"It is our belief that
Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted Jan 10th 2007 6:49PM
I suggest you buy a Mac product like I did.
I used to hate Macs, then I bought an iPod mini and it worked great. Then I needed a new computer and decided what the hell why not try an iBook, I have 30 days to return what I expected to be a total piece.
I've bought nothing but Macs ever since and switched all my PCs over to Ubuntu and Knopix.
Before you're so quick to criticize, as I was, try it out.
About time - hope Apple looses this one big time, because it would serve them right.
This is the Apple MO. Where should I begin.
The photographer who took the picture of a wall of TV's. Apple entered into negotiation to use the pic, backed out without paying and used it anyways for the release of Apple TV.
Artist after artist who's music has been used for iPod commercials without consent. They air the ad, wait for a letter from an attorney, and then pull the ad. Mission accomplished.
The iPhone from Cisco.
I hope they get hit with punitive damages. Something to make them think before stomping over everyone.
Last thoughts... This is Jobs 101. He was kicked out of his own company because of his shady deals and hot temper. We're surprised to see this still?
Oh, and then they go and sue every freakin company who dares use anything even close to iPod.
Hypocrites. (Almost as bad as politicians)
Apple totally deserves this. Like another guy said, there's no way Apple would share the "iPhone" name if their positions were reversed. I hope Apple loses bigtime!
Apple goes around suing other companies for having the word "pod" in their products, I thinks it's high time Apple got a taste of what they've been dishing out!
Word.
I believe the technical term is PWNED!
Yeah, I'm sure the mega-corporation of CISCO will pwn Apple.....
And now Apple gets a taste of its own medicine. I think they deserve this, they seemed to have the attitude of " we're apple, you're cisco, we could care less if you trademarked this name, because, we're apple."
Although i do like apple it is about time! I think this lawsuit actually has some ground.
I am not an Apple lover mind you but when I think of "iPhone" immediately I think of Apple. Hell, i I immediately think of Apple. I wonder if Apple could counter-sue Cisco for commandeering Apples brand by Cisco linking their product with an already/somewhat familiar "too close" kind of name...
Ouch, apple does deserve it. but i still hope the name stays as "iphone"
I think everything was OK until Apple showcased the phone and used the "iphone" name @ macworld, thats where things got ugly, Apple could of made up another name for the time being until everything was ironed out but they couldnt wait, now it looks as apple is losing this one and were gonna be looking at aphone come this june, get "a phone"! lol :)
Apple fan boys really piss me off. Especially in those smug "Im a PC, Im a Mac" commercials. They totally deserve this...
And don't even THINK about comparing the iPhone with the Zune.
Zune - $250
iPhone - $500-$600
Of course the iPhone's going to be better, dumbf*cks.
For $600 I can get the new XBOX360 v2.0 due out about the same time which has 120GB HDD,ipTV support,does REAL 1080P via HDMI...oh , and it just happens to be an awesome 65nm process CPU gaming machine/HD-DVD player :)
I`ll say it again;the iPhone is a niche market device at best tied to a lousy non-3G Cingular network. Not everyone wants to hold a brick to their face and then touch-dial with all that face oil all over the screen.Their are many inexpensive phones right now that VOICE dial flawlessly using the software made by Voice Signal Technologies.
I almost got taken in by the Jobs RDF and then soon realized not many people like having an oily albeit thin...brick type phone.$600 will also get you a decent laptop on sale that is a real computer and isn`t tied to a 2 yr. Crapular contract.
Mobile communicator indeed ! That would be my Pocket PC making calls via Skype.Lets see that "communicator" do that Stevie :)
You are correct, the zune is less expensive.
Go ahead and call ahead and order the next generation- oh wait you have no phone.
Well then just hop on google maps and find the nearest retalier- oh wait you have no google maps.
well then just hope online and buy one- oh wait you have no web browser
besides all this you have the e-mail services.
I could even take a picture of your sorry a$$ with it too.
