steve purposely made no mention of skype or IP like abilities due to the negotiations with Cisco. I wouldnt be surprised to see the resolution of the cisco TM case and a quick announcement (or, if after June) followed by a software upgrade of some sort that allows Wifi enabled calling.

4) my informal survey of *high end phone users* (treo, Blackberry, etc) finds many interested parties. Remember Apple's goal is 10M (1%) units by end of 2008, not 2007. A 2nd gen phone or SW-upgraded v1 phone that allows wifi calling could easily be what opens the floodgates.

mdntcallr
Jan 13, 2007, 09:18 AM
I don't think some of you understand that part of the locked phone issue is determined by the fact that Apple Needed Cingular (now AT&T) to institute new technical backend infrastructure.

These new system settings for Cingular/AT&T are NOT your regular phone settings, ie allowing the phone to set a conference call between over 3 people.

Or even custom settings for the data exchange over Edge into the phone.

So our being restricted to one carrier for the moment may be to help keep the extra functions of the phone working the best they can.

personally I will wait beyond first generation on this device. why?
1-i don't like EDGE, prefer the new system they have in limited cities already.
2- want user swapable batteries, think it is crazy to have a phone without a battery that can be changed.
3- want a larger capacity like my bigger ipod.

crees!
Jan 13, 2007, 09:44 AM
Please, tell me how interoperability between Apple's phone and Cisco's phone will be beneficial to me when I will have only 1 phone?

johnmcboston
Jan 13, 2007, 09:47 AM
I think cisco deserves the name more than apple.
:

Well, if Apple hadn't spend the last few years putting "i" in front of everything, do you think cisco would have ever called anything an iphone?


The iPhone has a nifty touchscreen that supports gestures. Otherwise, it's an overpriced, underfeatured phone.
:

I'd go the other way. This thing does so much stuff, that being a phone is only a small part of it. This is really a hand held mac that happens to be able to make phone calls as well. Why is Apple so set on jamming 'phone' down our throat? A few tweaks you could almost just sell this as a 'mac micro'

mcic1984
Jan 13, 2007, 10:04 AM
So the facts are that Cisco wants interoperability with its VOIP phones. And Apple ignoring Cisco for now - and Cisco sues Apple. Meanwhile Apple is tied with Cingular (in a mutually beneficial deal - so that Apple can access Cingular's GSM+ networks and Cingular, well, gets the iPhone) until 2009.

Now:
What if this is a way for Apple to keep their options open - i.e. losing the lawsuit as a way to enter the VOIP market before the end of the Cingular agreement?

Yes this is probably way too far-fetched, but hey!

Rodimus Prime
Jan 13, 2007, 10:06 AM
apple is playing a dangerous game right now because I do not think they are going to win this case and Cisco can keep them tied up in court over it for years and during that time get it banned for apple to use iPhone. And if apple losses they have to pay Cisco for the entire time they been using since day 1, Plus penalties and intersted. It is not going to help apple case the fact that they where in talks with Cisco over the name so that going to get throw back at them. And what apple is doing is very M$ and as bas as it sounds apple slowing heading that way and they are chipping away at there rep as being the good guy to becoming another bad guy.
Lastly putting the apple logo in front of it is not going to save them. an "Apple" iPhone still has to deal with the iPhone trademark

cynerjist
Jan 13, 2007, 10:29 AM
just a couple comments

1. Why do they want to call it an iPhone anyway?

It's branding should better reflect the multifunction device they are marketing. iComm?

2. A collaboration with Cisco would be great for consumers.

These two companies have different strengths and would complement each other brilliantly. Apple creates easy-to-use interfaces and attractive lifestyle designs, while Cisco has world-class hardware engineers and an obviously vast knowledge of telecom networks. If you consider Apple's two revelations at this MacWorld, collaborating with Cisco makes alot of sense.

Cisco is winning in the media, but the consumers are losing.

dscottbuch
Jan 13, 2007, 10:30 AM
Please, tell me how interoperability between Apple's phone and Cisco's phone will be beneficial to me when I will have only 1 phone?


1) Your apple iPhone will work seemlessly with you Cisco router in your home, or the cisco router at your work (this would be VOIP)

2) Your cisco iPhone will work seemlessly with your Apple router, or apple itV. not just for the basics but for those 'special' features that will come to differentiate and innovate.

OhEsTen
Jan 13, 2007, 11:01 AM
The product isn't even "out" yet.... it is coming out in 6 months. So the comments about how it's an overpriced touch-screen device are moot until we actually see the final product.

And as far as Apple "bowing to the master" with Cingular... who knows. It's like when Apple started the iTunes Music Store and people complained about DRM... for Apple to even get a deal with these companies, they have to bend a little (not that it's good for us customers though... but what are you going to do?) Cingular will have to bend too... and Apple is pretty good about gunning for that too (songs are still 99)...

Also, keep in mind, this is only one iteration of the iPhone.... there will no doubt be more in the coming months... perhaps Apple will release a seperate iPhone that is VOIP compatible.... it's also possible that Apple didn't release that feature yet because of the Cisco deal.

There is just too much speculation at this point to even make a judgement.

Also if Apple dicks around with this iPhone to the point they take their eyes off the Mac platform I will be looking at Windows Vista. At least MS makes it appear that they are still interested in computers even when they enter new markets. The coolness of Apple is starting to fade with me.

This is the funniest post I've read... no disrespect intended... but if you think that Microsoft has the best product - go for it. Why choose a platform for appearances?

barnaby
Jan 13, 2007, 11:07 AM
I love how most Mac sites are overlooking the claim by Cisco that Apple is pulling some really lowball, VERY Microsoftian, tactics to get the name
Cisco claims Apple used phony company to get name (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=234)

what this all boils down to is:

It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.
So what do we have here? Apple doing thy bidding my master. Until 2009 Apple is Cingular's *cough* "friend". The more I read about the iPhone the more I want to throw-up. Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/pukeface.gif

1. Apple had to sign exclusive with a carrier because they want control over how the carrier does things. Visual voicemail is just the beginning.

