PDA

View Full Version : Apple and Cisco iPhone Trademark Negotiations Ongoing




MacRumors
Feb 1, 2007, 12:01 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Per Setteb.it (http://www.setteb.it/content/view/1526), Apple and Cisco have released a joint statement (http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_013107.html) indicating that the lawsuit is on hold as negotiations are ongoing:

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. January 31, 2007 - Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.

When Apple announced their mobile phone at Macworld, they named it "iPhone". This triggered a lawsuit (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/10/cisco-suing-apple-for-iphone-trademark-infringement/) from Cisco for trademark infringement.

Apple/Cisco negotiations had been reportedly been ongoing (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/13/apple-and-cisco-iphone-trademark-negotiations/) in the days prior to the Apple iPhone announcement. It appears that, for now, negotiations have resumed.



ModestPenguin
Feb 1, 2007, 12:07 AM
im not worried, apple will work this out.
cisco was just frustrated cause apple sprung the announcement on them...?

samh004
Feb 1, 2007, 12:15 AM
I still can't work out why this is such an issue for Apple, :apple: Phone sounds better.

cisco was just frustrated cause apple sprung the announcement on them...?

Exactly, as if they didn't know what Apple was going to announce at MacWorld.

Sandfleaz
Feb 1, 2007, 12:16 AM
Hmmm, let's see, Apple received a tremendous amount of free media time when introducing the iPhone .....short while later got a huge amount of free media time when Cisco announced the lawsuit ....and now they are back at the negotiating table ....hmmmm (Apple wins)

SoldOutMatinee
Feb 1, 2007, 12:22 AM
Calling all trademark lawyers...

Can Apple still get sued if they call it the :apple: iPhone? Or can "iPhone" not be used at all?

Yoursh
Feb 1, 2007, 12:25 AM
I figured this would end up resolved outside of court. Apple is going to want the name finalized one way or another before June. If they can't settle with Cisco quickly, it's in their best interest to change the name as soon as possible.

bearbo
Feb 1, 2007, 12:25 AM
Calling all trademark lawyers...

Can Apple still get sued if they call it the :apple: iPhone? Or can "iPhone" not be used at all?

i'm no trademark lawyer, but if apple loses this lawsuit (which is not likely), apple cannot use :apple: iphone or anything with iphone in there... or anything resemble iphone

JonHimself
Feb 1, 2007, 12:50 AM
I have been calling it the apple phone since it was released, not sure why... I guess I like the sound of it better... but as people have said both in this thread and previous ones. This is win/win for apple... free press from the release, free press from the lawsuit, more free press saying that talks are back on again, then a couple weeks (or months) from now when it is settled more press relating to the settlement.. and finally, if they have to rename it, they wait a week or two until the stories die down, then announce the official name for (you guessed it) more free press.

jac.blue
Feb 1, 2007, 01:29 AM
Maybe just extend the "i" down to a "j" - j for jobs
Or maybe sphone, s for Steve:D

Xeem
Feb 1, 2007, 01:35 AM
It's nice to see Apple and Cisco playing nice together. Of course, Cisco's lawsuit bought both companies publicity, so I doubt there were many hard feelings to begin with on either side.

Gosh
Feb 1, 2007, 02:02 AM
I think it was a clever move by Apple to launch iPhone and :apple: TV together - because it says loud and clear to Cisco: either you do a deal with us over the iPhone name or we just call it :apple: Phone in a blaze of publicity which neatly overcomes the fact that it's been rumored as the former for years which we couldn't do anything about anyway.

Apple were never gonna hold up the launch date for anyone. Clever and bold!

IronChef
Feb 1, 2007, 02:09 AM
Apple has a great chance to get the iphone name simply because Cisco played fast and loose with their trademark renewal. They "claimed" the iphone was a working "brand" when their trademark neared the expiration date.

The proof was "merchandised" product was a mockup sticker on it.

http://www.myiphone.com/iphone-trademark-use-it-or-lose-it-13203.php

bigandy
Feb 1, 2007, 04:30 AM
Apple has a great chance to get the iphone name simply because Cisco played fast and loose with their trademark renewal. They "claimed" the iphone was a working "brand" when their trademark neared the expiration date.