I am just guessing here, but maybe that is why it gots more
Oh yeah, unless they can settle, which it seems is far out of the question; the whole 'snooze ya loose' clause goes into effect, and Apple is going to need a new blankie.
Chris
Keep in mind that Cisco trademarked "iPhone" amid all the buzz and rumors. They're going to come under a lot of fire for suing. The response to the product has been so tremendous that the majority will side with Apple.
Kevin,
Cisco has owned the trademark since 2000 when they purchased Infogear, who had registered it in 1996. I don't think Apple has been working on the "iPhone" for 10 years.
You might want to read the press release before you post.
it doesn't matter if people are gonna side with Apple... if they use iPhone without proper authorization, they're violating the law whether the public likes it or not.
I'm with Kevin on this one--the Apple spin has become a vortex and the public will side with Apple no matter who registered the trademark when. I'm thinking Apple is spending some of it's brand equity here by creating a controversy that has a life of its own. Can you say "'free' marketing"? You can't buy this kind of press so why not generate it? The spin will last months and then Apple can throw another name on their device.
Oh, the Hubris of Steve Jobs!
I called this one yesterday. I said to a buddy (after seeing Cisco's "We expect Apple will sign the agreement" release) that my bets were on Cisco asking for major cash (and rightfully so, because dammit, the trademark is *theirs*).
Second part of the bet was that Jobs tells them to f--- off anyway: "We'll see you in court, because I gotta keynote to deliver! We'll just settle by paying them from the wheelbarrows full of money we're going to make off the Apple phone."
Still: C'mon Apple; get some consistency with the naming scheme. iTV becomes Apple TV, so why press for iPhone? Oh, I know why. To keep brand parity, recognition, and loyalty for/from all those millions of iPod users. Well, it's gonna cost ya!
Mind you, I'm an Apple fan/MacFreak, but I'm also a shareholder. Don't piss away my $5k in gains in the past 2 days because of your ego, Uncle Stevie!
>Still: C'mon Apple; get some
>consistency with the naming scheme.
>iTV becomes Apple TV, so why press for iPhone?
Best response in this thread.
Apple should definitely change the name. Apple TV sounds dope for what it is. Apple Phone isn't too bad. iPhone honestly sounds like it's trying to be the iPod when it's really trying to be a smartphone.
The interesting thing is that "iphone" wouldn't have any particular value if it weren't for "imac", "ipod", "itunes"... In other words, the value that cisco is trying to extract for iphone is value that apple has created for it. I think cisco is in danger of being the one causing confusion in the market place (which is what trademark violation is all about.)
They are going to do a deal, but Cisco has to protect its trademark and copyrights. Otherwise Cisco can lose the iPhone trademark. So they have to apear to do something. They will prolly settle for $1.
Not only did they own the trademark since 2000, but they released their iphone product before Apple. Apple has no chance of winning this one. Dumb move Apple.
Apple could have just gone with iFone or iTalk and saved themselves a bunch of trouble.
I'm a huge Apple fan (and also a shareholder) but I gotta side with Cisco on the trademark issue.
Apple has created the ultimate multi-faceted communication device ... how about calling it the iComm (as in iCommunicator) instead of iPhone? ... Steve can have that one for free ... alright marketing is not my strong point.
Go search Tess http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm and you will see that Apple did Trademark iPhone for a very different application than the original trademark owners (prior to Cisco)
while Apple deserves this, I'm betting they are going to take the line of, "everyone knew that the iPhone was an apple product, long before Cisco used the term...
which is 100% true, if i asked my mother, "who makes the iPhone" last week, she would never have said Cisco...
not sure it holds up in court, but there is a reason that Gizmodo looked like such fools for their "iPhone is coming" announcement of the Cisco phone
Cisco: I want 10 bucks for each phone you sold.
Apple: I'll give you $9.99
Cisco: No, I want the full $10
Apple: Unfortunately I can't offer you the $10 you're asking.
Cisco: See ya in court, then.
