PDA

View Full Version : Cisco And Apple Reach iPhone Trademark Agreement




Unspeaked
Feb 21, 2007, 08:14 PM
LINK (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070221/cisco_apple.html?.v=1)


Cisco, Apple Settle High-Stakes iPhone Trademark-Infringement Lawsuit

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Cisco Systems Inc. and Apple Inc. said Wednesday they have settled the trademark-infringement lawsuit that threatened to derail Apple's use of the "iPhone" name for its much-hyped new iPod-cellular phone gadget.

The companies said they reached an agreement that will allow Apple to use the name for its sleek new multimedia device in exchange for exploring wide-ranging "interoperability" between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications.
The showdown between the Silicon Valley tech heavyweights erupted last month when Cisco sued Apple in San Francisco federal court claiming that Apple's use of the iPhone name constituted a "willful and malicious" violation of a trademark that Cisco has owned since 2000.

Cisco's Linksys division has been using the trademark since last spring on a line of phones that make free long-distance calls over the Internet using a technology called Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP.



WildCowboy
Feb 21, 2007, 08:16 PM
Sure doesn't sound like Apple gave up much of anything. Cisco must have known their trademark case was shaky at best. It's probably all for the best...keep everything amicable and foster collaboration.

EricNau
Feb 21, 2007, 08:17 PM
Obviously Cisco wasn't in this for anything more than publicity.

MacNut
Feb 21, 2007, 08:24 PM
Honestly I would think Cisco would have the better argument for the term iPhone VOIP is Internet phone after all.

smueboy
Feb 21, 2007, 08:33 PM
I think Cisco played their hand fairly well. They have gained publicity from this, and may gain from some sort of partnership with Apple in the future.

macridah
Feb 21, 2007, 08:35 PM
good to get this out of the way. hope it helps the stock.

johnmartin78
Feb 21, 2007, 09:29 PM
I personaly think the whole lawsuit thing was a publicity stunt.Both companies got millions of dollars in free advertising,especially Cisco.Who even knew they had an "iPhone" until the suit,except geeks.Apple execs go to Cisco boys and say.."so heres the thing,were making an iPhone,the patent you have is basically expired,and its not a cell phone.but after we launch,you file suit,we will get a few weeks of buzz surounding both companies over the lawsuit,then we settle go on about our buisness".

MacRumors
Feb 21, 2007, 09:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Cisco and Apple have announced that they have reached an agreement (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/21iphone.html) over the iPhone trademark dispute that erupted (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/10/cisco-suing-apple-for-iphone-trademark-infringement/) soon after Apple announced the iPhone at Macworld San Francisco.

Under the agreement, both companies are free to use the “iPhone” trademark on their products throughout the world. Both companies acknowledge the trademark ownership rights that have been granted, and each side will dismiss any pending actions regarding the trademark. In addition, Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications.

Other terms of the agreement remain confidential. Cisco launched their brand of "iPhone" VOIP handsets (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/12/18/cisco-not-apple-launches-iphone/) in December, and has held the US trademark for the "iPhone," whereas Apple has the mark in other countries.

~Shard~
Feb 21, 2007, 09:41 PM
I knew Apple wouldn't come out on the losing side of this. It just wouldn't be right if the iPhone wasn't called, well, the iPhone! ;) :D :cool:

wakerider017
Feb 21, 2007, 09:43 PM
Apple is a bully. :p

synth3tik
Feb 21, 2007, 09:43 PM
Finally it's over, I won't have to hear it anymore. And I wwon't have to have an "Apple Phone"...:p

~Shard~
Feb 21, 2007, 09:44 PM
Apple is a bully. :p

Nothing wrong with that. It's business after all... :p ;) :cool:

Multimedia
Feb 21, 2007, 09:45 PM
Thank God. :)

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 09:46 PM
The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is that Apple started iWhatever. If I had a say in Apple, I would have trademarked the i prefix.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 09:49 PM
Obviously, as it turned out, Apple where unable to get Cisco's Trademark, as they thought, and had to comprise.

Apple lost because it couldn't get the iPhone trade mark all to itself, as it thought.

At least its over, and Apple can move on.

brepublican
Feb 21, 2007, 09:49 PM
I knew Apple wouldn't come out on the losing side of this. It just wouldn't be right if the iPhone wasn't called, well, the iPhone! ;) :D :cool:
Finally! Good to get all that nonsense out of the way. I'm sure Apple realises no one will confuse the true iPhone with those ugly Cisco POS 'iPhones':apple:

ModestPenguin
Feb 21, 2007, 09:51 PM
Nothing wrong with that. It's business after all... :p ;) :cool:

But oh Jesus...If those microsoft Bast***s ever push anyone around again...so help me!:D :p

But apple can do what it wants. I like them better.:p



Nothing against you Shard, I agree, I just think it's funny that we all freak out at Microsoft for bullying but the times apple does the same thing, myself included, think of it as great business...lol
:D

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 09:52 PM
The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is that Apple started iWhatever. If I had a say in Apple, I would have trademarked the i prefix.

No Apple did NOT start the iEverything, it jumped on the bandwagon.

And Apple could not possibly get an "i" trademark.

polyesterlester
Feb 21, 2007, 09:53 PM
Am I the only one that finds this a little disconcerting? Apple has to try to work in interoperability with another company's product that's also called iPhone? That seems like it's going to cause nothing but confusion for customers.

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 09:54 PM
No Apple did NOT start the iEverything, it jumped on the bandwagon.

And Apple could not possibly get an "i" trademark.

Then enlighten me. Who was first?

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 09:56 PM
Then enlighten me. Who was first?

I don't know but I DO KNOW that Apple where not the first.

EDIT:
Infogear had the iPhone registration since 1996.

So, one, example for starters! :-)
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 09:58 PM
I don't know but I DO KNOW that Apple where not the first.

Ok, sounds like a stretch, but if Apple wasn't first, then why did they have to explain that the i stood for internet?

iPoodOverZune
Feb 21, 2007, 09:59 PM
Therefore, all the hoopla over trademark thingy was only to generate buzz. And I think both companies agreed to it - any publicity is good publicity. It did remain in the news for quite a while. Good that they decided to end it (not solve it, it was already solved probably! :)

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
Ok, sounds like a stretch, but if Apple wasn't first, then why did they have to explain that the i stood for internet?

Infogear had the iPhone registration since 1996.

So, one, example for starters! :-)
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/...ne_tradem.html


So, no, not a stretch at all.

polyesterlester
Feb 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
No Apple did NOT start the iEverything, it jumped on the bandwagon.

And Apple could not possibly get an "i" trademark.

Seriously. There were lots of "i" products before the iMac, Apple just became the most popular. Saying that Apple started the iEverything is like saying that MySpace started the MyEverything. They just popularized them, but neither prefix was all that unique or original.

twoodcc
Feb 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
this is very good news! thank goodness it's over...hopefully :apple:

simX
Feb 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is that Apple started iWhatever. If I had a say in Apple, I would have trademarked the i prefix.

... and ...

No Apple did NOT start the iEverything, it jumped on the bandwagon.

And Apple could not possibly get an "i" trademark.

Oh, right, just like Apple didn't start the whole "translucent plastics" thing; you know, that fad that just happened to coincidentally start right after the original iMac came out, where you started finding computer peripherals have colored translucent plastics, and even office supplies like staplers and chairs followed suit. Yup, Apple was just jumping on the bandwagon there!

The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is when people dismiss the amount of influence that Apple has on the market. If I had a say in Apple, I would trademark the term "bandwagon" and then sue everyone who accuses Apple for jumping on it, because apparently some people don't know what it means.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:02 PM
Ok, sounds like a stretch, but if Apple wasn't first, then why did they have to explain that the i stood for internet?


