Quote :

" oh you schooled me retail employee why limit it to 4 and 8 when the tech is there for much much more very shortly? the feasibility of walking around with your entire music catalog is much more attractive than going back to your computer and re-upping every time you get tired of what you've got. why the fuck do i want to go back to my computer to change music unless its entirely new to the system? you're more excited than the time you got herpes from skeettreets about this thing"

haha..you are such a dim whitted fool.

1/11/2007 4:25:08 AM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1575743-2,00.html

It sounds like cingulair was the only one willing to play ball with apple (and let them do whatever they wanted, accommodate changes). I expect the others to fall in line.

1/11/2007 4:52:37 AM

Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070110-8594.html

sorry just saw MOODY's link on pg1, here's a 'readable' article

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2007 9:12:48 AM

Quote :

" "We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said. "Apple is the first company to ever use the 'iPhone' name for a cell phone," she said. "We believe that Cisco's trademark registration is tenuous at best." Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail.""

If Apple's counsel is dismissing this lawsuit's merits by calling it "silly", why did they enter into the negotiation in the first place? Also, if you believe what Cisco Legal is claiming about there were "repeated" discussions on the trademark for "several years", then I think this is a total arrogance on Apple's part thinking anything and everything iXXX is their God-given right. Maybe Jobs smelled Cisco stepping into the consumer world and wants to set the tone as the bully in the school?

I mean, i'm generally a huge fan of apple products, but I get my paycheck from Cisco.

Response from our general counsel:

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

1/11/2007 9:19:04 AM

I wonder what kind of deal Cisco was looking for? I would guess apple just wanted to pay a lump sum. Either Cisco wanted a lot of cash or some kind of royalty. With that said, iPhone is not really that special a name to apple, is it??

Quote :

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

wonder what that means. waxes slightly creepy

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 9:26 AM. Reason : read link]

1/11/2007 9:23:14 AM

^^ i totally agree with that. apple is being stupidly arrogant about this. especially with the way jobs was all like "we've patented this thing to death and we intend to enforce it." it's a cool phone and all, but jeezaflip, get your business in order before you release the product. it would be very cool if apple and cisco can get through this and do some collaboration to make some networking-side innovations

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ^ yeah, why don't they call it the apple phone, like the apple tv]

1/11/2007 9:24:56 AM

copy/paste from an internal discussion:

Quote :

"I find this perfect turnabout to Apple as they've filed their fair share of lawsuits alledging infringement... Has everyone forgotten about the iMac vs. eMac (e-machines) suit? http://news.com.com/Apple+sues+eMachines+for+iMac+look-alike/2100-1040_3-230054.html How about their lawsuit against Creative Labs for an iPod look alike? http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/18/business/ipod.php How about Apple suing over having links on a website? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/04/apple_sa_deep_links/ Or Apple suing a german company for the sPod. http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39155424,00.htm How about Apple suing Burst Tuesday because they didn't want to pay the licensing fees to the patent holder: http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/apple_sues_burst_video_business_in_jeopardy/ Or what about them suing over their an alleged trademart on the word "podcast": http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/apple-sues-over-podcast-trademark/ They're in the wrong from a legal standpoint and everyone knows it. I really dislike their layer's arrogance. I hope that if the change the name to iFone, we sue them on the same grounds they were suing the German firm over "sPod" and then they get sued by iFONE..."

1/11/2007 9:34:26 AM

i hope apple loses so they don't get iEVERYTHING

1/11/2007 9:35:29 AM

Maybe Apple's lawyers also have an incredible reality distortion field.

1/11/2007 9:39:51 AM

assuming this actually goes through the court system and some deal isn't worked out - i would like apple to lose this so that there is no precedent set for it to be okay

1/11/2007 9:44:38 AM

I think it'd be hard to use a case like this as precedence, even if it was successful. Precedence requires some fairly exact similarities.

1/11/2007 9:47:41 AM

I guess the only thing Apple can hang their hat on is that every one in the world was calling it an iPhone before they even announced it, and no one even knew the cisco one existed.

1/11/2007 9:56:27 AM

Well, trademarks are trademarks.