The proof was "merchandised" product was a mockup sticker on it.

http://www.myiphone.com/iphone-trademark-use-it-or-lose-it-13203.php

hehe. you'd have thought cisco would have more brains than that, and at least put the sticker on before the shrinkwrap :rolleyes:

Abstract
Feb 1, 2007, 04:32 AM
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already. They backed off the name "iTV" for the same reason (the popular British TV network iTV), and named it :apple: TV instead. Why didn't they back off the iPhone name as well? It was just a dumb decision by Apple, and a dumb mistake for announcing the "iPhone" when negotiations over the name with Cisco wasn't finalized yet.



I think it was a clever move by Apple to launch iPhone and :apple: TV together...

So you don't think that it would have been even more smart to announce :apple: TV and :apple: Phone on the same day for continuity? Would have been smart if they were thinking of moving away from the "i" names.

madmax_2069
Feb 1, 2007, 04:47 AM
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already.

not true entirely, Cisco's time to renew was almost up for the term iPhone trademark ( i think they even let ir lapse) and apple seen this and at the last second Cisco renewed it once they seen apple was going to shoot for that name. Yea apple should have yanked the name out from under Cisco before they could tryed to renew it. so if they dont win it (which i think they can) its due to apples slow response on getting the rights to it.

its better to see both in talks and not going the settle by lawsuit route

R.R.Mac
Feb 1, 2007, 04:55 AM
i think that apple should realease the iphone and the apple TV together and i think that it sounds so much better with the iPhone

davester
Feb 1, 2007, 05:16 AM
Just call it the iCall already, and move on.

gnasher729
Feb 1, 2007, 05:40 AM
I really don't mind if Apple loses this one. They were stupid enough to call their product "iPhone" when they knew full well that Cisco had claim to that name already.

Not so quick. Cisco missed the first date for their renewal of the trademark. For the second date, they should have supplied proof of a product named "iPhone" to keep the name, but instead produced a photo of a packaged phone which was _not_ called iPhone, with an "iPhone" sticker clearly stuck on top of the cellophane wrapper. This might be interpreted as trying to keep the trademark by deception. And since Apple had already applied for the trademark, and anyone in the industry knew that Apple would want that name, this could have expensive consequences for Cisco.

According to you, it is stupid to try to buy a car for $9000 when it has a sticker for $10000 on it, because clearly the dealer wants $10000 for it. In my book, it isn't.

CrackedButter
Feb 1, 2007, 05:41 AM
Good things come in three's. They should have called it the :apple: phone along with the :apple: TV device and with the name change to just :apple: Inc.

The iPhone itself was expected, but when we saw it finally for the first time it was everything we didn't expect and more. Except the name, which lets the product down.

BigPrince
Feb 1, 2007, 06:24 AM
I just don't like the fact that this is STILL going on.

iMikeT
Feb 1, 2007, 06:38 AM
I guess Cisco finally realized that their lawsuit held no merit.:rolleyes:

Music_Producer
Feb 1, 2007, 06:56 AM
Funny thing is, I bought the 'iphone' (the Cisco skype phone..great phone btw) and nowhere on the phone (or the box) does it mention the term 'iphone' It only states 'Linksys' and 'Skype Certified'

I wonder if that could come into play?

peharri
Feb 1, 2007, 07:33 AM
Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

The iPhone naming convention applied to the above products would have been:

iMP3Player
iComputer
iMP3Manager
iScheduler
iJPEGLibrary

Now, you might be asking "so what?" Well, here's the thing. iPhone is obviously a fairly sophisticated platform (the damned thing runs OS X), is it going to be a mobile phone forever? Does every variant even need to be a mobile phone? Isn't it, ultimately, the next generation iPod and if so, what does Apple call a lower cost device built upon the same platform that, well, doesn't support telephony?

What Apple should have done is call this an iPod, or if they wanted to show a generational advance over existing iPods, done so without losing the connection (some name incorporating "Pod")

"iPhone is silly." It boxes Apple in.