Answer: They didn't. Its all in your head.

Please remove your fan boy attitude right now - if you have one.

If you do not - please accept my apologies for inferring such a thought.

... and ...



Oh, right, just like Apple didn't start the whole "translucent plastics" thing; you know, that fad that just happened to coincidentally start right after the original iMac came out, where you started finding computer peripherals have colored translucent plastics, and even office supplies like staplers and chairs followed suit. Yup, Apple was just jumping on the bandwagon there!

The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is when people dismiss the amount of influence that Apple has on the market. If I had a say in Apple, I would trademark the term "bandwagon" and then sue everyone who accuses Apple for jumping on it.


NO THEY DIDN'T START THE I<EVERYTHING>.. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ITS OUT THERE!!

nagromme
Feb 21, 2007, 10:02 PM
Apple wasn't first, it's just coincidence that more than one company came up with the idea of using an "i" (out of all the 26 things they could have chosen).

Obviously there was no "bandwagon" to jump on. Apple didn't ride the iPhone's massive publicity in naming the iMac :o

Apple DID have to explain the "i" because next to nobody had heard of it, and nobody was using it in exactly the way Apple was. (Their explanation being rather vague--it could be "I" or "Internet".) Explaining a new name just makes sense. And yes, Cisco's claim on the name was legitimate--they bought the company that used the iPhone name long ago.

You really think Apple was riding on some existing brand awareness that "i" prefixes had?

There's such a thing as trying too hard to find "fanboys" :o

(An interesting note: Apple's product was named iPhone in the media long before it was officially called so by Apple.)

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:04 PM
Infogear had the iPhone registration since 1996.

So, one, example for starters! :-)
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/...ne_tradem.html


So, no, not a stretch at all.

I stand corrected, well played.

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:05 PM
... and ...



Oh, right, just like Apple didn't start the whole "translucent plastics" thing; you know, that fad that just happened to coincidentally start right after the original iMac came out, where you started finding computer peripherals have colored translucent plastics, and even office supplies like staplers and chairs followed suit. Yup, Apple was just jumping on the bandwagon there!

The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is when people dismiss the amount of influence that Apple has on the market. If I had a say in Apple, I would trademark the term "bandwagon" and then sue everyone who accuses Apple for jumping on it, because apparently some people don't know what it means.

Thank you, that is the essence of my point.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:07 PM
I knew what the 'I' stood for, but then I don't count for the entire population. Back then I would not have even considered of buying a Mac.

Personally, I think people are getting carried away with apple 'invented' everything notion. Too many fan boi attitudes.



Apple DID have to explain the "i" because next to nobody had heard of it, and nobody was using it in exactly the way Apple was. (Their explanation being rather vague--it could be "I" or "Internet".) Explaining a new name just makes sense.

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:09 PM
Personally, I think people are getting carried away with apple 'invented' everything notion. Too many fan boi attitudes.

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: If you're not a "fan boi" why are you on this forum?

nagromme
Feb 21, 2007, 10:09 PM
I knew what the 'I' stood for, but then I don't count for the entire population.

What do you mean, you knew? It could stand for anything any company wants to make it stand for. You can't know what the company means until the company tells you :)

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: If you're not a "fan boi" why are you on this forum?

A chance to drop clever (?) insults like "fan boi"? :p

Personally, I think people are getting carried away with apple 'invented' everything notion. Too many fan boi attitudes.

Apple almost certainly DID invent the "i" thing in the iMac's name. The company Cisco now owns ALSO invented the "i" thing. Two companies naming two products both used the same letter--not really that big a coincidence.

Do you think Apple intentionally copied the iPhone name when they named the iMac, rather than coming up with it independently? An interesting theory, but if you're sure it's the correct theory without evidence, that could seem a little "carried away" :)

I'm not sure what naming adds or subtracts from Apple's undisputed history of tech innovation, though.

Peace
Feb 21, 2007, 10:12 PM
Who cares !!

Both sides win.Especially Apple because the Linksys iPhone is destined to the scrap heap with all eyes on the real iPhone.

I just can't see how the two will use the same name and have both survive.

Collaboration ?.This means Skype comes to the iPhone rev.b

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:14 PM
I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: If you're not a "fan boi" why are you on this forum?

News flash: this forums is just not for "Fan Boi's"

Why cannot we have an open mind, instead of giving high five's of everything that Apple does ( paraphrases a good comment from someone else recently )?

I've already given evidence that Apple did NOT evident i<everything>, what more evidence do you need?

Apple came up with iMac - so what? The i prefix was hardly original at the time.

What do you mean, you knew? It could stand for anything any company wants to make it stand for. You can't know what the company means until the company tells you :)



A chance to drop clever (?) insults like "fan boi"? :p



Apple DID in fact invent the "i" thing in the iMac's name. The company Cisco now owns ALSO invented the "i" thing.

Do you think Apple copied the iPhone name when they named the iMac, rather than coming up with it independently? An interesting theory, but if you're sure of that without evidence, that could seem a little "carried away" :)

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:21 PM
News flash: this forums is just not for "Fan Boi's"

Why cannot we have an open mind, instead of giving high five's of everything that Apple does ( paraphrases a good comment from someone else recently )?

Really? This site is about Apple/Mac rumors.... RUMORS who else but fan boi's care about what Apple might be doing?

You pinned me, though... I am a die hard Apple fan BOY. Been using Macs since 86 on System 6.X. I've taken a lot of flak just for using and loving a different OS, and I believe I'm a better person for it. Belittle me if you must, low self esteem manifests itself that way most often.

SpaceJello
Feb 21, 2007, 10:22 PM
I don't think anyone read the fine print saying that there will be some "...interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications".

Apple is used to closed systems, like iPods and iTunes... where no one music player works with iTunes aside from iPods. That is a key factor to their success. I think this will force apple's iPhone to open up and have some unforeseen connection with cicso's stuff. Which may not necessarily be good.

We will have to see, but I think we don't know everything about the agreement that's for sure.

Cult Follower
Feb 21, 2007, 10:23 PM
Apple may not have owned the trademark, but no matter who owned it the name would scream Apple, especially after the SteveNote. This way both parties are happy. I didn't like the sound of iPhone anyway.

nagromme
Feb 21, 2007, 10:24 PM
Why cannot we have an open mind, instead of giving high five's of everything that Apple does ( paraphrases a good comment from someone else recently )?
Well said. People who are really quick to praise an Apple product/decision/anything, without thinking first, come off as emotionally-driven and probably enjoying their Apple products too much.

Ditto for being really quick to put down things from Apple. That too comes off as emotionally-driven.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:25 PM
I'd rather be open minded than believe that Apple or any other company can do no wrong.

If you have that attitude about these forums, then you are very wrong. Discussion groups are just that - to debate - not to worship Apple at every turn.



Really? This site is about Apple/Mac rumors.... RUMORS who else but fan boi's care about what Apple might be doing?

You pinned me, though... I am a die hard Apple fan BOY. Been using Macs since 86 on System 6.X. I've taken a lot of flak just for using and loving a different OS, and I believe I'm a better person for it. Belittle me if you must, low self esteem manifests itself that way most often.

ipearx
Feb 21, 2007, 10:26 PM
Wow, I can't believe how much publicity the Cisco iPhone has had from this. it's almost in their interests to drag it out as long as possible.

http://bla.st/iphone/

iLunar
Feb 21, 2007, 10:27 PM
News flash: this forums is just not for "Fan Boi's"

Why cannot we have an open mind, instead of giving high five's of everything that Apple does ( paraphrases a good comment from someone else recently )?