2. promising integration + convergence to Cisco is likely in violation with the exclusive agreement they have with cingular. No matter how you spin it, VoIP is a telephony communication medium.

What it boils down to is Cisco asking Apple to break their contract. The rules of the game are no different for Apple than anyone else.

KilGil27
Jan 13, 2007, 11:22 AM
I love that Apple is so dead-set against VoIP... this is what we get for their agreement with Cingular.

God, I love how big business works.

Oh, and the whole " iPhone" thing is new. They didn't have that on the site on Tuesday, I'm positive.

Edit: The disclaimer at the bottom is new, too:
both those things were there on Tuesday

SiliconAddict
Jan 13, 2007, 11:28 AM
This 'new two-year contract' is true whenever you change your plan with Cingular/Sprint/whoever! Seriously! Who in the last 10 years has offered a month-to-month?! c'mon! NObody. And one-year contracts are practically extinct, too.

Well first off I'm talking the contract between Aple and Cingular however lets look at the contract between their customers and them. I just upgraded, and am waiting for my first "smartphone" I sure as heck haven't signed in with T Mobile for another 2 years of service.

barnaby
Jan 13, 2007, 11:30 AM
Well, That's very strange. Everybody I talk to(even non Apple people)wants this phone and said they will switch from Sprint, Verizon or T-Mobile just to have this phone. You must be in high school or college and your circle of friend must not have the money for the phone. All the negative things I've read is mostly from people who can't afford the phone anyway.

I agree. It took talking to 8 people about it before finding one that thought it was stupid. The other 7 are already saving their pennies for it.

Most of the negative reviews i've seen on the internet seem to be from people who clearly havn't watched the keynote or just can't afford it.

Let's put this into perspective:

1. It's the price of a big iPod on release with more "coolness factor". The original iPods made it by just fine.

2. It doesn't support Flash or Java. Like all those WAP2.0 browsers out there do?

3. It doesn't sync to outlook. iPod's sync with outlook. So i'm sure this one is bogus. Maybe it won't connect to MS Exchange, but that's not the same thing.

4. It doesn't support word, excel or powerpoint files. The UI of a small-form device is just not right for making these. Apple will have some print-to-pdf feature to get other documents.

5. Small harddrive for movies. It'll easily hold a DVD movie. How many movies do you expect the battery to last for? And let's face it, this is nothing more than a novelty and a show-off-feature in the first place.

6. No 3G. It's got WiFi which is a lot cheaper and pretty readily available in most offices. You'll have to deal with a slower connection in a few places. And if this is a problem, wait for the 2nd generation iPhone.

7. It's a closed system. So is the iPod. It does what it does well. And it lets Apple fill in the missing features Apple-style.

A lot of this is going to disappear if they plan on integrating with Asia in 2008. They'll get their 1% marketshare for 2nd half 2007. And they'll keep innovating and adding the features that didn't make it into the first revision.

BobMcBob
Jan 13, 2007, 11:47 AM
[OT]
I've been wondering... How are you supposed to hold the iPhone up to your head when the speaker and mic are on the bottom?

CJD2112
Jan 13, 2007, 11:58 AM
Hmmmm. Seems to me Cisco anticipated another company (possible Apple) to attempt use of this name, but wanted to "beat them to the punch" and call shots about it's use. Demanding that the product be "Cisco friendly"??? What is that? Sounds like bullying tactics to me. I hope Apple proves they didn't fully trademark the name and sticks it right back to them. :cool:

primalman
Jan 13, 2007, 12:01 PM
Meanwhile, readers note that Apple has been careful to place the Apple logo in front of all references to the iPhone on their web pages (http://www.apple.com/iphone/).

This is suspect claim to me, since if you look at Apple's home page, it still clearly says "Introducing iPhone. Apple reinvents the phone."

Not "Applelogo"iPhone

As well, look at the top tab. And on the iPhone page, the very first word in the paragraph is iPhone.

I have a hard time buying the claim that they are "being careful" in presenting the "Apple logo" before iPhone all the time.

dscottbuch
Jan 13, 2007, 12:03 PM
[OT]
I've been wondering... How are you supposed to hold the iPhone up to your head when the speaker and mic are on the bottom?

I think people are casting this issue much too black and white. There is a statement in the newsweek article "... even if Apple has to vet them to make sure they wont compromise the integrity of the network. " indicated it is not 'fully closed'. While not a quote from Jobs I think this is the right direction. There have been people claiming the phone function can be 'sandboxed' like other phones but I think this hard separation of funtionality interferes with the user experience on current phones making the crappy interface they are. Apple is taking the right approach putting the user experience above other considerations for the FIRST version.

SPUY767
Jan 13, 2007, 12:09 PM
So basically Cisco demanded something that Apple wouldn't be able to deliver, likely to give themselves a way to say that Apple broke negotiations, not them, very common business tactic. Cisco wanted Apple's Phone to be compatible with Cisco's VoIP, and Apple could do that or likely be in breach of their contract with Cingular, so here we are.

Diatribe
Jan 13, 2007, 12:15 PM
So what do we have here? Apple doing thy bidding my master. Until 2009 Apple is Cingular's *cough* "friend". The more I read about the iPhone the more I want to throw-up. Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/pukeface.gif

Aren't you a bit melodramatic? Apple was first and foremost always a company. And the markets have become tougher, sometimes to enter and to push innovation you have sacrifice other things. It is just the way it is.

CJD2112
Jan 13, 2007, 12:24 PM
Apple have always treated their customers as if they are retarded.

- Ship a one buttoned mouse because we aren't clever enough to have two buttons ( we get a proper mouse from elsewhere ).