1/11/2007 9:57:13 AM

Quote :

"total arrogance on Apple's part"

1/11/2007 10:30:37 AM

its bad ass

now.. when they make a 20+gig version i'll jump right on it.
until then i have a 4 gig mp3 phone

1/11/2007 10:41:59 AM

http://iphonecountdown.com/

1/11/2007 1:32:00 PM

i guess since nobody knew anything about a cisco iphone...they figured this was the best way to bring this products existance to the publics eye without heavy marketing.

1/11/2007 1:57:50 PM

I think Apple and Jobs knew they were doing the wrong thing, but they didn't care, and are taking their chances. It's pretty brazen.

Cisco's iPhone is pretty uninspiring, but the company they bought held the trademark since 1996, which predates the whole i<device> Apple convention, let alone the iPod. I can't see Apple winning this, but they sure are going to make Cisco and their own guys spend some $$$ defending it.

1/11/2007 2:08:31 PM

gmafb

this will never reach court, ever

expect a large transfer of money

1/11/2007 2:10:22 PM

^^^

doesn't matter. We own the trademark. If they didn't want to agree to whatever it is we wanted, there are a million other, possibly better names that they could use instead of iPhone. They opted to ignore the fact that the name was trademarked and use it anyway, and that is wrong.

Kinda like how apple has filed multiple lawsuits against anyone who would dare use the string "pod" in their products.

1/11/2007 2:34:18 PM

personally i don't care who wins as long as its called the iPhone. simply because since they have already started using iWhatever...might as well keep everything the same.

iPod, iPhone, iMac, iPhoto, iTunes etc etc etc

1/11/2007 2:49:08 PM

they'll make a male enhancing device called isuck...next

it'll be like austin powers' but in gloss white with a touch screen.

1/11/2007 2:50:45 PM

iWish...


although...

...i don't get it cause i never saw austin powers

1/11/2007 2:52:03 PM

cisco was name squatting a shit product!

1/11/2007 7:29:09 PM

^ Truth.

Seriously, iFone would've worked just as well, but Apple Phone would've been smartest.

Here's the dumbest part about all of it. Yesterday 2 products were announced. One *SHOULD HAVE* been called "iTV," but instead some goofball decided "Apple TV" sounded better. Okay...

Apple Phone would've saved Apple the hassle & ppl woulda been fine w/ it, but instead they take a trademarked name. Brilliant.

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 7:56 PM. Reason : r]

1/11/2007 7:56:25 PM

http://www.tiny.cc/orK5c

Quote :

"The iPhone was first released in 1997 by Infogear"

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2007 7:57:01 PM

Cisco needs to buy up SDI technologies , the owner of iHome and stick it to apple for their arrogance.

However, I think there is a scenario that could be playing out that many havent brought up...

The Linksys iPhone (cisco) hasnt gotten alot of publicity, and cisco hasn't really pushed it too much either... SO .. If they knew apple wouldn't agree to the current contract they proposed, and just kept fishing apple along to some future arrangement, then apple would design all their marketing around iPhone for the big debut, thinking everything would be fine, and then cisco could let the lawsuits and arguments create much cheaper publicity. Maybe cisco played nice to get along with and made apple think that the arrangement was imminent, therefore prompting apple to just go ahead and debut. Then, sue their ass for the breach of trademark, leading apple to use the language of "silly" on the part of cisco.

Twice the publicity, and in the end, both products will be named iPhone IMHO.

However, I dont think the iPhone will be the winner that apple fans would like it to be. New owners of IPODs will not likely all pony up the cash for the new phone so quickly, as many already have slick phones that cost good money just because of they are generally more tech savvy anyhow.

Really doesnt seem to be a must have item yet, as it has many things lacking in the current design.

I would expect it to take a much more feature rich product to really create another splash for apple.

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 8:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2007 8:21:56 PM

Speaking of lawsuits, who wants to put money on how long it takes for a class action lawsuit over the fact the phone's screen is going to become unusable due to scratching and wear in a matter of weeks?