Must you come into every thread on the iPhone and make snide comments and basically ruin the thread. It's been only 1 page and you're already dropping the "fan boi" comment.

SiliconAddict
Feb 21, 2007, 10:27 PM
Sure doesn't sound like Apple gave up much of anything. Cisco must have known their trademark case was shaky at best. It's probably all for the best...keep everything amicable and foster collaboration.

You sound like a glass is half full type of person. Personally it sounds as if Steve caved. Who does this agreement benefit more? Apple or Cisco? The iphone is going to be sold in the US well before anywhere else. Without that trademark Apple would have to rename everything, everything in the OS, iTunes, website, etc. Its more of a PITA for Apple then anything else. Alternatively Cisco now gets to piggyback their hardware on Apple's success.

Yah I think Apple knew they were up crap creek, at least in the US. As has been stated before the company Cisco bought has had the name for years. Well before the iPod, and you sure as heck can't trademark putting an i infront of a product's name. That has been done for years as well *Holds up his iPaq 3630 circa 2000*

polyesterlester
Feb 21, 2007, 10:29 PM
Really? This site is about Apple/Mac rumors.... RUMORS who else but fan boi's care about what Apple might be doing?

You pinned me, though... I am a die hard Apple fan BOY. Been using Macs since 86 on System 6.X. I've taken a lot of flak just for using and loving a different OS, and I believe I'm a better person for it. Belittle me if you must, low self esteem manifests itself that way most often.

Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between a fan and a fan boi?

I'm a huge Apple fan, and I care about what they're doing and what they might be doing, but I also can recognize that they're not perfect, they're not always right, in fact sometimes they can be downright bullies.

SiliconAddict
Feb 21, 2007, 10:29 PM
Wow, I can't believe how much publicity the Cisco iPhone has had from this. it's almost in their interests to drag it out as long as possible.

http://bla.st/iphone/

So TIM. Are you going to every forum on the net posting the same thing? :rolleyes:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/21/apple-and-cisco-settle/#comments

nagromme
Feb 21, 2007, 10:29 PM
*Holds up his iPaq 3630 circa 2000*
Rhymes suspiciously with the 1998 iMac ;) (Which, unlike the 1996 iPhone, had huge brand awareness and media attention worth playing off of.)

WildCowboy
Feb 21, 2007, 10:30 PM
You sound like a glass is half full type of person. Personally it sounds as if Steve caved. Who does this agreement benefit more? Apple or Cisco? The iphone is going to be sold in the US well before anywhere else. Without that trademark Apple would have to rename everything, everything in the OS, iTunes, website, etc. Its more of a PITA for Apple then anything else. Alternatively Cisco now gets to piggyback their hardware on Apple's success.

"Interoperability" is a pretty low bar. An agreement to "explore" interoperability is absurdly low...Apple really gave up next to nothing.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:32 PM
Must you come into every thread on the iPhone and make snide comments and basically ruin the thread. It's been only 1 page and you're already dropping the "fan boi" comment.

Do the fan boi's have to come out and suggest that Apple can do no wrong and invented everything? Even suggesting that they invented the i<everything>?

People should do their research before posting inaccurate information.

OK, I may over do the Fan Boi phrase - granted.

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:34 PM
I'd rather be open minded than believe that Apple or any other company can do no wrong.

If you have that attitude about these forums, then you are very wrong. Discussion groups are just that - to debate - not to worship Apple at every turn.

I completely agree, debate to your hearts content. Why resort to name calling? I conceded to your evidence.

Just to be clear, I do not worship Apple, and do admit they have failed. As I said I take a lot of S*** over just using Apple products. Everyone knows they're not perfect, just as Microsoft isn't.

OK, Stella, how about a truce? I don't come here to start fights.

brepublican
Feb 21, 2007, 10:34 PM
... and ...



Oh, right, just like Apple didn't start the whole "translucent plastics" thing; you know, that fad that just happened to coincidentally start right after the original iMac came out, where you started finding computer peripherals have colored translucent plastics, and even office supplies like staplers and chairs followed suit. Yup, Apple was just jumping on the bandwagon there!

The thing that gets me, and that everyone seems to let slide these days, is when people dismiss the amount of influence that Apple has on the market. If I had a say in Apple, I would trademark the term "bandwagon" and then sue everyone who accuses Apple for jumping on it, because apparently some people don't know what it means.
Nice rant. I should trademark 'rant' and slap your a$$ with a lawsuit :D

JK, you make some valid points. Apple is definitely a trendsetter :apple:

nagromme
Feb 21, 2007, 10:35 PM
Do the fan boi's have to come out and suggest that Apple can do no wrong and invented everything? Even suggesting that they invented the i<everything>?

People should do their research before posting inaccurate information.

OK, I may over do the Fan Boi phrase - granted.

A factual correction like "the iPhone name was used in 1996" would actually be MORE effective in combating the deadly "fan boi" plague if you steer clear of the insults. Facts+insults will always hurt your cause, when facts alone might help it.

Failing that, "Mac zealot" is a good one to throw into the mix :)

Some people still don't know that the iPhone name is so old, so your bringing that up is a very worthwhile contribution.

Peace
Feb 21, 2007, 10:36 PM
"Interoperability" is a pretty low bar. An agreement to "explore" interoperability is absurdly low...Apple really gave up next to nothing.

Exactly! Apple can "explore interoperability" for 20 years.

Teddy's
Feb 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
News flash: this forums is just not for "Fan Boi's"


It's for trolls too!

eeer...

Well, it's good that RIM didn't trademark iPhone or there would be blood all over.

SiliconAddict
Feb 21, 2007, 10:38 PM
Rhymes suspiciously with the 1998 iMac ;)

Maybe so, but again you can't trademark iEverything right? A specific word like iPhone, iRan, iRack, iSaw, etc. But the concept all everything with an i in front of it? And even if they could; from what I understand about trademarks its a defend it or loose it situation. There have been plenty of other products out there with i's in front of them and Apple hasn't thrown a hissy fit.

I really think Apple knew they were somewhat hosed in the US and settled.

Cult Follower
Feb 21, 2007, 10:39 PM
In this agreement it appears that cisco did get the good end of the agreement, but what Steve wants Steve gets.

Telp
Feb 21, 2007, 10:40 PM
YAY its about time too, but seriously, thats good for everyone and im glad its finally over.

MacNut
Feb 21, 2007, 10:41 PM
Why can't Apple just come up with something original, Everything is "i" now. How bout some actual names for stuff.

Stella
Feb 21, 2007, 10:42 PM
I completely agree, debate to your hearts content. Why resort to name calling? I conceded to your evidence.

Just to be clear, I do not worship Apple, and do admit they have failed. As I said I take a lot of S*** over just using Apple products. Everyone knows they're not perfect, just as Microsoft isn't.

OK, Stella, how about a truce? I don't come here to start fights.

I don't come here to start fights either. I would love to debate without the exaggeration - and that what gets on my nerves - "God like Apple" Attitude.

Yes, as I said previously, I may do use the 'Fan Boi" phrase too much - which is name calling - and that is driven by the excess worshipping of Apple, which at some point is not accurate.

We all take **** about using Apple products - especially their computers and OS... when you get a windows user saying "Oh, Apple is a toy OS", when out of the box is far more functional than Windows, for example, you get an development environment shipped with the OS. Far more than you can say about Windows.

Anyway, its bed time.

Happy dreaming about iPhone, iTV and what not!! :D

McGarvels
Feb 21, 2007, 10:42 PM
I knew what the 'I' stood for, but then I don't count for the entire population. Back then I would not have even considered of buying a Mac.