Not true. All Macs now ship with "Mighty Mouse", which has more buttons than most Microsoft/Logitech mice. It's configurable in "Mouse Preferences". The mouse is made to look as though it doesn't have them, but there are sensors that distinguish between the left and rights buttons, a center button that is accessed by pushing down on the center top of the mouse, a scroll ball that goes in every direction for across screen scrolling, and a fourth button that is activated by pressing both sides of the mouse at once, usually configured for Exposé.


- dumbed down iLife apps such as iWeb that are too basic to be usable.

Obviously you have not used iWeb either. It might look basic, but that's because it's designed well for easier usability. I have professional photographer friends in NYC that use iWeb for there web sites, and they're very complex, innovative and flawless.


- no Php or other scripting tools in .Mac

Are they necessary? What is the purpose of .Mac other than backing up files, addresses, mail, bookmarks - what more do you need?


- iPod doesn't have a user replacable battery because we don't think your clever enough to replace it yourself. Instead, send us the iPod to replace and we'll charge you $$$ for the service. ( Yes, you can get replacement batteries from elsewhere )

First off, I've owned every generation iPod since the beginning. I only replaced the battery of the 3rd generation once and they payed for the service. On top of which iPod customers received a $50 check from Apple Ipod 3g owners due to this issue.


- and as you say, No 3rd party apps for you because we don't think you need them and you don't need them. On top of that, you may bring down an entire cellular network!! LOL.
? Again, no basis for this comment. Now that Cingular has severely improved their customer service (up 56% from 1st quarter last year] and as the #1 largest mobile service provider in the U.S. [60 million last I checked] AND with GSM/EDGE and now HSDPA they're surpassing Verizon and Sprint in download speed. Again, would Steve Jobs pick an exclusive deal with a company that was terrible? AND if it was so terrible why do more people belong to the service?

Most of the people I know (including me, I switched from Verizon last year after they screwed me over and crippled all my bluetooth phones from using Bluetooth OBEX), are international travelers/businessmen that can afford Cingular and use it across seas. Using GSM (Verizon and Sprint use that dated "North American only" CDMA crap) opens Apple to more global markets.

People are also forgetting, THE PHONE HASN'T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET!!! It's still a prototype. Everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over this thing. Stop tripping people, relaaaaaaaxxxx, and enjoy the ride. It seems to me most people are complaining because they actually can't afford the phone so they're looking for other ways in justifying their frustration. Build a bridge, get over it. I for one won't be making any judgment calls until a month after its release. In the mean time, chill out homies. Sheesh.:cool:

OhEsTen
Jan 13, 2007, 12:33 PM
Cisco wanted Apple's Phone to be compatible with Cisco's VoIP, and Apple could do that or likely be in breach of their contract with Cingular, so here we are.

Syriana music playing in background.... :)

TeppefallGuy
Jan 13, 2007, 12:36 PM
Check this out :D - Disclaimer: its my blog.

http://installer.teppefall.com/big/iphone/iphone_0003_Layer%201.jpg

http://vr5.com/2007/01/more_iphone_trademark_problems.html

CJD2112
Jan 13, 2007, 12:54 PM
First off, it's just a PHONE, and it hasn't even been released yet. Everyone's all pissy and moaning. :confused: Seriously.

Let's recap. Apple specifically said this is NOT supposed to be a Palm anything, but rather an iPod/Phone/Communicator. Instead of shooting in this PROTOTYPE, let's recap what it CAN do:

1. What is the price of an Apple 8 GB Nano (same memory as the phone)? $249. The Nano doesn't even have a large screen or video playback. The iPhone has a 3.5" widescreen for watching movies, web browsing, etc. That's the biggest screen of its kind on the market.

2. New patented technology (visit this youtube video for a demonstration of the new technology Apple "acquired" and what it is able to do, http://youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc ). Using two fingers to zoom in and zoom out is just a hint of the features multi-touch screens can do. Scrolling with the use of a finger swipe, zooming in and out by pinching, touch screen texting are all just a taste of what's to come.

3. Voicemail access for individual messages displayed on the unit by caller.

4. One touch calling and answering.

5. WiFi and GSM/EDGE and HSDPA (which Cingular and T-Mobile use as well as international carries such as Orange, etc.) for some of the fastest download rates avaible in today's market.

6. Google maps, allowing the user to locate retailers, restaurants, people - all without dialing 411, based on the iPhone/users exact location.

7. Widgets for stocks, weather, calculator, alarm clock, and any other widget that is available.

8. Notepad for tasts and notes.

9. OSX. Period.

10. Safari browser which syncs bookmarks.

11. Accelerometer sensor which shuts the phone off while talking. Many of my friends who have Palm Treo's always complain that they hang-up during calls because their ear hits the "End Call" button too easily. Not with the iPhone.

12. Proximity senser for vertical or horizational intuitive viewing.

13. HTML e-mail.

14. Multitasking that allows web browsing while downloading an email, etc.

15. Bluetooth 2.0 and a real slick bluetooth headset.

This is just a prototype, so I'm certain changes will be made before actual release. Regardless, this thing is brilliant. BRILLIANT. Nothing like it is on the market, especially with the features. If you think about the cost of an iPod ($249-$349) plus what a Palm Treo ($499 with a two year contract with Verizon). Add those two up:

$249 + $499 =$749!!!!! The iPhone can do more than those two combined AND MORE for the same price as a Palm Treo 700 ($499). Why all the bitching and moaning? What's interesting, everyone internationally (except for Japan) who has read about this has had very little complaints, yet the American's are all too eager to bitch and moan. :( How sad...

Rodimus Prime
Jan 13, 2007, 12:57 PM
I agree. It took talking to 8 people about it before finding one that thought it was stupid. The other 7 are already saving their pennies for it.

Most of the negative reviews i've seen on the internet seem to be from people who clearly havn't watched the keynote or just can't afford it.