If worst comes to worst, Apple could just go ahead and call this the iPod Phone or something, as people had previously speculated. I've actually heard some people complaining that the iPhone name isn't really good for this anyway, since it puts too much emphasis on the "phone" aspect of the device and doesn't accurately describe the music or Internet functionality of it, not to mention the other potential application functionality it has. iPhone really doesn't seem like a very good name for the product anyway.
LPXXFAINTXX - What are you talking about?
Who has compared the Zune to the iPhone?
That's apples and oranges. Literally.
I think this will be resolved although Apple deserves this. They sued too many people for bullshit.
Isn't Steve Jobs buddhist or something?
Damn Karma...
Trust me, I've seen comments by fanboys in other posts.
"Zune is now screwed!"
"HAH, take that Zune!"
"This is sure to kill the Zune"
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1008
etc.
Well, there have been some comparisons, but not really direct. I think the main point of the comparisons is that Apple kind of leapfrogged the Zune in terms of UI and capabilities, and the general expectation is that the next iPod will also have many of the same capabilities of the iPhone, so it is natural to start thinking about iPod/Zune comparisons, and what MS will do in response.
Haha! How does this affect the analysis of the bet between the brother and the other guy about whether Apple would come out with the iPhone by March 2007? It's no longer an "iPhone" so who wins now??? LOL!!
Even if Cisco has the right to "iPhone"... it's not like Cisco invented that prefix "i" that is horribly attached to every electronic now.... which came first, the iPod or Cisco's iPhone....
And who cares anyway,... Apple could call it the iDildo and I would still be in line to buy it.
"which came first, the iPod or Cisco's iPhone...."
the Infogear (Cisco) iPhone came out in 1997. The iPod came out in 2001.
Yeah, this is why the USPTO sucks. I think they're both pantened for different things. But we'll see. I wonder why though Cisco just stopped negotiations, or maybe it was Apple.
AKBlade13
Maybe the Apple lawyers think they have a case because of precedent and their other trademarks. If I create a cartoon character called Icky Mouse I am gonna get sued regardless of whether Disney owns that.
Maybe Apple wants an excuse to drop the whole stupid iWhatever naming convention across the board.
Maybe they were distracted thinking about how much more the Beatles are going to hate them now that it's Apple Corps vs Apple, Inc....
I better go register iCum trademark
Oh, I think was expertly played by Cisco. The company played nice with Apple but pushed the negotiations to the day of the announcement. Confident that an agreement was imminent, Steve goes on stage and announces the name of the product. And then, once the name is in the hearts and minds of the media and the public at large, Cisco has Apple exactly where it wants it. So it plays the ace up its sleeve: a lawsuit.
An injunction will only force Apple to stop using the name 'iPhone.' As it's being reported in the media, the lawsuit does not seem to seek punitive damages or compensation. Cisco knows that it can't get much this way either. And what Cisco is after is money.
So Apple has very little choice right now—either it pays up, or it changes the name or the product.
I expect an out of court settlement before the end of the month.
While it not being called the iphone is not vital, it will confuse consumers that it was called the iphone but now it is called the _______. I can just imagine that 6 months from now, somebody walks into the apple store (the will be sold there) and asks for the iphone, the sales rep points to the "apple phone" (just for a place holder), the consumer gets confused, and leaves, sans iphone. That could be a but exaggerated but you have to think of everything in retail stores.
HEY !, Now I know why they cost so much, they are gonna pay their lawyers with this high cost !
i dont really think apple needs to use the iphone name anyway. too many people had already called it that, and they did change itv to apple tv. maybe iPort for portable or something.
What goes around, comes around.
has anyone considered that apple may win? legally speaking, they do have a case even if cisco trademarked the name first.
I say Cisco wanted more money after they saw the keynote, and Apple said "hells no".
Why don't they just call it the pPod or something? The "i" stood for "internet" originally, so why not switch to something else?
Hey, with changing iTV to Apple TV, I half expected Jobs to call it the Apple Phone in the first place. IMHO, it's a much better, more representative name for the device, anyway, considering the technology Apple is premiering on that device.
I'm thinking it went something like this...