Personally, I think people are getting carried away with apple 'invented' everything notion. Too many fan boi attitudes.

Please learn how to spell "boy" correctly. Writing it the way you do just proves your immaturity and ignorance. Moreover, name calling is also a clue to your maturity. Do unto others...right??? However, I must agree with the fact that a blind following in any aspect is not the most healthy thing. One should always be objective. Let's all just get along and be happy that an Apple iPhone will be ours soon.

Cheers!

pimentoLoaf
Feb 21, 2007, 10:43 PM
Apple stock soared today (21 Feb) on analyst confidence despite the lackluster performance of the market overall.

Possibility of the mid-90's when this news hits the fan tomorrow? :eek:

Teddy's
Feb 21, 2007, 10:43 PM
Why can't Apple just come up with something original, Everything is "i" now. How bout some actual names for stuff.

Yeah, it's time for some change. They dropped "Power--"

JackRipper
Feb 21, 2007, 10:49 PM
I don't come here to start fights either. I would love to debate without the exaggeration - and that what gets on my nerves - "God like Apple" Attitude.

Yes, as I said previously, I may do use the 'Fan Boi" phrase too much - which is name calling - and that is driven by the excess worshipping of Apple, which at some point is not accurate.

We all take **** about using Apple products - especially their computers and OS... when you get a windows user saying "Oh, Apple is a toy OS", when out of the box is far more functional than Windows, for example, you get an development environment shipped with the OS. Far more than you can say about Windows.

Anyway, its bed time.

Happy dreaming about iPhone, iTV and what not!! :D

It's a truce, then. No hard feelings?

chubad
Feb 21, 2007, 10:52 PM
Yeah, it's time for some change. They dropped "Power--"

No way. Not when Apple has an iCEO!

shalghamz
Feb 21, 2007, 11:08 PM
LOL...WTF? Ok Apple, Ok Cisco...Let's leave everything as-is we were all just kidding. Ha!

I dont know that it was a marketing ploy, though...I mean honestly, how much exposure did this issue receive in the mainstream? And if it received ample non-mainstream exposure then the people who were reading it were Apple fans to begin with (like me, obviously).

Anyway, can't we push the release date of the iPhone, I want a couple now.

dongmin
Feb 21, 2007, 11:11 PM
Yah I think Apple knew they were up crap creek, at least in the US. As has been stated before the company Cisco bought has had the name for years. Well before the iPod, and you sure as heck can't trademark putting an i infront of a product's name. That has been done for years as well *Holds up his iPaq 3630 circa 2000*You're joking right? Apple knew all along that they had the upper hand. That's why they went ahead and announced the name even though they didn't have the trademark. Notice that when Apple released the "iTV", Apple was much more careful about the name. With the iPhone, Steve was confident that the name would be kosher.

I don't know what people are saying about Apple "caving in." It sounds to me like they gave up nothing other than letting Cisco share the trademark. "Under the agreement, both companies are free to use the “iPhone” trademark on their products throughout the world....In addition, Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications."

Look, in about a year, Cisco's iPhone will disappear from the market. Really, who other than the geeks who blow their money at Fry's is gonna buy this iPhone thing from Linksys (???). Surely, you must be taking the piss.

Whistleway
Feb 21, 2007, 11:31 PM
This is another Apple Corp issue.. Cisco is waiting for iPhone to get big before it taps on Apple for more dough. Apple again is falling victim just like they did with Beatles..

Oh well... SJ is just too trusting especially those in suits..

Look, in about a year, Cisco's iPhone will disappear from the market. Really, who other than the geeks who blow their money at Fry's is gonna buy this iPhone thing from Linksys (???). Surely, you must be taking the piss.

Sorry, but is not really true. It borders ignorance, especially if taken into consideration the power of branding..

Imagine Apple doesn't really own the iPod trademark. How would that affect the stability of the business, let alone the brand imagery on the consumer's mind.

If iPhone takes off big, there is nothing (probably) Apple could do but to pay Cisco lots of dough, just like they had to do with Apple Corps..

Peace
Feb 21, 2007, 11:42 PM
[snippet]




If iPhone takes off big, there is nothing (probably) Apple could do but to pay Cisco lots of dough, just like they had to do with Apple Corps..

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me at all..

You make it sound like Apple will have to pay Cisco cash IF the iPhone becomes popular.

ipearx
Feb 22, 2007, 12:26 AM
Maybe so, but again you can't trademark iEverything right? A specific word like iPhone, iRan, iRack, iSaw, etc. But the concept all everything with an i in front of it? And even if they could; from what I understand about trademarks its a defend it or loose it situation. There have been plenty of other products out there with i's in front of them and Apple hasn't thrown a hissy fit.

One difference is everyone has been calling the Apple iPhone by that name for years, even when it didn't exist yet. I don't know much about US patent law, but couldn't Apple claim the term iPhone is too commonly used already to be trademarked?
I wonder what Apple would prefer, iPhone not being trademarkable by anyone, or having to share the trademark with someone else?

iPoodOverZune
Feb 22, 2007, 12:55 AM
It's for trolls too!

eeer...

Well, it's good that RIM didn't trademark iPhone or there would be blood all over.
------
PB15, MBP17 and a Moron PC at work


Did you know PC is an acronym for Piece of Crap! :D

maxp1
Feb 22, 2007, 01:02 AM
Apple always had the upper hand in this negotiation. The iPhone trademark was either lost or unenforceable. By unenforceable I mean that regardless of whether Apple had official ownership of the trademark, people were going to call the phone that Apple produced an 'iPhone'. It never mattered what Apple actually 'officially' called the phone once Steve got on stage and unofficially called it the 'iPhone'. That's why Cisco had to give in, they had lost already. And by give in, I bet they got almost nothing. The agreement about 'interoperability' will lead to nothing.

Regarding the iWhatever, Apple isn't really an innovation company. They take what other people do, make it better and popularize it. The GUI? Done by PARC, but made useable by Apple. The all-in-one computer? Hell, done by Osbourne in the early 80's, made popular by Apple. Laptop computers? I'd argue that Powerbooks started a huge upswing in their use. The list goes on. Same story with iWhatever. They weren't the first, but they made it popular and spread it's use to a point where it's ubiquitous where previously it was just some just some silly people putting 'i' in front of things.

iPoodOverZune
Feb 22, 2007, 01:14 AM
Do the fan boi's have to come out and suggest that Apple can do no wrong and invented everything? Even suggesting that they invented the i<everything>?

People should do their research before posting inaccurate information.

OK, I may over do the Fan Boi phrase - granted.

As much as I like that you are not a fan boi and try to be practical, but your excessive negative attitude towards these forums says one thing - There is one "t" in Stella that stands for Troll; and one T is quite enough in all the forums to run everyone to anger. I think you can disagree but you don't need to pass insults on others. Disagree and yet pass your accurate information to others as to be informative without arousing someone to the cock-fight and don't be negative about each and every comment almost everywhere! And if you think that the discussion derives you to a point to get past your normal senses, just leave the forum! Remember again, one T is quite enough!
BTW, how old are you!
Sorry for offending you with this, but I think you should correct your attitude a little bit as much as many apple worshippers here should also. By all means, be an Apple admirer (but please not a worshipper).

stephenli
Feb 22, 2007, 01:19 AM
Seriously. There were lots of "i" products before the iMac, Apple just became the most popular.


o really ...at least i didnt remember any of it come before the iMac..
Now its too much!!! I even thought the i prefix was dead in marketing a product...

Analog Kid
Feb 22, 2007, 01:37 AM
Am I the only one who thinks Apple allowed the lawsuit to strong arm Cingular into allowing VOIP apps?