Let's put this into perspective:

1. It's the price of a big iPod on release with more "coolness factor". The original iPods made it by just fine.

2. It doesn't support Flash or Java. Like all those WAP2.0 browsers out there do?

3. It doesn't sync to outlook. iPod's sync with outlook. So i'm sure this one is bogus. Maybe it won't connect to MS Exchange, but that's not the same thing.

4. It doesn't support word, excel or powerpoint files. The UI of a small-form device is just not right for making these. Apple will have some print-to-pdf feature to get other documents.

5. Small harddrive for movies. It'll easily hold a DVD movie. How many movies do you expect the battery to last for? And let's face it, this is nothing more than a novelty and a show-off-feature in the first place.

6. No 3G. It's got WiFi which is a lot cheaper and pretty readily available in most offices. You'll have to deal with a slower connection in a few places. And if this is a problem, wait for the 2nd generation iPhone.

7. It's a closed system. So is the iPod. It does what it does well. And it lets Apple fill in the missing features Apple-style.

A lot of this is going to disappear if they plan on integrating with Asia in 2008. They'll get their 1% marketshare for 2nd half 2007. And they'll keep innovating and adding the features that didn't make it into the first revision.



I might like to point out that I am among the people who can afford it and I still think it is an over price, over hype phone that fails at being a good phone. It fails at it primary function by trying to do much and getting way from being a phone. The touch screen for entering numbers I think is crap. It is not worth money.

As for you other reasons of yours

1. I do not completely get it. Right now the ipod do well because of the software hardware working really well.

2. Bad move not supporting flash and java. My cell phone supports java. Not supporting 2 major ways stuff is display on the web is bad. My PDA supports them both.

3. I might like to point out the iPod syncing with out look is pretty poor and well crap. The iPhone will need to work with out any hang up and right now the ipod has lots of annoying things about it with the syncing that the iPhone can not have. It has to be able to sync flawlessly and with out any extra clicking. Right now the iPod requires you giving it permission every single time which is annoying. Again I will point to my TX which does it with out any hang up at all and it goes both ways.

4. I am sorry but not supporting those formats just plane stupid. PDA and palm along with current smart phones all allow for editing and using those files. Supporting it is pretty much a must because people who tend to get smart phones do minor edits all the time. I edit word files on my palm. It was minor ones but I did edit.

5. Kind of agree with you here on it. It phone so putting a hard drive in there is just not really possible. Plus 4 gigs are a few movies and really people are expecting too much out of the battery. I do think the phone should lock out use of the media player and DVD player after a certain point with the battery to make sure the phone function keep working.

6. I think not putting g3 support was a bad move because that is the way things are heading and it just leaving it behind. Yeah it has wifi but that requires finding a hot spot. You can not just use it any where with you plane. Move of the time you going to be using the cell network over a wifi system for the mobile internet.

7. Close system works for the iPod because of what the iPod is. The iPhone is trying to move in on the smart phone area. Completely different ball park. Most apps people using on smart phones, PDA, and Palms are 3rd party. That is where a lot of the good stuff is made. Limiting that is going to hurt it even more. Another bad move on apple's part.

By the looks of it the iPhone going to sell because it made by apple. That is it biggest selling point. But so far it looks like it is going to hurt apples rep and it has a good chance to backfire on them.

ITR 81
Jan 13, 2007, 01:06 PM
Hmmm...seems like the iPhone is dividing alot of Mac folks.
Or is it the fact we can't bitch and moan about the next upgraded Mac?

Cisco seems to be banking on the idea that VOIP will never get taxed. I think that will all end eventually just like the internet not getting taxed..eventually it all will.

If Apple can prove Cisco didn't make deadline then Cisco will lose out.
They may also lose out if Apple can prove intellectual property of the i in iphone or work on the iphone before Cisco trademark.

I have a feeling Cisco will just end up getting some money from Apple and Apple keeps the name or Apple just calls it the Apple Phone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the whole Apple/Cingular thing I could careless.
Folks said the same crap about IBM and Intel when Apple hooked in with them.

CJD2112
Jan 13, 2007, 01:07 PM
Any one recall Leopard beta 9A321 having iChat with an Answering option, allowing users to see a video or listen to a message when attempting to chat with a user who is unavailable? As secret features haven't been released on Leopard yet, what if Apple WILL have the iPhone use iChat with video messaging? What if the iPhone camera actually is a WEB CAM that allows video conferencing with iChat? Of course Steve Jobs wouldn't release that info as Leopard is still under wraps, but mark my words I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the secrets yet to be revealed. Also, I'm certain the iPhone has other features that will tie into the Leopard release that have not been disclosed. Think about it...

A is jump
Jan 13, 2007, 01:11 PM
The iPod DOES have a user replaceable battery... IF you are clever enough to replace it yourself. I like how you worded that. batteries are available anywhere... you just need to open your ipod up. there are websites all over telling you how.

iLife applications are not meant to be Professional grade products... if iweb is too basic for you.. learn HTML, Flash and Java, and write your own page... you're right, it really isnt that hard to make a web page.

and you're right garageband hardly has any editing abilities... oh but then again... its simply a stripped down version of Logic that comes free with your mac. and somehow, I still use it from time to time even though I have logic pro.

thank god iphoto isnt anymore complicated... a dumb simple photo program that works everytime is all I'll ever need.

you do have a point with the one button mouse... though, Ive gotten by for years with out buying a two button one.


Apple have always treated their customers as if they are retarded.

- Ship a one buttoned mouse because we aren't clever enough to have two buttons ( we get a proper mouse from elsewhere ).

- dumbed down iLife apps such as iWeb that are too basic to be usable.

- no Php or other scripting tools in .Mac

- iPod doesn't have a user replacable battery because we don't think your clever enough to replace it yourself. Instead, send us the iPod to replace and we'll charge you $$$ for the service. ( Yes, you can get replacement batteries from elsewhere )


- and as you say, No 3rd party apps for you because we don't think you need them and you don't need them. On top of that, you may bring down an entire cellular network!! LOL.