Leoff
Feb 1, 2007, 07:44 AM
Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe the initial use of the "i" in "iMac" stood for "internet." The iMac made it a hell of a lot simpler and easier for people to get onto and surf the internet. Now, of course, that thought process is long gone. Any computer that can't get onto the internet easily is a rarity.

The name "iPod" simply took the "i" moniker to the next level. The iMac had been around for a while and people now just looked at it as part of a familiar name or logo. It lost the "internet" feel, but gained it's own part of consumer recognition.

twoodcc
Feb 1, 2007, 08:12 AM
i hope this all gets worked out. i'm sure apple can handle it though

Digitalclips
Feb 1, 2007, 08:19 AM
Good things come in three's. They should have called it the :apple: phone along with the :apple: TV device and with the name change to just :apple: Inc.

The iPhone itself was expected, but when we saw it finally for the first time it was everything we didn't expect and more. Except the name, which lets the product down.

I can see your point totally. However, I think this is for a deeper reason, it is in my opinion, an 'Apple Phone' by default whether it is officially called iPhone or not, just like a Mac is an Apple Computer by default. For Apple, by owning the iPhone name too in the USA (as they do in most other countries) it prevents an imitation iPhone from another company appearing and confusing buyers. Many non technical folk seeing an 'iPhone' would assume it is Apple because of iPod's fame. Hence Apple have to prevent this from happening.

Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

The iPhone naming convention applied to the above products would have been:

iMP3Player
iComputer
iMP3Manager
iScheduler
iJPEGLibrary

Now, you might be asking "so what?" Well, here's the thing. iPhone is obviously a fairly sophisticated platform (the damned thing runs OS X), is it going to be a mobile phone forever? Does every variant even need to be a mobile phone? Isn't it, ultimately, the next generation iPod and if so, what does Apple call a lower cost device built upon the same platform that, well, doesn't support telephony?

What Apple should have done is call this an iPod, or if they wanted to show a generational advance over existing iPods, done so without losing the connection (some name incorporating "Pod")

"iPhone is silly." It boxes Apple in.

Usage of as product name over time can transcend your argument however logical it seems. "Kleenex" means any tissue, or in the UK "hoover" for example means 'to vacuum', and many more such examples exist. The product names take on a life of their own in popular culture if the products are hugely successful. I would submit Apple has done that with 'iPod' and hopefully will soon with 'Mac'.

I submit a new word for making it into popular culture ... to "zune', 'meaning to appear in a flourish for just a moment and then vanish'. Example: Look ... did you see that? It zuned! ;)

Damn I can't resist it ... Another (few years hence) "A Microsoft" To be huge and dominating only to become extinct .... alternative to Dinosaur if required. Example: "Wow, that was a real Microsoft"

JGowan
Feb 1, 2007, 08:20 AM
Interoperability?... Oh please.

I cannot believe Cisco is still pushing this lame idea. They simply do not know Steve Jobs. Jobs is not going to be strong armed into allowing "interoperability" for a name or money. The CEO of Cisco must be a moron if they think they can actually come out of this one with anything.

sishaw
Feb 1, 2007, 08:39 AM
Interoperability?... Oh please.

I cannot believe Cisco is still pushing this lame idea. They simply do not know Steve Jobs. Jobs is not going to be strong armed into allowing "interoperability" for a name or money. The CEO of Cisco must be a moron if they think they can actually come out of this one with anything.

I agree, but I wonder if there isn't some further future development in the offing...an "iPhone" that is an Apple-branded, Cisco-made VOIP/Skype (or whatever, wi-fi Internet phone service) phone with an iPod, with the touch-screen and other PDA-type capabilities, but without the cellular service. Following the example of the iPod, there's probably some product differentiation to come in the future.

CrackedButter
Feb 1, 2007, 08:42 AM
I can see your point totally. However, I think this is for a deeper reason, it is in my opinion, an 'Apple Phone' by default whether it is officially called iPhone or not, just like a Mac is an Apple Computer by default. For Apple, by owning the iPhone name too in the USA (as they do in most other countries) it prevents an imitation iPhone from another company appearing and confusing buyers. Many non technical folk seeing an 'iPhone' would assume it is Apple because of iPod's fame. Hence Apple have to prevent this from happening.

