W$J: Apple will likely have to pay Cisco Systems Inc. for the right use "iPhone" as the name for its new cellphone. Cisco, which owns the rights to the name and unveiled a line of Internet-based phone devices using the brand last month, said it has been in talks with Apple about the trademark and expects to sign an agreement later today. (Read more in the WSJ Law Blog.)posted by alms at 1:09 PM on January 9, 2007
"Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years, and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement," said a Cisco spokeswoman.
The only two iPhones at the show were under glass, and Apple representatives said it is a "closed platform", refusing even to identify the specific processor it uses, and there's apparently no developer kit for it, though "developers who want to do applications [for the iPhone] are welcome to contact Apple developer relations."But hey, it's running OS X, so all us geeks will love it.
[[NSPhone sharedPhone] placeCallToNumber:[NSPhoneNumber numberWithString:@"867-5309"]];Beeeeeeeep. Jenny's not home at the moment, please leave a message.iPhone uses quad-band GSM (website)Oookay, it's not a US-only piece.
Others questioned whether the device would be as versatile as other smartphones if it was not truly open — that is, able to accommodate many programs from third parties, as personal computers are.posted by alms at 6:48 AM on January 10, 2007
Mr. Jobs would not say how open the phone would be to other developers, but added: “I don’t want people to think of this as a computer. I think of it as reinventing the phone.”
He also said he was anxious to help protect the Cingular network from the kind of viruses and worms that bedevil the PC world today.
I wish we could sell it for $100 today. We can’t. It’s a little more expensive than that. As we bring the cost down year over year and can appeal to more and more people, I don’t see why everyone wouldn’t want one of these.(Via windows media video of interview on CNBC. Quote starts at approximately 4:50.)
Is the iPhone too expensive? Sure it is, if you're on the market for a cell phone. And it's a little pricey if you want a box for listening to music. But [...] The tasks are the main thing, are the value - the box is just a tool for accomplishing them. Steve Jobs doesn't want to sell you an expensive phone; he's selling a new way of thinking about computers that turns 'telephone' into a feature of your handheld instead of the other way around. It looks like a super-iPod and sounds like a super-phone, but the iPhone is really a Mac Nano.Complaining about the price or lack of certain features is missing the point, I think: the iPhone isn't meant to be a great phone, it's meant to make a new market for a kind of product. At $500 I imagine it won't attract many 16-year-old kids, but it doesn't have to. It'll work its way down to them, and when a consumer product of this class is available at a price they can afford, Apple will be the thought-leader and style-trendsetter in the market. The iPhone will do what the iPod did, not in money terms but in terms of altering the categories we use to talk about consumer handheld electronics.
And that raises a few more questions, exciting ones: how do you talk about Apple's 'PC market share' when your phone is a stripped-down PC? If Apple sells 10 million iPhones by 2008 (Jobs's goal, 1% cell phone market share), won't it really have sold 10 million handheld Apple computers? If you're calling your schoolmates in OSX, does that make you a Mac user?
Are you seeing the picture here? A computer is a component. Apple isn't in the component business. You buy a 'smartphone' - but you're basically being sold a Mac.
« Older The Ideological Animal.... | Top Ten Most Underreported Hum... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by alms at 10:36 AM on January 9, 2007