1/11/2007 8:46:10 PM

yeah its a bit expensive for the average user...

but anyone who has a blackberry, or who's work pays for their "smart phone" all of them are eying these things like crazy

i think it will be a huge success with those who can afford the higher end phone, and that will spill over to more average users

remember everyone made the same argument about the ipod, how it was not a necessity and your average user was not going to fork out that kind of money for it

1/11/2007 9:29:56 PM

Quote :

" How about you send apple a nice letter with a blank check saying exactly what you want. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to help you out."

I've already done that.

and by "doing that" i mean i wont be purchasing one

you fuckers took my criticisms of the device so personally, it's hilarious

all im saying is

shit dont work for me b

i prefer my devices seperate and fully functional god

1/11/2007 9:39:36 PM

fan boys

/thread.

1/11/2007 9:43:04 PM

I'll file it under "things to convince my friends to buy so I can play with it" so it can join the PS3

1/12/2007 12:28:14 AM

Quote :

"I guess the only thing Apple can hang their hat on is that every one in the world was calling it an iPhone before they even announced it, and no one even knew the cisco one existed."

There are many precedents for this from the music industry. I don't know if they're applicable, but they're there.

1/12/2007 3:23:50 AM

Yeah, but they weren't calling it the iPhone back in 1996.

1/12/2007 8:19:48 AM

Right but part of the purpose of trademark law is to prevent confusion among consumers. But up until a few days ago Apple held no claims on iPhone, and while many companies used iPhone in some way, if you said iPhone to an average consumer in the last year and a half or so, they would have thought you were talking about an Apple product. In otherwords, despite having the trademark, Cisco is creating the confusion for the consumers because before they released an iPhone product (but after they had the trademark) people already associated iPhone with Apple.

Personally if it goes to court, I think the only way Apple will really win is to get the trademark declared generic (as evidenced by multiple companies using iPhone for various telecomunications devices) in which case Apple won't have the trademark, just the right to use it.

1/12/2007 8:32:05 AM

Quote :

"Cisco is creating the confusion for the consumers because before they released an iPhone product (but after they had the trademark) people already associated iPhone with Apple."

Apple is the one attempting to cause confusion, not Cisco.

1/12/2007 9:08:22 AM

As I said, up until a few days ago, Apple had no claims, nor made any claims to the name iPhone. However long before that, consumers had already associated the term iPhone with an Apple product. If you need evidence of that, it can be found in the whole gizmodo flap a month or so ago where just a few days before cisco announced their iPhone one of the writers suggested that the iPhone was coming monday and that it wasn't what anyone expected. When it turned out that he was talking about the cisco iPhone, plenty of people called him out for being misleading on it. IOW in everyone elses mind, iPhone is an Apple product and has been since late 2001 when the first rumors started appearing.

I'm not saying that cisco doesn't legitimately have the trademark, I'm just saying that it would be an interesting trial given that the consumers already associate iPhone with Apple and not Cisco, and did so long before either company had an iPhone product.

Furthermore, as Apple points out, despite having the iPhone trademark since 96, cisco hasn't done much to defend it:

http://iphone.com/ - registered in 2003

there are also a couple other companies that have "iphone" products I've seen before, I just can't find their links in the sea of iPhone rumors that is a google search for iPhone.

1/12/2007 9:29:02 AM

^stein is trolling you, dumbass

1/12/2007 9:33:49 AM

Quote :

" I think the only way Apple will really win is to get the trademark declared generic (as evidenced by multiple companies using iPhone for various telecomunications devices) in which case Apple won't have the trademark, just the right to use it."

Realistically, I think this will be the outcome.

1/12/2007 9:45:42 AM

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9677208-1.html?tag=bubbl_1

1/12/2007 2:06:49 PM

There's a whole lot that's just plain wrong in that article.

1/12/2007 3:21:29 PM

^ would you mind pointing out what's wrong? i follow most of the logic, and i think there are some good points...list what's wrong, with links, if you don't mind

1/12/2007 3:45:10 PM

Many many faults in some of his logic, and some things just downright wrong. I could spell them out for you but then again about 10 people have done it in replies to his post on the website. He does have a few points I agree with though (current lack of 3G, although its been stated this can be changed with a SOFTWARE upgrade, and lack of user made apps).