From all accounts Cisco owns the iPhone name.

Digitalclips
Feb 1, 2007, 08:55 AM
From all accounts Cisco owns the iPhone name.


Read all the threads ... it might not be clear cut.

MacVault
Feb 1, 2007, 09:49 AM
Screw the iPhone, Apple! Let Loepard be born already! Am I going to have to induce it? Hurry up and release it before it's obsoleted by Windows Viagro, etc!

Gosh
Feb 1, 2007, 09:50 AM
Or a bet! Outcome:

1/ Apple keeps iPhone name
2/ iPhone becomes :apple: phone
3/ iPhone renamed completely

?

gnasher729
Feb 1, 2007, 09:51 AM
I guess Cisco finally realized that their lawsuit held no merit.:rolleyes:

I guess Cisco finally realized that their lawsuit held no merit.:rolleyes:

Merit or no merit is not the question. The question is: What does Cisco want to achieve? Do they want to sell a product named "iPhone"? I don't think so. Do they want to keep Apple from using the name out of some pettiness? I don't think so. Do they want "interoperability"? Lame excuse. What they want is a few million dollars from Apple for the name; the more money, the better.

The lawsuit doesn't give them any money. The only way Cisco can make money out of the situation is if they come to an agreement with Apple before the iPhone ships, and Apple pays for the agreement. If they continue the lawsuit and win (which will take years), Apple won't have the name, and Cisco won't get any money.

gwangung
Feb 1, 2007, 09:58 AM
From all accounts Cisco owns the iPhone name.

I think you need to read more accounts.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 1, 2007, 10:01 AM
Merit or no merit is not the question. The question is: What does Cisco want to achieve? Do they want to sell a product named "iPhone"? I don't think so. Do they want to keep Apple from using the name out of some pettiness? I don't think so. Do they want "interoperability"? Lame excuse. What they want is a few million dollars from Apple for the name; the more money, the better.

The lawsuit doesn't give them any money. The only way Cisco can make money out of the situation is if they come to an agreement with Apple before the iPhone ships, and Apple pays for the agreement. If they continue the lawsuit and win (which will take years), Apple won't have the name, and Cisco won't get any money.

that pretty much it. Also it more likely apple gave first. The simple turth is Cisco could get apple banned from using the iPhone name while it is in court and can easily tie it up long enough to make apple screwed on the release date.
Cisco could easily tie it up in court for over a year meaning apple would have to use another name. Hell Cisco only need about 8 months at most to mess apple up on the name and Apple knows Cisco could do it. From there Apple gave in and has to play nice wiht Cisco. Apple wants the iPhone name more than Cisco so Cisco holds most of the cards here.

imikem
Feb 1, 2007, 10:04 AM
Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

...

What Apple should have done is call this an iPod, or if they wanted to show a generational advance over existing iPods, done so without losing the connection (some name incorporating "Pod")

"iPhone is silly." It boxes Apple in.

Agree wholeheartedly. Something like iPod Phone would call out the fact that it's an iPod as well as a phone, and wouldn't step on any trademarks, since I'm pretty sure phone is too generic to enjoy protection at this point.

Di9it8
Feb 1, 2007, 10:16 AM
Why not change tack completely, and call it the iCom. :D

smueboy
Feb 1, 2007, 10:40 AM
If they can't sort it out soonish, i wonder whether it will delay the iPhone release?

.

CJD2112
Feb 1, 2007, 11:00 AM
I realize that iPhone is catchy, but given the Cisco situation AND that the name iPhone limits the full descriptive capabilities of the new Apple, Inc. device, wouldn't a name such as iMobile have been much more appropriate? IMobile summarizes it perfectly; a device that incorporates entertainment, communication and PDA capabilities thus making the user completely mobile. IPhone sounds so cheesy and predictable...

peharri
Feb 1, 2007, 11:10 AM
I realize that iPhone is catchy, but given the Cisco situation AND that the name iPhone limits the full descriptive capabilities of the new Apple, Inc. device, wouldn't a name such as iMobile have been much more appropriate? IMobile summarizes it perfectly; a device that incorporates entertainment, communication and PDA capabilities thus making the user completely mobile. IPhone sounds so cheesy and predictable...

