Comments on: iPhone Vs iPhone

By: rico johnson

rico johnson — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:11:15 +0000

iAgree = lame marketing

By: rico johnson

rico johnson — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:10:33 +0000

IAgree = your comments Ed.

By: lookie_here

lookie_here — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:24:45 +0000

Iphone is something that Ipod took from Crisco and Cirsco will win.

By: sam

sam — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:55:35 +0000

Apple will lose; don't sympathise with them!

They were and are being way too arogant; but please buy the applephone when released…

Or iFone or whatever; since i have a bet on that it won't be a flop and therefore win a nice cigar :)

By: Martin Varsavsky | English

Martin Varsavsky | English — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:43:17 +0000

Sansa has Salsa: Fon and Zing team up!…

They should have called the Sansa, the Salsa. Because it has tons of Salsa. Yesterday I was one of the lucky persons to be able to play with a Sansa because Fon and the designers of the Sansa, Zing have…

By: quux

quux — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:07:05 +0000

I'm pretty surprised that the tide of opinion seems to be with Apple on this one so far! Apple is clearly in the wrong here - and they know it, or they never would have been negotiating with Cisco in the first place.

Is this the famous Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field (RDF) running at screeching feedback levels? My vote: yes, absolutely.

By: Reg

Reg — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:20:55 +0000

The work of “iPhone” was to establish iPhone = iPod + phone. The
entire consumer tech world from Australia to Zambia has had that association fixed in its minds over the past 24 hours.

It could now almost be called the “Talking Teapot” on release and it
wouldn’t matter.

ApplePhone it is.

By: Kawika Holbrook

Kawika Holbrook — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:47:44 +0000

Whoa! There’s a turn of events. Does Apple own the iPhone trademark in countries outside the U.S.?

By: John Earnhardt

John Earnhardt — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:04:11 +0000

Update on Cisco’s iPhone Trademark - Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. The iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco, as noted in your story. We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. It is not about money. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint. Full Cisco statement at: (link)

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:41:22 +0000

Jobs shrewd licensing negotiation, as seen with Cisco for the iPhone name, is the exact same reason that there is no 3G on the device. He does not let others take advantage of the situation - Cisco for the name and Qualcomm for the technology. It was most likely a hostage situation and he was unable get either WCDMA or CDMA2000 technology in the way he wanted to use. Someone needs to tag the iPhone as another loss for Qualcomm thus joining the likes of Nokia, Telstra, Tata and others finding the GSM religion.

By: Lokkison

Lokkison — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:06:10 +0000

Charlie Sierra and Ed.
Why go to the trouble of confusing the consumers?
By keeping their naming schemes to something that is familiar Apple to consumers ears is wonderful. Calling it the iPhone is wonderful as you don’t have to think twice as to what the “main” function of the device was meant to be.

As for the “i” equaling Internet now I’d have to strongly disagree. Once yes, though now you’ll find more people seeing it as i equalling something more personal with personality. i = me…

just ramblings :p

By: matthew

matthew — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:59:07 +0000

I’m all for calling Apple’s iPhone the Newton. Apple still owns the Newton URL, and if you look at photos of both products, you can clearly see Newton inspiration in the iPhone. From the top and bottom (or left and right) bezel to the menu icons.

Doesn’t matter to me in the end. I don’t get a Cingular signal at my home/office. I suspect I’m not alone. Besides, I bought the promise of AT&T GSM when it launched, but never enjoyed that over-promised service so I switched. Plus, their customer service philosophy is so not good.

By: Kiran

Kiran — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:54:56 +0000

I think they should call it the iUnity or the iPone ;-)

By: HJ

HJ — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:26:04 +0000

One point - Apple owns the iPhone name outside of the US - Cisco only has US ownership of that particular moniker.

By: Bazily

Bazily — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:45:45 +0000

It scares me to think that Apple might win even after making such an arrogant move.

The far-fetched reasoning is that the speculation and hype has established iPhone as the cell phone that Apple would (and now has) announce. Cisco has not defended this right, much like Google has been trying to do with "google" being confused with "search."

I assume that's why Cisco rolled out the phone which is likely a rebranded version of another phone or a future product.

I still think Apple and Jobs are heading further down the arrogance path (options scandal, etc.) and this is just another example. What would it really cost? $50M? $100M? $1B?

Apple gained $7.10 per share today, that's an increase in market cap by $6.1 billion. Now how much is it worth?

By: GN

GN — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:45:42 +0000

Logically thinking -

Cisco owns the brand iPhone. Apple wants the brand iPhone.

Both Cisco and Apple seem to be raising the stakes. Cisco announced a few phones by that name. Apple announced an out of the world sexy product by that name.

Both have high stakes, both have nothing to loose.

However, it is in the best interest of Apple to own/consume the name, even if it does not use it. Ultimately it comes to the price.

It remains to be seen who wants and needs it the most. Will Apple pay anything to get it or will Cisco get anything for it?