Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Cisco iPhone Trademark Negotiations Ongoing

CrackedButter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

peharri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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"
 
Interoperability?... Oh please.

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.
 
JGowan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Digitalclips said:
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.
Click to expand...

From all accounts Cisco owns the iPhone name.
 
Forget the iPhone! Let Leopard be born!

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!
 
Let's have a poll!

Or a bet! Outcome:

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

?
 
iMikeT said:
I guess Cisco finally realized that their lawsuit held no merit.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

iMikeT said:
I guess Cisco finally realized that their lawsuit held no merit.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
gnasher729 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
peharri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
If they can't sort it out soonish, i wonder whether it will delay the iPhone release?

.
 
How about... iMobile...

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...
 
CJD2112 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
peharri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
peharri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Interoperability?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
danielwsmithee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. I had never thought of it that way. Very tricksy
 
maxp1 said:
I think Apple has Cisco over a barrel and they know it so have asked Apple back to the table with reduced demands.
Click to expand...

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

I agree, iMobile is much better.
 
Why not simplify it.

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

I agree, iMobile is much better.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back