Object-X
Jan 13, 2007, 01:31 PM
I dislike the way Apple have repeatedly attempted to buy the iPhone name - i.e., by setting up a 'communications' company facade in an attempt to use that to buy iPhone.

Apple do not know the meaning of 'No'.

Cisco started using the iPhone name again since 2004, so its not so recent.





Maybe not in the States, but in Canada, Fido does! And its really very very useful.

Uh, I don't think slapping a sticker on a box is quite what the trademark commission had in mind.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/13/cisco-might-have-lost-iphone-trademark-in-06/

mzlin
Jan 13, 2007, 01:56 PM
LMAO! I love this photo...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/images/cit200_470.jpg

"Wait, see, we have an iPhone! It's the same model as before, we just slapped a iPhone label on the plastic wrapping. But we CLEARLY are selling an iPhone."

The slapping on of an inkjet-printed sticker 4 days before the renewal grace period expired is hilarious. That zdnet article on how Cisco may have effectively abandoned the trademark explains why Apple should win. How long would it have taken to reprint the box? One week? This probably means Cisco only became aware of the need to demonstrate ongoing use when they finally got around to filing the renewal, and that itself didn't happen until literally a week before the expiration date. And this is months or years after rumors of the Apple iPhone. Probably some new paralegal intern happened to remark that day how they were eagerly anticipating the iPhone based on reports on macrumors.com. "Wait a second... that sounds familiar... don't we own that? Let's see here .... oh ***** it expires in 5 days!" So much for Cisco's vaunted legal team.

By the way here are pics of the front of the box from real life:

http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11177592/Linksys_Cit200_Skype_VOIP_Cordless_Wireless_Phone.html

http://www.nokytech.net/linksys_cit200-249-z.html

Or just search ebay. No iPhone printed (or stuck) on the CIT200 boxes. It's clear that the CIT200 was never called the iPhone in real life, only in imaginary legal life.

This also explains Apple's hard line on Cisco. Apple was probably waiting quietly for the trademark to expire, and was more a bit annoyed at the tactics Cisco used to get a renewal.

Finally this explains Apple's hard line on rumor sites. If it hadn't been for rumors, Cisco may not have renewed the trademark.

OhEsTen
Jan 13, 2007, 02:13 PM
this explains Apple's hard line on rumor sites. If it hadn't been for rumors, Cisco may not have renewed the trademark.

Exactly. But try explaining NDA's to people who report "news" and call themselves "journalists"... to them their freedom of speach exempt them from the liability related to an employee breaking their NDA and causing a company to lose money in terms of legal services or loss of profits. Few people seem to understand moral responsibility.

Unspeaked
Jan 13, 2007, 02:22 PM
What's with people treating Cisco like some two-bit operation?

This isn't Creative we're talking about, or even Apple Corp., with some dinky office in London.

We're talking about a company that DWARFS Apple in size...

It's over twice the market cap of Apple.

It's got almost three times as many employees as Apple (and that's counting Apple's retail operations!).

It's got twice the cash on hand as Apple, which says a lot since Apple is a very cash-rich company.

Those of you saying Apple wouldn't be acting as they are if they didn't know what they're doing are clueless. This isn't some small shop that Apple will pull the wool over the eyes of - Cisco is a very formidable company whose team of lawyers, industry strength and experience are just as significant as Apple's, if not more.

Anyone who says Apple is "calling their bluff" might very well have it backwards...

RealMcCoy
Jan 13, 2007, 02:36 PM
Whatever comes ... just give me my:

iTouchMyMac

http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/

Performa
Jan 13, 2007, 03:14 PM
"Cisco had wanted Apple to ensure interoperability between Cisco's Voice over IP Internet Phone (iPhone) and Apple's new iPhone mobile phone. Apple reportedly rejected this offer."

What is ensuring "interoperability" between the two phones? Making sure that people owning these two phones have the capability of placing phone calls to each other? Being able to sync these two devices with one another, like two Palm devices?

Interoperability could include many functions, or just one. I wonder how, specifically, Cisco wanted them to be interoperable?

rish
Jan 13, 2007, 04:48 PM
Check this out :D - Disclaimer: its my blog.

http://installer.teppefall.com/big/iphone/iphone_0003_Layer%201.jpg

http://vr5.com/2007/01/more_iphone_trademark_problems.html

At least your's will come in handy on a wet day. I think you're onto a winner here especially with the ladies and anyone who still sports a mullet or a hoff head.

rish
Jan 13, 2007, 04:57 PM
http://news.com.com/1606-12994_3-6150132.html?tag=ne.video.6150132

Check this link to CNET. Looks like Synaptics is a little flushed on missing out on some press time for their giant ruler phone.

As for Apples phone, I agree with a few other bloggers, it should just simply be called Apple phone and done. I care little about the name and more interested in the device itself. It's really flaming cool.

bmb012
Jan 13, 2007, 05:05 PM
Just a note to everyone posting links to those multitouch demonstration videos... they work because there's a camera underneath, and the way a light is set up, bright dots appear to the camera where every finger is touching. The setup is HUGE and that method will never appear in a computer. It's a pretty big deal that Apple got this multitouch thing working on a normal screen.

It might be expensive as hell to produce for all we know. Besides, sliding your finger around a touch screen and having it register is really hard to do (and I don't mean just poking at number buttons). Try using a Nintendo DS with the tip of your finger, not a fingernail.