Apple didn't need to call it the iPhone any more than they needed iTV. Maybe they were fighting the lawsuit because they didn't want the Cisco phone associated with Apple-- but I have a feeling it was so they could go back to Cingular and say "branding is important to the iPhone and the only way we can keep it is to interoperate with Cisco VOIP bridges"...

bretm
Feb 22, 2007, 01:41 AM
We all take **** about using Apple products - especially their computers and OS... when you get a windows user saying "Oh, Apple is a toy OS", when out of the box is far more functional than Windows, for example, you get an development environment shipped with the OS. Far more than you can say about Windows.

You do? Why? If anything it's the reverse. People see Apple users as elitists. People who insist on the best of everything types. I find that PC users just assume these days that Apple computers are somehow magical media creation machines and that all the great minds use them, blah, blah, blah.

They both achieve the same task in exactly the same way. I find the mac's industrial design and software design to simply be more elegant and useable and I'm willing to pay for it, just so I don't have to stress over crappy software design, hardware incompatibility, and viruses.

Who thinks Apple is a toy? That's just a bizzare absurd statement.

MacsAttack
Feb 22, 2007, 01:45 AM
Regarding the iWhatever, Apple isn't really an innovation company. They take what other people do, make it better and popularize it. The GUI? Done by PARC, but made useable by Apple. The all-in-one computer? Hell, done by Osbourne in the early 80's, made popular by Apple. Laptop computers? I'd argue that Powerbooks started a huge upswing in their use. The list goes on. Same story with iWhatever. They weren't the first, but they made it popular and spread it's use to a point where it's ubiquitous where previously it was just some just some silly people putting 'i' in front of things.

Now that is hitting the nail on the head...

Apple are good at taking concepts and combining them into things that "just work" with some inovative product design.

In many ways MicroSoft is the same - except they drop words like "inovative". "work", and "design".

SeaFox
Feb 22, 2007, 02:17 AM
So now we have to call them both the iPhone?

Does anyone else think that's dumb. :rolleyes:

Uragon
Feb 22, 2007, 02:26 AM
iPhone by tuesday?

I think some people in the forum, just make statements of being a "fun boy" or a blind loyalist on a jokingly matter, not really being a pure die-hard, Apple loving followers. Or, simply, they just want YOU to react blindly...
:confused:

aswitcher
Feb 22, 2007, 02:55 AM
Glad to see this sillyness ends.

polyesterlester
Feb 22, 2007, 02:55 AM
You do? Why? If anything it's the reverse. People see Apple users as elitists. People who insist on the best of everything types. I find that PC users just assume these days that Apple computers are somehow magical media creation machines and that all the great minds use them, blah, blah, blah.

They both achieve the same task in exactly the same way. I find the mac's industrial design and software design to simply be more elegant and useable and I'm willing to pay for it, just so I don't have to stress over crappy software design, hardware incompatibility, and viruses.

Who thinks Apple is a toy? That's just a bizzare absurd statement.

I hate the word 'elitist'. Does caring about things like good typography, appropriate imagery, and usability make me an elitist? If you ever bring the subject of typography up in a business meeting, you immediately get labeled an elitist. Perhaps being an elitist is a good thing. I'm an elitist because I care. "Look, I'm sorry that you don't care about quality, and that because I do care about quality you feel inferior."

That wasn't directed at you, I completely agree with what you said.

jonharris200
Feb 22, 2007, 04:15 AM
Glad to see this sillyness ends.

The sillyness about fan boy discussions or the sillyness about the iPhone suit? ;)

Does this remind anyone else of when Apple vs Apple 'settled' years ago? It feels almost like a non-settlement.

sunfast
Feb 22, 2007, 04:24 AM
They saw off Apple Corps so this was hardly likely to be any more than a small stumbling block

autrefois
Feb 22, 2007, 05:00 AM
So now we have to call them both the iPhone?

Does anyone else think that's dumb. :rolleyes:

Yes.

Other terms of the agreement remain confidential.

What I'm surprised with is that it doesn't seem like anyone is speculating as to whether or not there was a monetary agreement reached. Apple apparently ended up paying Apple Corp to get rights to the name Apple. Is there any reason to believe Apple, in addition to "explor[ing] opportunities for interoperability" didn't also agree to pay Cisco a monetary sum, or a % of Apple's iPhone sales, etc.? Cisco was first to release a product with that name, after all.

Anyway I'm glad there will be no more legal action about the dispute, but both companies using iPhone seems to me like both sides lost, not that both sides won.

miniConvert
Feb 22, 2007, 05:54 AM
iPhone and better Cisco compatibility? Sounds like a win-win to me...

ppnkg
Feb 22, 2007, 06:01 AM
Apple is a bully. :p

I think I agree. Although probably the technical aspects of the matter were not as complicated and a compromise could be reached in one way or antoher, what Steve did in January with the iphone was a mini-coup.

But yeah it's business after all.

Leoff
Feb 22, 2007, 06:19 AM
The thing that's funny about this is, if you go into an Apple store and ask for an iPhone, they're not going to ask you "which one?"

Same thing goes for a Cingular store (assuming the iPhone is sold through them).

But where will you Cisco's "iPhone" and, honestly, who's gonna buy it with all the other similar phones out there? For Cisco, it's effectively a dead name.

Teddy's
Feb 22, 2007, 06:32 AM
Did you know PC is an acronym for Piece of Crap! :D

I barely noticed it though :rolleyes:

clevin
Feb 22, 2007, 06:48 AM
Did you know PC is an acronym for Piece of Crap!

huh, interesting, I clearly remembered someone on this forum seriously taught me "mac is PC (so called personal computer) too", are you saying mac is crap?

sometimes respecting your opponent is a virtue, especially when you have only 5% market, may help you find out why u are not doing good in the market.

k2k koos
Feb 22, 2007, 07:04 AM
Now that is hitting the nail on the head...

Apple are good at taking concepts and combining them into things that "just work" with some inovative product design.

In many ways MicroSoft is the same - except they drop words like "inovative". "work", and "design".

I agree, Apple is an "innovating company", even with the iPhone (to stay close to this thread) they stated that they "re-invented" it.

Apple has a few inventions to it's name, but mostly innovations, and a lot of market firsts , the GUI was not a commercial product until the Macintosh to my knowledge, and I'm not sure, but Apple was close if not , the first with a true PDA (NEwton) , that boosted handwriting recognition.

The portable Macs discussed in the other post, could very well be the final answers to PDA's, i can see the headlines: Apple Re Invents the Newton :-)

imikem
Feb 22, 2007, 07:52 AM
Personally it sounds as if Steve caved. Who does this agreement benefit more? Apple or Cisco?

As someone who makes his living doing care and feeding of Cisco hardware, I feel obliged to suggest that this agreement could be potentially quite beneficial to both companies. Many here may not even be aware of Cisco's dominant position in the world of network hardware. It's not really an exaggeration to say that the Internet runs on Cisco.

Many areas exist where collaboration between the companies could yield improved products and features. For example, something I'm working with now: Network Access Control (Network Admission Control in Cisco parlance). Providing better support for this in MacOS X could make the already strong security story in Macs more compelling to businesses as they try to improve their network security stance. Conversely, failing to address this risks marginalization since you can bet Microsoft is working on NAC OS hooks.

That's just one example. The world of IP telephony is another, obviously. VPNs. On and on...

Apple can benefit by improved support for their products in the network closets that Cisco more or less owns (think wireless VOIP from your iPhone on corporate LANs as well as at home on your Linksys access point). Cisco can benefit by increased corporate visibility to ordinary users, by gaining momentum for initiatives such as NAC, and increased sales of gear blessed by both companies in their collaboration.