I think iMobile's not a bad name, even if "mobile" is synonymous with "cellular" in some parts of the world. I was even thinking iPocket might be a good name. There's a bit of iPodiness to it, and the name coveys the fact it's something you take with you.

I'm sure someone else can come up with something more catchy though.

CJD2112
Feb 1, 2007, 11:27 AM
I think iMobile's not a bad name, even if "mobile" is synonymous with "cellular" in some parts of the world. I was even thinking iPocket might be a good name. There's a bit of iPodiness to it, and the name coveys the fact it's something you take with you.

I'm sure someone else can come up with something more catchy though.

iPocket, I like (could even be advertised with "Hot Pockets" :p ). Any thing is better than "iPhone". I love Apple, but were Ives and Jobs high when they came up with "iPhone" or did they simply want to duke it out with Cisco? lol

phillipjfry
Feb 1, 2007, 11:28 AM
I think iMobile's not a bad name, even if "mobile" is synonymous with "cellular" in some parts of the world. I was even thinking iPocket might be a good name. There's a bit of iPodiness to it, and the name coveys the fact it's something you take with you.

I'm sure someone else can come up with something more catchy though.

what about iCell? I can't believe no one has thought of that name yet :)
or iCall
or iEverything since thats basically what it does
Even a local radio station around here has "skits" they do on the air
Something along the lines of "What can't the iPhone do? Make Britney Spears wear undergarments." and so on in that pop culture fashion :)
Altho I like the idea of iMobile, it has a slight aftertaste of "laptop computer" in the name.

danielwsmithee
Feb 1, 2007, 12:00 PM
It's all a ploy a ploy I tell you. Apple needed an excuse from the beginning to put VOIP on the phone without offending Cingular because of their loss of voice trafic. Apple gets the features and name they want all with a bunch a free press.

jimytheassassin
Feb 1, 2007, 12:19 PM
no one will care if cisco has an Iphone..cisco should give up and barter a deal. Personally.. I'd call it an iGo, or drop the i and go with my... myPhone.. myPod..myMac.

maxp1
Feb 1, 2007, 01:16 PM
I think Apple has Cisco over a barrel and they know it so have asked Apple back to the table with reduced demands.

One, the faulty trademark. This means that Apple has at least a reasonable chance of winning in court and Cisco gets nothing.

Two, everyone is already calling this product the iPhone. No matter what Apple officially calls it everyone will still call it the 'iPhone'. This means that Apple is pretty much the defacto owner of the trademark anyway. Cisco can whine and moan but it won't change the reality and they get nothing.

So they might as well bargain while they still have at least some chips on the table and get something for what they would get nothing for otherwise.

justflie
Feb 1, 2007, 01:18 PM
It's all a ploy a ploy I tell you. Apple needed an excuse from the beginning to put VOIP on the phone without offending Cingular because of their loss of voice trafic. Apple gets the features and name they want all with a bunch a free press.

Hmm. Interesting. I had never thought of it that way. Very tricksy

hagjohn
Feb 1, 2007, 01:56 PM
I think Apple has Cisco over a barrel and they know it so have asked Apple back to the table with reduced demands.


Is the name iPhone worth the fight and worth looking like Microsoft in order to get the name?

I agree, iMobile is much better.

MacSync
Feb 1, 2007, 02:13 PM
Just call the thing ':apple: '
If you wanted to you could call it ':apple: formerly known as iPhone'
Heck, if a music artist can do it, why not Apple.:cool:

maxp1
Feb 1, 2007, 02:16 PM
Is the name iPhone worth the fight and worth looking like Microsoft in order to get the name?

I agree, iMobile is much better.

I'm not an Apple fanboy. They're just a company. Not that it's right, but I don't think there's much unusual about this kind of manuvering.