I don't think you guys realize how much of a paradigm shift this phone can really turn out to be...

jrhone
Jan 13, 2007, 05:26 PM
THIS version of the iPhone is only ONE version....there will be more versions...also its an iPod Video AND phone....I spent $350 for my Blackberry without any audio capabilities....if the iPhone does what that does AND plays video and audio, then add another $150 for that..IF YOU WANT IT...I say that because I GUARANTEE there will be a cheaper, stripped down verion without a phone and without so much memory and no camera. This will be priced DIRECTLY to compete with the blackberry....for the more "corporate" people...I bet there will be unlocked versions for otehr carriers as well...this ALWAYS happens....Blackberry makes the same phone for like 5 different carriers...so why cant Apple? I bet we see differet versions for different carriers...although I dont really care since I do have Cingular...lol...Within the next 4 months, we will see how it will all shake out.

DrFrankTM
Jan 13, 2007, 05:27 PM
just a couple comments

1. Why do they want to call it an iPhone anyway?

It's branding should better reflect the multifunction device they are marketing. iComm?

Apple wants "Phone" in the name because they want to eat from the cellphone pie rather than from the PDA/UMPC pie (which is much much much smaller). It's not about what the phone can do - of course! it is much more than a phone!!! It's all about the market Apple is going after. And how they market the phone is key to the number of people who will tell themselves: "Hey! This thing is for me!" If Apple chose to market it as some kind of PDA, UMPC or smartphone (rather than just a well-designed "phone"), then a lot of people would say "This thing is too complicated/too fancy for me" and would exclude themselves from the potential consumer pool.

As for your "iComm" suggestion, I hope it was a joke... Until Apple starts making dildos, I doubt we'll see any Apple product with a name like that.

One more thing... ;-) How about those 32GB Samsung flash drives? The technology even seems to allow for 64GB drives!!!
http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20060911_0000286548
As of now, these memory cards are not commercially viable options for the iPhone, but I'm pretty sure some do-it-yourself-ers will eventually try to open their iPhone and put some beefier memory cards in there. What do you think? It has been done with the nano before, right? I'm tempted myself, but I don't think any GSM phone works in South Korea where I am working now. (South Korea is one of the few places on Earth to use a CDMA network.) Oh! Well...

a456
Jan 13, 2007, 05:40 PM
This is gonna be a fun battle between Cisco and Apple. I guess that in the end, Apple will have lots of free press in the media and the the iPhone name anyway.

Exactly, the press is doing them no harm. Just like when Cisco used the name everyone was expecting Apple to use, there was no focus on the new products but instead disappointment that the whole rumor mill had been wrong and that there might not be an Apple Phone. They knew when they released information about iTV that it could never be called that, especially in the UK, because one of the four big broadcasters is called ITV. I think that really what Apple are doing is creating an association between the Apple symbol and the i in iPod, iPhone, iTV, etc. Notice how the Apple symbol resembles an i on the Apple TV box. All of their products could now switch to this symbol - Apple Mac instead of iMac, etc.

joeshell383
Jan 13, 2007, 05:53 PM
People are also forgetting, THE PHONE HASN'T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET!!! It's still a prototype. Everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over this thing. Stop tripping people, relaaaaaaaxxxx, and enjoy the ride. It seems to me most people are complaining because they actually can't afford the phone so they're looking for other ways in justifying their frustration. Build a bridge, get over it. I for one won't be making any judgment calls until a month after its release. In the mean time, chill out homies. Sheesh.:cool:

Do you really think it's going to change between now and release? Once it is submitted for FCC approval (which I'm sure has already happened, because it takes months, and then manufacturing still has to ramp up all in time for June) the hardware can't be changed.

Di9it8
Jan 13, 2007, 06:31 PM
It comes down to VOIP. Something that I'm 3000% certain Cingular is not only opposed to, but would rather lop off their their collective wang to avoid.
So what do we have here? Apple doing thy bidding my master. Until 2009 Apple is Cingular's *cough* "friend". The more I read about the iPhone the more I want to throw-up. Apple is selling their soul to get in on this market. Think Different? More like Think Corporate. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/pukeface.gif

Surely all Apple have to do is register iFone, iHandy (for the german market)
iTalk for the eastern markets etc which will help all the specific market penetrations:D

Digital Skunk
Jan 13, 2007, 06:42 PM
I remember a lot of people complaining about the iPhone not going overseas for a while. I don't see what the big deal was then, and especially not now. The iPhone is not what a lot of us expected it to be (except for the tech that went into it that blew us away! ) and there are plenty of new phone coming out this year that are only going to be available OVERSEAS.

Digital Skunk
Jan 13, 2007, 06:48 PM
THIS version of the iPhone is only ONE version....there will be more versions...also its an iPod Video AND phone....I spent $350 for my Blackberry without any audio capabilities....if the iPhone does what that does AND plays video and audio, then add another $150 for that..IF YOU WANT IT...I say that because I GUARANTEE there will be a cheaper, stripped down verion without a phone and without so much memory and no camera. This will be priced DIRECTLY to compete with the blackberry....for the more "corporate" people...I bet there will be unlocked versions for otehr carriers as well...this ALWAYS happens....Blackberry makes the same phone for like 5 different carriers...so why cant Apple? I bet we see differet versions for different carriers...although I dont really care since I do have Cingular...lol...Within the next 4 months, we will see how it will all shake out.

You lucky stiff.... naw just kidding. :D

It's good that you have Cingular, I am jealous :( Not trying to switch just yet. I hope that Apple does anounce an unlocked version of the iPhone or compatibility with other service providers, especially Sprint and Verizon. But we shall see. If they can't do it then I will be waiting for the iPhone for another year or so after it comes out or I will be getting a different phone altogether.

I have been waiting for a new phone for almost 3 years. It is time to upgrade. :D

CJD2112
Jan 13, 2007, 07:33 PM
Do you really think it's going to change between now and release? Once it is submitted for FCC approval (which I'm sure has already happened, because it takes months, and then manufacturing still has to ramp up all in time for June) the hardware can't be changed.

Not true. Once a phone has been approved by the FCC, as long as the main phone componets are roughly the same, software and other non-hardware phone related mechanisms may be altered. :p

Stella
Jan 13, 2007, 07:58 PM
Surely all Apple have to do is register iFone, iHandy (for the german market)
iTalk for the eastern markets etc which will help all the specific market penetrations:D

No, because iFone is too close to iPhone.