Cisco - we want $x million now, and $x per phone for use of the trademark.
Apple - OK, but we get exclusive rights to the name
Cisco - nope, we are still going to make our iPhone products
Apple - forget it (consults lawyers, 'releases' product)
Cisco - fine, see you in court
They shouldn't win though. I think everyone has had enough of Apple suing other companies.
steve jobs is not so bright if he hasnt thought about calling the device the "ipod phone" and trademarking that (remember "ipod shuffle, ipod nano, etc etc?"
The iTV was announced last year and now it's called AppleTV. I predict Apple will just rename the iPhone the Apple Phone when it launches in June.
Ah, this is what Apple gets, even though I'm a fan and supporter of theirs. I think they'll reach a settlement. If not, good luck, Apple, you're screwed.
None of this surprises me from either company. I've worked with (not for) both companies in the past and I can't imagine two more difficult companies to work with. People may know less about 'The Cisco personality' than Apple but they are perfect for each other. They never know what they want and what they say they want constantly changes. One part of the company will tell you one thing and another part will tell you something completely different then both will whine that you're not giving them what they want.
These two deserve each other.
when someone says - i - my immediate thought is "What cool product did Apple release this time?"
It looks to me like CISCO is trying to sell their CRAPSYS phone by using the marketing power of the "i" prefix.
it is all business anyway. If CISCO has iphone then they MUST file suit to protect it. Just like APPLE MUST file suit to protect ipod.
think of this brands: xerox/kleenex/bandaid/coke
I think something has to be clarified to people who are saying Apple should have trademarked iphone or any variation thereof. You cannot just trademark a name for potential future use. Trademarks, in order to be protected, require use. If a trademark is not in use, then there is no protection. So apple could not have trademarked iPhone X years ago, because there was no product to associate it with.
With that said, I still think apple has a solid chance in court to stop Cisco's injunction.
"I think something has to be clarified to people who are saying Apple should have trademarked iphone or any variation thereof. You cannot just trademark a name for potential future use. Trademarks, in order to be protected, require use. If a trademark is not in use, then there is no protection."
This is the point exactly. Cisco wasn't using the iPhone trademark either (until 2 weeks ago).
Without naming its device for itself, the collective body of tech journalists, bloggers, and fans named Apple's mobile phone the iPhone, not Apple. Consequently, Apple built a brand name without saying the name. The fact that their unknown product became known by the public as the iPhone suggests they may be able to defend their (that is, Apple's) rights to the iPhone name.
how about apple just goes with "apple (symbol) phone"? i mean, they already did that with iTV, changing it to "apple tv". and then, there will be more name recognition for the newly branded "apple inc."
there, that was easy.
I prefer iMobile. And when we get 3G, iChat Mobile.
I like that ... Apple(symbol) Phone ... kinda like when Prince changed his name to a symbol.
fuck all you morons
Apple pioneered using "i" before product names over 10 years ago
with the iMac, then ITunes, iMovie, iPod, iWork, iLife
Cisco is simply trying to ride of Apple product success.
try getting informed next time, you pc loosers
What's the big deal?
Apple has enough time to see if they can win the legal battle for the trademark, if they lose they will simply name it apple phone...
Is that simple, they have nothing to lose.
Why some people hate apple so much that they hope apple gets screwed? has anyone forced them to buy their products? I don't think so, I just think they are a bunch of negative losers
If you check the uspto.gov site, the trademark "iPhone" is owned by 3 companies:
1. Teledex, 3/7/2005
2. Ocean Telecom Services, 9/26/2006
3. Infogear (Cisco), 3/20/1996
Sure Infogear got it first, but the other 2 companies successfully got the trademark for somewhat different devices. Maybe Apple has a case here.
Sigh. Serious shortage of follow through here. You went to the site, you saw three companies had applied for the iPhone trademark. Great. Now did you complete the process and see how many of them actually successfully REGISTERED the trademark?
If you had you would see that only one had. And that's Infogear, which is now owned by Cisco.
doh!