[Edited on January 12, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : use -> user]

1/12/2007 3:52:59 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0cCg9wzu7RI

There's another video of the iPhone's UI.

^^

This is blatantly wrong from that site:

Quote :

"Playing media content while surfing the Web is technically multitasking, but it's possible that the iPhone will only be able to perform one of its three main functions at any given time: It's either an iPod, an "Internet device," or a phone, but it may not be able to do more than one function at a time. "

It can multitask between all these things simultaneously.

This is also complete BS:

Quote :

"8. Will Apple give the user any freedom? Want to know why there's no memory card slots on the iPhone, nor will there likely be a user-replaceable battery? Because Apple doesn't want you to lay a finger on its phone without paying the piper. "

The actual reason is that both of those would increase the size of the device. Most users would rather have a smaller size than a replaceable battery. And most people don't even use or care about a card slot, especially when the thing already has 4 or 8 GB of storage (people actually made this same criticism when the iPod first came out).

[Edited on January 12, 2007 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2007 5:54:56 PM

^^^

Well for example, item 4 suggests that because the phone won't have iTunes light, that it won't be able to access the iTunes store. That's not what apple said.

In item 5 he suggests that it won't allow him to download a file while talking on the phone, when the keynote infact demonstrated that you would be able to talk on the phone while emailing someone. Sure it was uploading not downloading, but somehow I doubt the phone will cut off your download for a phone call.

He then goes on to suggest that no one will multitask anyway, completely invalidating his complaint.

In point 7, nothing suggests that the phone will only handle yahoo mail, just that Apple partnered with yahoo for the push email stuff.

In point 8, it suggests that you can't do anything to your iPod or phone without paying Apple. He then talks about things like the iPod battery and hard drive. Each of these things can be done on your own, the only catch is you void your waranty. What he fails to note is that it will cost you nothing if it's covered under waranty (thus leading one to ask why you would do it yourself) and if it's out of waranty, the fact that it will void your waranty is irrellevant.

He further says that it's unknown whether you'll only be able to run Apple software on the phone, and while Apple has said there will be no public API, they've also said they are not adverse to having other companies make software for the phone, they just want to make sure it will work well.

In point 9, some of his costs I think are a bit on the high end. Plenty of people have mentioned that it doesn't cost them $200/month for blackberry service through cingular, why should we expect the iPhone to be different?

In point 10, he complains that all the data will be locked on his phone. Ignoring the fact that it's all stored on his computer (in fact he was complaining about that in a previous point). You will need no third party apps to access your data, it's all on your computer.

I'm curious how he easily moves his data from one brand of phone to another right now.

point 12 seems pointless trolling. Plenty of manufacturers offer the iPods features at a lower price, but people still buy iPods. User experience and interface count for more than a lot of feature geeks think.

and as far as 13 goes apple seems to be banking on all of them.

cingular is huge, so a good chunk of people are happy or at least content with them (note I didn't say I was)

there are no other phones like the iPhone out there

and if he doubts how important it is to have the "it" phone or thinks the iPhone won't be the "it" phone at least for a while, he's seriously underestimating the power of something being "it"


He makes some good points here and there, but it seems more he's trolling for page hits than actually putting thought into his criticisms.

1/12/2007 6:15:07 PM

this is being released in the wrong part of the world. Its quite normal for people in Europe and the middle east (not sure about asia) to spend up wards of $1000 for a phone. Americans just want free shit.

1/12/2007 7:13:07 PM

some retailers are now saying that it will be sold w/o contract, but for $texas

1/12/2007 7:21:47 PM

1000 dollar phone is dumb

this is what it would have to have for me to do it.

40 gig memory 5 mpx camera or more mp3/4/xvid/wmv/divx everything else is good.

1/12/2007 7:28:37 PM

^do you live in the USA? ok then as i said "$1000 phone to you is dumb"

1/12/2007 7:47:21 PM

see, i think paying full price when you can get it for less by just signing a contract for something you are going to use anyways is dumb

1/12/2007 8:48:03 PM