I think it's win-win. The month+ of controversy and free publicity for each didn't hurt either.

eenu
Feb 22, 2007, 08:04 AM
As much as I like that you are not a fan boi and try to be practical, but your excessive negative attitude towards these forums says one thing - There is one "t" in Stella that stands for Troll; and one T is quite enough in all the forums to run everyone to anger. I think you can disagree but you don't need to pass insults on others. Disagree and yet pass your accurate information to others as to be informative without arousing someone to the cock-fight and don't be negative about each and every comment almost everywhere! And if you think that the discussion derives you to a point to get past your normal senses, just leave the forum! Remember again, one T is quite enough!
BTW, how old are you!
Sorry for offending you with this, but I think you should correct your attitude a little bit as much as many apple worshippers here should also. By all means, be an Apple admirer (but please not a worshipper).

I have to agree with this. Stella you have had a number of valid points but the way in which you bring them across to people is rude, agressive and in peoples faces. This leads to people not wanting to listen or agree with you because you appear to them to be a p***k!

Almost every thread i have seen you in you have had this attitude and casue friction. There are better ways to put your valid and often factually correct points across, please use them.

Digitalclips
Feb 22, 2007, 08:09 AM
But oh Jesus...If those microsoft Bast***s ever push anyone around again...so help me!:D :p

But apple can do what it wants. I like them better.:p



Nothing against you Shard, I agree, I just think it's funny that we all freak out at Microsoft for bullying but the times apple does the same thing, myself included, think of it as great business...lol
:D

When a company with a 95% market share does it it is slightly different one could argue.

Most times the criticism of MS 'bullying' is when it simply rips off another product such as: Mac UI, Netscape, Java, (make your own list here) and rolls them into its user-base by inclusion in its OS thus crushing the original product.

I don't see the Cisco and Apple 'run in' over a trade mark as remotely similar.

Digitalclips
Feb 22, 2007, 08:24 AM
Stella, I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: If you're not a "fan boi" why are you on this forum?

I have asked Stella this so many times (after an anti Mac or pro PC tirade) I have lost count. He flat out denies being a Troll so I have to believe he doesn't think he is. Personally I think he is a poor misunderstood, confused soul. He should be given the URL of a nice friendly PC forum where he can slag off Apple and Apple enthusiasts and drink Belgian beer in Canada in peace :)

p0intblank
Feb 22, 2007, 08:31 AM
This is awesome news! Even if they do have to share the "iPhone" brand, all is good.

Digitalclips
Feb 22, 2007, 08:40 AM
This is awesome news! Even if they do have to share the "iPhone" brand, all is good.
Photo Slideshow DVDs
60 Photos, 3 Songs
Full Motion Menus
Great Gift Idea!

Is the PhotoDVD thing a joke? You are advertising 'you make a DVD with pics and music' on a Mac forum? I have to assume it is ... good one! ROFL .

Ha ze
Feb 22, 2007, 09:05 AM
I don't like this, not because I feel Apple gave up to much or anything
I just like (A)Phone much much more.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 09:34 AM
They should've just called it a Newton and put a colored classic Apple logo on it. That would've been sweet. Heck I'd buy one just because of that :D

Glad this legal hubbub is over, though I wonder what this whole "exploring" interoperability and so forth is all about. Perhaps a free VOIP phone with every Mac :p

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 10:23 AM
Regarding the iWhatever, Apple isn't really an innovation company. They take what other people do, make it better and popularize it.You say "they take what other people do, make it better and popularize it" all in one breath and trivialize Apple to such a degree it's not even funny. For your infotainment, Apple does not "popularize" their products, the consumer does. We do it with our wallets. Did Apple "popularize" The Cube? No. If it was as simple as you make it sound, they sure as hell would have.

No. What Apple does of late (especially the iPod) is take the MP3 player, which had a very modest presence in the marketplace and builds it into a device that now accounts for about half its revenue. It intergrates perfectly with their online music store which again, while not the first, has grown into by far the largest ever, selling an amount of music, tv shows, movies, books and music videos that would have seemed a mere pipedream just 5 years ago.

And let's consider the iPod 2001 -- 5GB, monocrome screen, played music only, had the most modest calendar and sold for $399. Was Apple afraid to release such an "expensive" product? No. The press went wild about its expense but the public said (with their wallets) "this is worth the price". Skip, skip, skip ahead... and the iPhone is starting to be released amongst the same price negativity. It's going to be interesting.

-----

We all know what competition is. Competition is many companies in the same business, all with roughly the same product. Pros and cons abound and from advertising, positive word of mouth and proper comparison, the consumer makes his choice. What very few companies are able to do is design such a product that while there exists "competition", in essence, there really isn't due to the overwhelming success of the company on top. I have a hard time thinking of any one company who has such a breakaway product in their prospective field that mirrors Apple's success with their music player. It's that rare.

[Edit: One obvious overwhelming success story is Microsoft. With 95% of the computers running their OS, they essentially have no competition. Odd that they seem to be always playing catch-up with Apple.]

In this day and age, it's all about "building a better mouse trap", which I suppose is MAX1P-speak for "taking what other people do and make it better and popularize it." Until we can learn how to make things invisible or teleport things through the air by breaking down their molecules, the inventors of this world are pretty much stuck with taking what other people do and making it better.

Thomas Edison's greatest challenge was the development of a practical incandescent, electric light. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't "invent" the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon a 50-year-old idea. link (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledison.htm) Yep... Thomas Edison copied. It was a 50-year old idea. But, thank God he did.

But I actually think you're mistaken on this point. I think that Apple is plenty inventive. And so would the U.S. Patent office.

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 10:44 AM
Honestly, I would not be a bit surprised if Apple and Cisco weren't yelling at each other in the restaurant whilst holding hands and playing footsy under the table. All of this rigomoroll in the press about the suit has been nothing but free publicity for both companies. It would not surprise me if the iPhone was released soon ahead of schedule with this news helping to get it back in the news right before the big "drop".

davey-nb
Feb 22, 2007, 10:46 AM
I have asked Stella this so many times (after an anti Mac or pro PC tirade) I have lost count. He flat out denies being a Troll so I have to believe he doesn't think he is. Personally I think he is a poor misunderstood, confused soul. He should be given the URL of a nice friendly PC forum where he can slag off Apple and Apple enthusiasts and drink Belgian beer in Canada in peace :)
There's a great feature on Macrumors I've had to resort to a few times.
If you are signed in, click on the User Name you are tired of hearing from and select View Plublic Profile. Then you have to option to add that person to your Ignore list!
That way all of their posts are removed from your version of Macrumors and you save yourself lots of exasperation.
PS – You need to be signed in for this to work.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 11:34 AM
Anyway, I wannit to be called the Newton. It would've been great if Jobs presented that first before presenting the current release.

shadowfax
Feb 22, 2007, 11:42 AM
OK, so first off, I really am an Apple fan boy. I think they make some of the best products in the world. Not to say I'm not without my complaints, to the tune of experienced minor design flaws in my TiBook and MacBook, but I overlook it easily enough--I feel it's pretty minor compared to what I'd have to deal with elsewhere.

That said, I am laughing at you, Stella. Where are your valid points?