Apple has two choices: change the name, or work it out with Cisco.
Cisco not only has the trademark, they have a product out. If Apple wants to use the iPhone name, then Apple is going to be doing what they did with Apple Records, and that's paying a lot of money.
"Or since its not even available yet, they should just call it iPhoney"
my man's words LOL
While I despise both companies equally, like others, I have to side with Cisco on this. And yes it is ironic justice after Apple bullied smaller companies for using pod in their name. Pod is a much more generic term than iPhone.
And I can tell you from personal knowledge that the name iphone had NOTHING to do with any Apple product. It came from merging IP Phone. Which is how they refer to it iphone the IP Phone. So it will be pretty hard to argue they stole it from Apple. Plus being that Cisco has had it on the market long before Apple announced it was going to have one...
Apple's stock just jumped ten points. Apple thinks it can do whatever the hell it wants and no one will stop them, and as long as idiots keep buying their fashion accessories (I refuse to consider them legitamate electronics) they're right.
Why exactly do you not consider the iPod to be a legitimate piece of electronics? What makes it illegitimate to you? What makes the Mac Pro or MacBook illegitimate? Hell, what makes the iPhone (or whatever it will soon be called) illegitimate to you? Are you saying that you can look at the tech that is in it and what it's capabilities are and say it is just a "fashion accessory"?
They should partner with Nintendo, add some Ninty games to the package and call it the WiiPhone. Problem solved. Can't we all just get along?
Seriously, if Cisco holds the rights to the iPhone name and they actually produce or have produced a product with that name previously, Apple is pretty much screwed.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it does seem like it could ultimately be a good thing if Apple can't use the iPhone term. I think it is needlessly limiting - sort of like if they had called the original color photo-capable iPod Photo the iPhoto instead (I know that's the name of their photo app, but you get my drift). The nice thing about the iPod name is that it is so generic, and works well to describe an inherently multifunction device. If Apple had released their original mp3 player as something like the iMusic or something, it would have been a much more limiting name (frankly, I think Apple is facing this problem with iTunes, as it is a silly name for an app that is increasingly doing more than managing music). I think iPod Phone makes more sense. Also, just looking at the Washington Post coverage, in their headlines they actually called it the iPod Phone and iPod Smartphone, not the iPhone. The iPod name is so well known now that it is probably worse to not use than to try and use iPhone.
I imagine at this point that Apple will still try and come to some settlement with Cisco (I'm kind of curious how things went from them being in final negotiations yesterday to Cisco suing today though), and if nothing works, I think Apple will just fall back on iPod Phone or some other name.
Long term I have a hard time seeing how this really hurts Apple. It's not like this product needs to be called iPhone to sell well. I'm not even so sure how much people care about these product names anyway - heck, my current phone is a Treo 650 and I don't even know what Treo means (and I didn't even pronounce it properly for a long time - I kept calling it a Trio instead of a Trey-o).
How about iPod Phone..... wouldn't that work just as well?
@TR
I think changing the name to applePhone to match the appleTV is the best solution.
In a way it would be telling Cisco to eff off. They had their chance to make a few million by allowing Apple to use the iPhone name, it's not like their Skype iPhone is going to sell more than 100,000 units. They had the chance to sell the trademark for a substantial cost and maybe make royalties but they got too greedy, if Apple changes the name all they get in the end is a Skype phone and some court costs.
How about iPP (pronounced [Ay-Pee-Pee] translation iPodPhone)
There is a single reason that Steve went ahead and called it an iphone before Apple had the rights - Steve is arrogent and has a bit, okay, a LOT, of a god complex. He felt iphone was his, even if it legally wasn't, and the details will be worked out later. Of course, Apple doesn't have the rights to put an "i" in front of every consumer electronics product under heaven without trademarking them first, sorry Steve.
Steve's arrogence needlessly costs his company again. Probably not much in the long run. But, throwing money away on arrogence is still wasting money, and...it's stupid. Why not call it the Apple Phone? Anyone else would have a hard time laying claim to the Apple name. Or, why not wait until you've got the rights, it's not shipping until June, right? Plenty of time for a name change.