Regarding name, iPod Phone makes the most sense to me. Like the Shuffle and Mini and Nano, it's an iPod with something different about it.

ladbroke
Feb 1, 2007, 02:18 PM
If Cisco was so intent on protecting its trademark and differentiating the products, then why insist on interoperability? It seems like that would only blur the lines between the two products.

I know the answer is to piggyback on a pretty revolutionary product to siphon off a few :apple:dollars, but still.

lazyrighteye
Feb 1, 2007, 02:37 PM
Apple's not worried.
This product will release, in June (not earlier), under the iPhone name.
Period.

Move along...

mikeinternet
Feb 1, 2007, 03:32 PM
i agree. :apple:phone is way cooler than iphone. and before even calling it iphone i'd say 'ipod' is even better. it should be a member of the "ipod family" that happens to do what it does.

Di9it8
Feb 1, 2007, 06:04 PM
Is the name iPhone worth the fight and worth looking like Microsoft in order to get the name?

I agree, iMobile is much better.

What about iMob (for the flash mobbers!!);)

deejemon
Feb 1, 2007, 11:21 PM
*

Gasu E.
Feb 2, 2007, 07:55 AM
hehe. you'd have thought cisco would have more brains than that, and at least put the sticker on before the shrinkwrap :rolleyes:

Not at all relevant.

The simple turth is Cisco could get apple banned from using the iPhone name while it is in court and can easily tie it up long enough to make apple screwed on the release date.

Not easily. Prior restraint is infrequently granted by US courts, and only when both the plaintiff is likely to suffer significant damage from continuance of the current situation and it appears the plaintiff has a high likelihood of winning. It would be very hard for Cisco to establish that it will suffer significantly more damage than it has already if Apple continues using the trademark.

Apple shouldn't have called it the iPhone. Period.

It's not just that the name was already trademarked (legal loophole finding excepting), it's that it's a stupid name that doesn't fit in with their product line and doesn't allow them to provide cross brand association with similar devices.

Look at their current naming conventions, they're brilliant:

Hardware: Nothing after the 'i' refers to the initial functionality.

iPod. A name that has nothing to do with MP3s.
iMac. A name that has nothing to do with computers.

If Apple wants the iPod to be more than an MP3 player, it can (and is) doing it. If Apple wants to redefine the iMac as a media hub, it can (and is) doing it.

Software: What comes after the 'i' refers to a use or related concept, not a Microsoft style "description" which, again, would box it in:

iTunes. It plays music. But it now allows you to buy music too.
iCal. It shows a calender. But it allows you to schedule and record events against a calender.
iPhoto. It stores photos, but has some features allowing manipulation and publication of them.
...etc...

The iPhone naming convention applied to the above products would have been:

iMP3Player
iComputer
iMP3Manager
iScheduler
iJPEGLibrary

Now, you might be asking "so what?" Well, here's the thing. iPhone is obviously a fairly sophisticated platform (the damned thing runs OS X), is it going to be a mobile phone forever? Does every variant even need to be a mobile phone? Isn't it, ultimately, the next generation iPod and if so, what does Apple call a lower cost device built upon the same platform that, well, doesn't support telephony?

What Apple should have done is call this an iPod, or if they wanted to show a generational advance over existing iPods, done so without losing the connection (some name incorporating "Pod")

"iPhone is silly." It boxes Apple in.

I can see you are a mathematical thinker. Your argument is highly logical but requires far too much analytical tthought for the average consumer. Ever hear of "an elevator pitch?" You need to get the product message out in a few short words if you want to get through to the bulk of consumers.

The name "iPhone" says this is "an iPod that 'does phone.'" That allows Apple to leverage the enormous value of the iPod brand and at the same time indicate a new product direction. An "Apple Phone" is not going to be identified as an iPod.

ex-hp
Feb 3, 2007, 04:24 AM
screw the phone, when does os 10.5 come out?

SpaceJello
Feb 4, 2007, 03:07 PM
Hey can't post in the news forum, but thought i would post it here,

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022007/business/apple_ad_it_coming_business_janet_whitman.htm