Stella
Jan 13, 2007, 08:04 PM
Its not exactly easy is it? Its not what Apple had in mind.

Obviously I have much different concept to user replacement than you.

User replaceable to me means I don't have to search the net to find instructions to do so. It should be pretty bloody simple! :-)

I do know HTML, CSS, Javascript but iWeb is still too far too basic. I was hoping Apple would provide something a bit more flexible. I want to create my own iWeb template to look like my existing website so I can edit / add content easier. I don't want to have to use HTML all the time. Instead I'll keep on using JAlbum.

BTW, I do like iPhoto tho.

The iPod DOES have a user replaceable battery... IF you are clever enough to replace it yourself. I like how you worded that. batteries are available anywhere... you just need to open your ipod up. there are websites all over telling you how.

iLife applications are not meant to be Professional grade products... if iweb is too basic for you.. learn HTML, Flash and Java, and write your own page... you're right, it really isnt that hard to make a web page.

and you're right garageband hardly has any editing abilities... oh but then again... its simply a stripped down version of Logic that comes free with your mac. and somehow, I still use it from time to time even though I have logic pro.

thank god iphoto isnt anymore complicated... a dumb simple photo program that works everytime is all I'll ever need.

you do have a point with the one button mouse... though, Ive gotten by for years with out buying a two button one.

Anyway, to get back on topic, yes... er, the iPhone....!

peterjhill
Jan 13, 2007, 09:50 PM
where is everyone getting the "battery cannot be changed" thing from.. Was that mentioned in the keynote? is there anything on the website about it? maybe it is true, but alot of people are just going crazy about this product when it has not been released.. there are many months until it will be released.. things can change between now and then..

as for cingular and two year contract.. how many skype phones are sold a year? how many cell phones are sold a year?

Personally I do not like skype.. It is written by the kazaa people and frankly I think that kazaa made a ton of money selling ads to people that they enabled questionable transfer of copywritten material. skype is a proprietary protocol. I would rather see more use of sip and h323 for voip and less private protocols.

Digitalclips
Jan 13, 2007, 10:51 PM
Interesting to see several full page ads for 'Smart' phones this weekend showing them reduced from $500-600 or more down to $199 or less... perhaps the iPhone rivals are worried...?

Digital Skunk
Jan 13, 2007, 11:31 PM
Interesting to see several full page ads for 'Smart' phones this weekend showing them reduced from $500-600 or more down to $199 or less... perhaps the iPhone rivals are worried...?

I think many of us are a bit worried. If it doesn't change by the time it comes out then it won't be as desirable as many of us want it to be..

Even though I was excited when I first saw the thing, and I was ready to pay all the money in the world to switch service providers and get Cingular... The phone isn't looking like the "One Device for All" thing that I was looking for. It is still the closest thing out there, nothing will ever come as close to the device of my dreams, but I have to go through hell to get it... and that isn't worth it to me.

I would have to pay Sprint arond $250 to cancel my contract, then pay Cingular $600 to get the phone (8GB of course :D ) plus anything else they want to tac on for a new contract, and at least $160 for the first two months service bill. That is close to a GRAND :mad:

Not to mention that I HAVE to get the service AND data plans... there is no option for just the phone service... you have to have both.

NOW PUT TAXES ON THAT!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

And this is not including the things certain people will need right away! I may be able to wait for future updates but I am sure that many can not. We will have to wait, and will patiently wait, for the next iPhone... hopefully it is unlocked or compatible with Sprint and Verizon. :)

MrCrowbar
Jan 13, 2007, 11:32 PM
As for your "iComm" suggestion, I hope it was a joke... Until Apple starts making dildos, I doubt we'll see any Apple product with a name like that.


Love it! :D Apple ditched the "computer" in the brand name, so everything is possible now. The dildo market has not seen much innovation lately, it's time Apple comes with a revolutionary product. I'll think about kinky words, put an "i" in front of them and trademark the hell out of it. :p

twoodcc
Jan 14, 2007, 12:42 AM
Apple Phone it is then!

sounds good to me :)

justflie
Jan 14, 2007, 01:07 AM
lol, frankly, apple could call it "My Mother's Left Pinky" and I'd still buy. I don't care what it's called. And besides, what does it really matter to me after I've bought it. I'll most like just refer to it as "my phone" anyways. Sheesh.

iPoodOverZune
Jan 14, 2007, 02:14 AM
i think apple may have a chance here... looks like cisco applied for renewal at the last minute i.e. during the final days of extension period, not even regular 5 year period and that too for their VoIP products that they branded as iPhone in december, not in May. They were called simply Linksys VoIP phones back then. So apple can argue for cancellation of the trademark based upon their lack of interest in perusal of that trademark until they saw gold with apple's future phone product that apple wanted to label iPhone. Also cisco never sued for infringement with other iPhone branded VoIP products on market.

MacinDoc
Jan 14, 2007, 02:52 AM
What's with people treating Cisco like some two-bit operation?
Maybe because the introduction of the Cisco iPhone was a two-bit tactic?

To sit on a trademark until it expires, then request an extension, and finally at the 11th hour just before the extension expires, to put a sticker on the box of a previously existing product, call a news conference, and introduce it as the iPhone, as if it is a new product, clearly shows contempt for the spirit of trademark law. ("Of course we needed to give it a new name, it's a completely different product - didn't you see the sticker we stuck onto the outside of the box so you could tell that what's inside the box isn't what it was twenty minutes ago?"). Clearly, Cisco panicked as the extension deadline approached, not having an appropriate new product to call the iPhone in order to maintain the trademark, so it just stuck the label onto the most likely pre-existing candidate and called a news conference to complete the illusion that a new product was actually being announced.