A presumtive move like this completely fits Apple's character and all the Macbots out there that will cream on Steve no matter what he says. If Steve said that he was gonna defacate out something later on tonight called the ishit the Macbots would be in line with their $199 in hand ($299 for the 20 inch version).
Now, as far as the actual phone goes - wow, it looks pretty darn cool. No need to crow about it you twity ninnys. When your shit is good, do you need to crow about it? Everyone thinks a braggert is a prick, because they are. Shut up, and appreciate the elegance of the device in an...how about ELEGANT way - say, maybe quiet appreciation and applause, and not in your face bluster. The company esthetic should really run contrary to that.
As far as Crapsys goes, I've sure had to reboot my ipod a lot more times than I've ever done my Linksys router.
This is too good. I hope Apple looses this bad. Well played Cisco!
I didn't read all of the comments, so someone might have suggested this already:
I believe the best way to go about this is what Apple did with iTV--they just renamed it Apple (the logo) TV. So, with iPhone, I think they should simply change it to Apple (the logo) Phone. Simple.
iNewton.
Why on earth has virtually no-one in this thread stated the obvious - this is not a 'real' lawsuit. Cisco doesn't want to go to court over this they want to settle for $$$$. Filing suit is just a step in negotiations and they will settle in a few days.
I think it should be branded the 'iMobile'
I think that is more hip than iPhone anyway - goes with Apple's too cool for school attitude a bit better.
http://tools.cisco.com/newsroom/contactSearch/jsp/prSearch.jsp
They will give up... just email them telling them to.
They should just forget fighting and rename it the iMobile....... then set up a cell carrier deal with T-Mobile......
Why can't Apple just sell us the phone and let us buy the SIM card ourselves?
Apparently, the iPhone requires a network to make certain changes to it (e.g. for Visual Voicemail). Even if Apple wanted to give TMobile the iPhone, it might take some time.
"They should just forget fighting and rename it the iMobile....... then set up a cell carrier deal with T-Mobile......
Why can't Apple just sell us the phone and let us buy the SIM card ourselves?"
Why? because T-Mobile has even worse data service than Cingular and this product obviously relies on a data network.
and why dont they sell them unlocked? easy - They are in bed with Cingular. They are getting a built in market PLUS Cingular is helping them develop software for the phone to use proprietary aspects of their network. It's really nothing new. Its kind of like asking why Motorola has only released the Q on CDMA networks.
Surely they'll just get around this by calling it the Apple Apple iPhone. Same way as tecnically Mazda's are Mazda Mazda 3.
I did think iPhone sounded a little weak. They should have called it the iLife Go or something.
Apple had to know that Cisco had a trademark on this so therefore it was stupid to name it iphone no matter what
I personally believe that Apple (or even Steve) had the idea of discussing a "negotiation" with Cisco, but had not fully intended to go through with it. This would buy Apple time enough to announce the iPhone to the public while Cisco stays "hush hush" about the trademark and announcement until it happens.
After Steve's keynote, with Cisco expecting to go through with a very favorable compromise, Apple backs out with the notion that they believe they've just announced a revolution, have shocked the world with an amazing new device, and everything will be fine. No need for the compromise, which was probably an outrageous amount anyways, and they'd still be battling this for years to come and have a chance at "winning," and not have to do a compromise in the first place.
I dunno, just a thought. And I think iCell, or iCellular, is a better name than iPhone. That is what it is, basically, isn't it?
-me
ipwned
GREAT PR for Apple!
This lawsuit only warm speculations about iphone - every month before release we'll be hear the new news about it!
I think many people would be tired of iphone news...
Just call it the apple phone...everyone will call it an iphone anyway
Maybe suing Apple was part of the agreement they were working on. I mean, look at all this exposure they're getting. Plus, Apple is a HUGE company -- you really think they'd be stupid enough to release a big product like the iPhone without checking to see if the name is patented? Something else is definitely going on.