I don't know that I have the notion that Apple INVENTED "iEverything", but I want to know who did. Stella repeatedly accused people of a failure to do research, and touted the "Infogear Iphone / I Phone" as a front runner. This is not strictly true at all. While they filed for "I Phone" in 1993 and "IPhone" in 1996, their TMs were not actually registered untill 1997 and 1999, respectively. So that's Trademarks. They got the first Trademark. Oooh, scary. That doesn't mean crap. You have to put something out to market. And they did. In 1998. What year is that? Oh, yeah, the same year as the original iMac G3. Nice. Read all about it on Wikipedia.org/iPhone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone#iPhone_trademark) and Wikipedia.org/Linksys iPhone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone#InfoGear_iPhone). Wikipedia on the iMac in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac#Popular_culture) is also an iOpener. Speaking of, there was another internet "i" application called i-Opener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Opener). However, THIS was released in 1999 at the earliest. Now, note that both the Infogear iPhone and the iOpener are front runners of the iNamingScheme. Also note that neither of them had a big market splash at their time, and no one knows about them now, except via Apple iPhone interest. Apple may not have been the first company to even think of the idea, but they made it a popular cliché, and they have more products than any other company named using the scheme (iMac, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, iDisk, iPod, iSync, iPhoto, iLife, iWork, iWeb). Probably more than 75% of other iProductNames are products designed for use with the iPod.

So much for research. the only other iLead I have is i.Link from Sony, which, ironically, is their name for their dumbed-down 4-pin version of Apple's IEEE1394 FireWire. Amusingly, their firewire implementation means that power is fed on a separate cable, so that you have to have 2 cables for all your i.Link devices.

Anyway, if you do much of any research, you will find that Apple really cornered the iMarket. Whether or not they were the first to market with an actual iProduct is something I cannot conclusively figure out. The fact that InfoGear tried to trademark IPhone, however, is of no significance to me. Proving that you're thinking about making a product with a certain name doesn't mean crap till you actually make it and name it. I think it's the same with the patent office, to an extent. you sure do have to show that you're using it to maintain it.

maxp1
Feb 22, 2007, 11:43 AM
There's a great feature on Macrumors I've had to resort to a few times.
If you are signed in, click on the User Name you are tired of hearing from and select View Plublic Profile. Then you have to option to add that person to your Ignore list!
That way all of their posts are removed from your version of Macrumors and you save yourself lots of exasperation.
PS – You need to be signed in for this to work.

That's tempting, but I'm not that annoyed with Stella. I agree with eenu, I'm going to manually ignore Stella until hopefully he develops a more friendly style to put across valid points.


Onward...

You say "they take what other people do, make it better and popularize it" all in one breath and trivialize Apple to such a degree it's not even funny. For your infotainment, Apple does not "popularize" their products, the consumer does. We do it with our wallets. Did Apple "popularize" The Cube? No. If it was as simple as you make it sound, they sure as hell would have.


I'm not of the opinion that what Apple does is trivial. But they do something that I have a hard time putting my finger on. They take existing devices and make them better/usable. It's certainly a laudable thing to do but it's not really first line innovation, where you come out with brand new products that nobody has ever seen before. (Yes, there are some exceptions.) It's like 'This is a new form factor' or 'this is a new way to use it'.

Regarding populatity, maybe populizing is the wrong word. But at least in the last 5 years or so they've been very effective at making their products 'hip'. Consumers didn't do that by themselves, they had help from Apple advertising.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 11:56 AM
Well if it matters at all, Apple never actually claims to invent any of these things, but rather tout it's design and usability, which is something they do rather well. It's not like they run some type of Chrysler-esque campaign claiming to be the inventors of the minivan, but they always point out how they redesign and refresh current technology so that it's easier to use while having a much better industrial design. Short of levitating and going back in time there's really not much more one could actually "invent" when it comes to computes other than take present functions, elaborate them and fine tune better implementations of them

EagerDragon
Feb 22, 2007, 12:01 PM
1 down, 199 more to go.
Apple lawyers must really be overworked.

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 12:55 PM
I'm not of the opinion that what Apple does is trivial. But they do something that I have a hard time putting my finger on.I know you're having a hard time putting your finger on "something"... that's why we're having a friendly discussion over a difference of opinions. When you make statements on this board (or any other for that matter), it's nice when you think before you post. Go get references, quotes and links so that you can make statement that BACKS UP your own opinion.

They take existing devices and make them better/usable. It's certainly a laudable thing to do but it's not really first line innovation, where you come out with brand new products that nobody has ever seen before. (Yes, there are some exceptions.) It's like 'This is a new form factor' or 'this is a new way to use it'.

I have to disagree. And so would Steve Jobs...

When hard times came to the tech sector, we went to our investors and said, 'We're going to spend more on R&D and innovate our way out of this downturn.If Apple was really just a ME-TOO company, the world would not be watching their every move. There just aren't any other tech companies that make huge headlines with their products. Perhaps occasionally, you'll see the PlayStation's Ken Kutaragi on a mag cover but generally speaking, just don't see a CEO and their new product on the cover of Time. In the iPhone alone, Steve Jobs said that Apple had filed over 200 patents and planned to vigorously protect them all. Perhaps many innovations that Apple come up with are in the software they create or internally in the products they create. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're just grabbing parts of the shelve and Frankenstein-ing them together (although I'm aware that many parts they used are just that).

Remember: Patents=Innovations.

In a related way, it would not really be fair to take something, say HIGH DEFINITION movie players, and not totally laud the efforts of the pioneers of the two players, Toshiba and Sony. Both are doing something very unique though technically, they've "only" "taken something and made it better": watch pre-recorded video on a TV. The R&D dollars spent on "simply" improving on the current standard are vast fortunes because even greater sums of money are there for the victor.

As of late, I can only think of one product that is poised to be truly "NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN" are MyVu glasses that allow ipod video to be watched on the go and appear to be a big-screen experience LINK (http://www.myvu.com/) . And then there's the new Wii videogame controller that is the same (it controls a videogame) and yet, very new and different (oh, and innovative). LINK (http://www.wii.com)

]Regarding populatity, maybe populizing is the wrong word. But at least in the last 5 years or so they've been very effective at making their products 'hip'. Consumers didn't do that by themselves, they had help from Apple advertising.I don't think Apple's advertising is all that great actually and I'm not alone. The late SWITCH campaign was awful and really didn't generate a lot of switchers. The current IM A MAC-IM a PC campaign is being criticized for being overly critical to those people who choose Windows boxes. The DANCING IPOD USERS campaign is seriously played out. Aside from new, more colorful backgrounds and different music, one ad is the same as the next.

What makes Apple products HIP or COOL is not the advertising. You've got it backwards. The products themselves are whats HIP and COOL. The Mac Faithful (or the Mac Fan Boi's, depending on who you talk to) do not point to a commercial when they talk about the latest Apple gizmo. They pull something hip and cool out of their pocket and point to the latest Apple gizmo.

clevin
Feb 22, 2007, 01:02 PM
u guys can rest a little bit, its not that nice to turn the topic into personal attack. no matter what feeling u have towards a certain member, please keep it to yourself, of course, facts based discussion is still encouraged, im sure mods agree with me on this.

for the guy who stated "trademark doesn't mean crap", i would suggest you seriously learn something about importance of trademark and how the tradmarks contribute to this competitive commercial world. No matter how much u love apple, don't throw away the rules, otherwise, eventually nobody will benifit from it.

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 01:11 PM
u guys can rest a little bit, its not that nice to turn the topic into personal attack. no matter what feeling u have towards a certain member, please keep it to yourself, of course, facts based discussion is still encouraged, im sure mods agree with me on this.Who are "u guys"? The guys talking about "Fan Bois"? I've had a couple of lengthy posts but I'm trying to be (fairly) nice about it. If there are any really OUT-OF-LINE posts on the board that truly bother you, report the link to the moderators.

This "RELAX" thing... what is that? People can express their opinions. Let someone call me a FANBOY -- whatever. If your skin is not thick enough to post or READ posts on this board, there are other thousands of other Forums on the internet for you to be a part of.

