Originally Posted by Louzer
Sorry. But both products are being sold as Phones. Their primary purposes are to make phone calls. To say "They're nothing alike" is stretching it. Based on your argument, Panasonic tomorrow could come out with a cordless phone and call it the iPhone, because it has to be used with its basestation/landline. And if I wanted to start my own phone company, I could call it Cingular, because they don't do wired networks!
I personally hate the name iPhone for Apple's device anyway, since the device has more in common with a PDA. It does a lot more than just a phone, unfortunately everyone looks at it as a phone first. There isn't really a term for any device that does all of this so Apple would have to almost invent a word. Heck perhaps it should be called the iLife instead of their software, you'll keep your life on it.
First, I don't see how Apple has the sole right to use all 'i' words. And I also don't think they were the first (so were they riding the coattails of the previous users?).
I don't disagree with that at all, however, can you name the company that used it first? And is it a name that half the people reading this would even recognize? The point is not who used it first, but is Cisco benefitting because of the notoriety that Apple has created with it?
Secondly, I looked at the linksys phone. The only thing you could argue about saying they made it look like an apple product is that its white. That's it. Does apple have restrictive use on the color white now? Hell, the screen looks like Windows more than anything Apple would do. And it has buttons! Apple doesn't do buttons, we all know that. Its WAY too complicated for people to press physical buttons.
Well, it is white with dark grayish lettering in a nearly identical typeface as on Apple's keyboards. (aren't keyboards buttons?) Not so much that it is white, but a combination of those things with the "i"name. Not to mention that none of their (Cisco's) other products look like this at all.
Finally, I've got a hypothetical. If Cisco announced their product in April 2007, instead of December 2006, would the defense crowd out there (those decrying Cisco's attempt and saying Apple has the right to use the name as well) be saying the same thing about Cisco? Or would they be saying that they're going to get their asses sued by Apple and they had no right to the name, the products are too close to functionality, etc? I just can't see anyone here defending Cisco in the opposite case. Which just makes me wonder how, then, Apple can be defended.
No, I believe Whole heartedly that Apple is in the wrong here, I am just seeing a disturbing trend of Apple paying off people to do things anymore. I don't care for the name myself, but I do believe that people are naming products "i" this and "i" that, not because they are marketing geniuses, but they see success in that branding and are following along. As a stockholder, I don't want to see Apple paying off people when (don't get me started on the whole Creative payoff) perhaps it is time for Apple to shift the paradigm again, the waters are muddy now.