It is also interesting that Cisco showed no interest in protecting the iPhone name until rumors about the Apple iPhone reached a fever pitch. It certainly gave the appearance that Cisco was simply out to make a quick buck or two (or maybe even a cool billion) off the hype surrounding Apple's phone.

It should be an interesting court case, although not necessarily a long one...

C00rDiNaT0r
Jan 14, 2007, 03:04 AM
I think there are things that people haven't brought up in this thread, that may change some people's view on the iPhone...

1) As some have pointed out, we shouldn't jump into conclusions yet, as the actual product is not shipping yet. Also, so far there are no words on Cingular's pricing on phone plans. Why is everybody bitching about how expensive it will be? Personally, I don't think it can be that much worse than the data plan for Motorola Q from Verizon.

2) The price of iPhone is probably just a MSRP. Since it is sold as a cell phone, you will most likely be able to get it for a cheaper price, from places like Chinatown. From what I know, cell phone stores earn commission fee from the providers for each phone plan they sell. So the stores in Chinatown often take money out of their commission, so they can sell the phones with phone plans for cheaper. The way they see it, is by doing so they can sell more phones and phone plans, which will let them earn more in the long run. So let's hope we can see a significant "discount" in those places when the phone is out...

3) Since iPhone will be exclusive with Cingular for the coming 2 years, there are 2 years for others like T-Mobile and Sprint to approach Apple, provide more options/features that Cingular isn't offering to the "current" iPhone users. If what they offer to Apple is much better than Cingular, then we may see Apple switch provider in 2 years, after the contract expires. By then, it will be about time for a new version of OSX to come out, which can pack even more features, and the iPhone at that time will have much better specs...

Lastly, I think iPhone is a great product, I like how it looks, and have no problems with its pricing (for now). But I probably won't get it this year...

Xyl
Jan 14, 2007, 10:26 AM
Also, so far there are no words on Cingular's pricing on phone plans. Why is everybody bitching about how expensive it will be?

Strongly agree. The data plan is the most important part of the price, not the phone, I also don't know why people keep complaining about the price. As an overly exaggerated example, if the plans for these phones are 15/month with unlimited data, I wouldn't care if the phone cost 900 dollars, it'd still be a bargain.

peharri
Jan 14, 2007, 11:22 AM
Why exactly is this thing called the iPhone anyway?

Should we expect Apple to rename the Mac the "iComputer" and the iPod the "iPlayer" soon? (Even their software packages, which use words that are closer to function, aren't quite as blatant. It's "iMovie", not "iEditor", it's "iTunes", not "iManager". Following the same logic as both, the iPhone should have been called the iCall, iConversation, iConnection, or something like that.)

The only things I can think of are:

1. Cringely's right about it being a big conspiracy to generate publicity (The first two words of this answer would suggest that it cannot possibly be true.)
2. A Chronic Lack of imagination at Apple (seems unlikely)
3. Because everyone was already calling it the iPhone, and Apple felt that as such, the name had already been picked.

iPie
Jan 14, 2007, 12:31 PM
Whatever the outcome, iTV and Iphone will not find an iHome here (not that the Iphone is for sale in Europe yet, but when it does go on sale, it probably will go for at least as much as a Mini or maybe iMac).

As much as I love my MacBook, Mini, and Nano, I don't really like Apple's new products; I don't mind paying a premium for something that really adds value to 'I'.

iTV looks like an underspec'd, overpriced piece of junk. And what 'I' am looking for is cheaper telecommunications, not a more expensive way to communicate - I hope Skype launches the sPhone:)

If course that is just me

PS Do you think I could trademark my name? I could make it more general, like iBakedGoods instead of iPie!

CJD2112
Jan 14, 2007, 01:52 PM
I honestly don't know why they branded it "iPhone". If it's an iPod, mobile phone and communicator, wouldn't "iMobile" be a better name? :confused:

Di9it8
Jan 14, 2007, 02:28 PM
I honestly don't know why they branded it "iPhone". If it's an iPod, mobile phone and communicator, wouldn't "iMobile" be a better name? :confused:

Or even iMob!!:D

pritchet1
Jan 14, 2007, 05:07 PM
http://images.apple.com/iphone/images/sitetitle20070109.png

I prefer the "Knowledge Navigator" myself...

http://kokiri.ithinksw.net/shii/Future_Shock.mov

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/movies/contributed/knowledge_navigator.mpg

retiarius
Jan 15, 2007, 11:19 AM
Maybe because the introduction of the Cisco iPhone was a two-bit tactic?

[.... much common sense about Cisco's underhandedness ....]

It should be an interesting court case, although not necessarily a long one...

From a jury's perspective the sticker-on-the-box trick will appear
incredibly shabby, even if it were to be shown to be standard
trademark industry practice (is it?)

Also, aside from technicalities (like Apple owning the trademark
in all the rest of the English-speaking world), a defense based upon
"likelihood of confusion" seems like a slam-dunk for Apple.
Application of the "reasonable man" standard would show negligible
commonality when the Cisco CIT 200 is trotted out for comparison.

Also in Apple's favor is the time element. By the time a jury trial
happens, the iPhone will have been in the vernacular for years, with
much dilution only not in the relative merits of Cisco's obsolete offering
compared to Apple's innovation, but in the wholesale linguistic
effects which brought us generic scotch tape, kleenex, xerox copies,
and the frisbee.

gnasher729
Jan 15, 2007, 12:28 PM
No, because iFone is too close to iPhone.

You can't use that argument here. iPhone is very close to Phone, which is absolutely unprotectable.

whooleytoo
Jan 16, 2007, 11:20 AM
The Register (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/12/cisco_apple_iphone_trademark_spat/) has an article on the Apple-Cisco battle's European front. Apparently a German law firm filed a revocation application for Cisco's lack of use of the trademark, on the very day it 'expired'.

If Cisco lose the trademark, Apple are likely to be granted it - another company working as a proxy for Apple?