Remember -- a post here will either garner a "WOW--WELL SAID" or "I DON'T AGREE WITH AND HERE'S WHY". And then there's the sad posts that sound like a PAULA ABDUL, I AGREE WITH YOU, RANDY sentence and get's completely ignored.

It's a discussion board and, for everything (EVERYTHING) that's said on this board, there will be people who agree and those that don't. That's what the POST REPLY button is all about.

gauriemma
Feb 22, 2007, 01:37 PM
Ok, sounds like a stretch, but if Apple wasn't first, then why did they have to explain that the i stood for internet?

I always thought the 'i' stood for 'individual'. The iMac was hardly an internet-focused machine in 1998. And the only thing 'internet-y' about the iPod is the iTunes store.

gauriemma
Feb 22, 2007, 01:38 PM
I knew Apple wouldn't come out on the losing side of this. It just wouldn't be right if the iPhone wasn't called, well, the iPhone! ;) :D :cool:

I think 'iMobile' would be better. 'iPhone' is too limiting.

Of course, T-Mobile might get their undies in a bunch then...

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 02:03 PM
Anyway, I wannit to be called the Newton. It would've been great if Jobs presented that first before presenting the current release.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Controlpanelnewton.png

Lots of similarities, no doubt. I never really understood why Steve Jobs wanted to squash this. I suppose #1), it wasn't Steve's baby. #2) R&D dollars needed to be spent elsewhere. #3) Jobs didn't feel like the Newton could compete in the market or #4) the market wasn't big enough to justify being in that branch of the game.

Whatever the reason, it's gonna be "iPhone" as the name and with Steve at the helm, it's never going to come back as the "Newton". At least in name. In form factor, the iPhone will eventually become the PDA that countless Mac fans have been asking for since before the iPod showed up.

JGowan
Feb 22, 2007, 02:11 PM
Apple will sell tens of millions of their iPhone. Cisco will sell tens of thousands of their iPhone. Winner: Apple.

Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications.

Now, unless this actually benefits Apple and the phone itself, this interoperability won't happen. And if it does happen, Apple wins, Cisco wins and the consumer wins.

No losers.

shadowfax
Feb 22, 2007, 02:32 PM
u guys can rest a little bit, its not that nice to turn the topic into personal attack. no matter what feeling u have towards a certain member, please keep it to yourself, of course, facts based discussion is still encouraged, im sure mods agree with me on this.

Uhhh...

for the guy who stated "trademark doesn't mean crap", i would suggest you seriously learn something about importance of trademark and how the tradmarks contribute to this competitive commercial world. No matter how much u love apple, don't throw away the rules, otherwise, eventually nobody will benifit from it.

Look, there's no reason to get hypocritical. You just told people to stop making it personal, and then you insulted me. I don't really care--in fact, I'd suggest you turn back and actually learn something about the English language--to the point, this thing called hyperbole. You're obviously skilled at using it, as you just did when you insulted me. When I said that trademarks/patents don't mean a thing, I mean that they don't matter to the creation of a naming scheme. if you try to trademark a name in 1993 and then never use it, you don't get to keep it. If you can't hold the name you trademark, you can't keep it. So the important date is not when you file for it, it's when you back that up with a product. My whole point is that what validates the whole process is the product release, NOT the original filing. so the 1996 date is not the one to look at, the 1998 one is. The public doesn't have a habit of reading such applications. You can't "start the iCrap revolution" until you release a product.

So, Stella said that Apple was not the first with an iProduct to market, and that if anyone did just a little research, they'd prove her right. I've done some research, and the answer is not readily available. Certainly, I would guess that Apple is not the very first to make an iProduct, but I am really wondering who is, because it doesn't appear to be iNfoGear.

At the end of the day, it's certainly true that in the public's mind, the only company they associate with iSomething is Apple. Apple may not have invented the naming scheme, but they took it over with the iMac and the iPod. There is no other iProduct out there that has remotely stood the test of time (9 years for the iMac). Not that I think apple should get rewarded with the trademark for i<insert finger here>... that's too much. But iPhone?

The company that has all the major iProducts vs. the company who bought some other company who named their crappy product iPhone, and then didn't make a new version when it fizzled out, and should have lost its trademark when it failed in 2006 to have had a product named iPhone on the market for over 5 years, but didn't because it posted a picture of a nameless VoIP phone box with a sticker outside the shrinkwrap that said "iPhone" on it. That's pretty stupid, if you ask me.

blybug
Feb 22, 2007, 02:33 PM
Apple DID have to explain the "i" because next to nobody had heard of it, and nobody was using it in exactly the way Apple was. (Their explanation being rather vague--it could be "I" or "Internet".) Explaining a new name just makes sense. And yes, Cisco's claim on the name was legitimate--they bought the company that used the iPhone name long ago.

You really think Apple was riding on some existing brand awareness that "i" prefixes had?

Exactly...there were probably a few other iProducts nobody had ever heard of back in 1998, but the iMac was the first major product and cemented the association of "i" with Apple ever since. I specifically recall Steve's keynote intro of the iMac and explanation that the "i" was for internet. The most popular vowel prefix for "tech" products at that time was "e" because "e"mail was just going mainstream and unoriginal companies named everything e-this and e-that...the eBandwagon.

I remember thinking the "i' sounded awkward when the iMac came out since I was used to hearing e-whatever. But then the wave of iThings both from Apple and Apple-wannabes began and 10 years later it seems like we've always been having iStuff.

Apple may not have been iFirst but they absolutely did not jump on bandwagon...there was no bandwagon until Apple adopted this naming convention.

dernhelm
Feb 22, 2007, 02:35 PM
And so ends the foremost saga of our times. Fittingly, it ends with the most stupid of all outcomes.

I think I'll make a phone-like device, and call it iPhone too!

Why should anyone be confused?

eddyg
Feb 22, 2007, 02:40 PM
Personally I don't think Cisco/Linksys care whether their VOIP iPhone
sells more or less because of this agreement. It was simply a lever to
enable Cisco to get Apple to add VOIP (eventually) to their iPhone.

They see that the Apple iPhone is likely to succeed. They have a vision
whereby the Internet is integrated into the home. This agreement will
enable Apple to hopefully better integrate their iPhone into Cisco's vision.

What does this mean to you?

Well it means that when you get home your iPhone automatically switches
to be using your home phone rather than a cellular phone. It means that
at home your phone turns into a remote control for your entire home. All
of this using existing open standards.

From Ciscos point of view they are hoping that this home integration will
be via Cisco kit, specifically VOIP. Even if the home integration isn't via
Cisco kit, Cisco still benefits by selling more network equipment due
to the increased Internet traffic.

Cheers, Ed.

123
Feb 22, 2007, 03:19 PM
When I said that trademarks/patents don't mean a thing, I mean that they don't matter to the creation of a naming scheme.

No, you were talking about inventing the iScheme. It was obviously Apple that started marketing iProducts and are being associated with them now. However, you should realize that successful marketing has little to do with invention.

shadowfax
Feb 22, 2007, 03:28 PM
No, you were talking about inventing the iScheme. It was obviously Apple that started marketing iProducts and are being associated with them now. However, you should realize that successful marketing has little to do with invention.
This is true. I ask again, though, who actually released the first iProduct?

rxse7en
Feb 22, 2007, 03:37 PM
I wonder if Cisco may provide new Macs with VoIP iPhones in the future? Can do all your calling over .Mac and use your new iPhone, er, iPhone...hmm, I mean VOIPhone.

B

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 22, 2007, 04:05 PM
Bah...well they could've at least given us the colorful classic Apple logo :D