Fishes,
narco.
Apple already knew about the iPhone, and yet named their phone like that...and they are calling the lawsuit silly :| (yes, literally http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6250511.stm). If Apple wasn't so selfish and named the damn phone some other way they would have evaded this, that even if they win will make hem look bad; and IMO now that Apple has named it like that it won't turn back.
"iNewton"
hahahah... wow... seriously... remember these words 6 months from now..
Apple can change the spelling of iPhone in about 2 seconds, or dip into the vault to pay out 50 mil.. whatever, they're swimming in cash..
Apple tried to cut a deal, but whatever, guess both products will use the name and one (ahem... just guess) will fade into ignominy (more likely, the abyss) while the other will rise to lofty heights of adoration the world over.
Wake up you tools, this is going to keep happening until the rest of the industry figures it out... CE=end to end experience.
As if MS bailing on its partners with the 'zune' wasn't indication enough.
What makes you think that people who criticise Apple never used their products? I did (G5, as part of my work), and I didn't like the experience (nor do I like Windows). Just because they make one good product, doesn't mean all of their other products suddenly qualify to be good.
Zadillo:
You bring up an important reminder: Consistency!
iPhoto, iLife, etc... those are all software. iPod is the exception and I have to admit the first time I heard about it I thought it was a computer program. It still easily could be software, with Pod being Podcast. Fits in with iLife perfectly, no?
Their hardware, however (with the exception of the iMac) doesn't start with "i"s... and it shouldn't. They really should have thought out this naming scheme of theirs rather than just having some monkey prefixing "i"s at random.
Naming products at Apple is probably comparable to navigating a labyrinth.
l2k ("As far as Crapsys goes, I've sure had to reboot my ipod a lot more times than I've ever done my Linksys router."):
Are you sure about that? What router hardware version do you have? I have the non-Linux v5 one, which was completely crippled by a decision to move to a proprietary firmware and cut the RAM (and everything) in half, thus making the cost, physical size, etc. completely unjustified.
When I phoned Linksys to ask them why my router had to be reset constantly (because it kept killing / refusing connections / breaking for no discernible reason), they actually had the nerve to tell me "You're using it too much". That would perhaps make sense if I was using all 4 of the wired connections and a few wireless connections, but I'm not! I have at most 3 desktop PCs connected to it (one wirelessly) and maybe a DS on a very rare occasion. Also, since the homebrew WiFi library is slow, it's not like I'm doing much with it!
That router has crashed with a mere 2 connections, and there really are rarely more than 2 static wired ones. Officially, that is beyond the router's capabilities to rout.
If you were lucky enough to get one before Linksys crippled the things, consider yourself lucky. Otherwise, I question your calling it a router; it's more like a 2 inch cable extender.
Poke a hole in Apple and screw...
f*ck, iMsosickofthis.
why does everyone have to go around suing people? call me naive, but iReallyhate both companies: Cisco obviously set things up to sue Apple, and iDon'thave to mention Apples dirty business. don't they have better things to do than play what is basically a bigger version of two kids fighting over a toy? can't they SHARE? so then you say that Cisco is profiteering of Apple's success and the i prefix. so???? are people stupid enough to buy Cisco's iPhone as a mistake?? i don't see anyone getting hurt if they both use the goddamn name.
Apple can still call the OS iPhone juast not the physical prouct. Cisco will loose the name just like Kleenex. The newton was the OS it was actually called the message pad.
its obvious that apple knew that Cisco was going to get angry about this, they were not in the dark at all. How I know this is that if you notice on every apple product, there is branding "iPod, Macbook" the iPhone has no branding becase apple didnt want to waste the money in production for something that is trademark infringement. What apple was trying to to was to push a smaller company, like Cisco, into giving up there trademark.
Quote:Apple pushing around A "smaller company like Cisco"? LOL
Cisco Market Cap $174 Billion P/E 24
Apple Market Cap $82 Billion P/E 28
Hope Steve Jobs finally gets what he deserves.