And there lies the (Apple) iPhone's similarity with the cruddy smartphones already on the market: you don't have as much control as with a conventional computer?
Yes, I'm one of the tablet folk who'd prefer to buy one of these and use it for wifi Safari and Mail instead of making calls. And that I'll be able to do of course, only with Cingular getting their cut too (or whoever it turns out to be compatible with over here, Vodafone?).
Dang it, this thing is so sweet but I'm all confused. I want a Tablet Mac MacBook Nano etc. etc. but this thing's so damn cool!
Despite a trademark conflict with Cisco, Apple is in negotiations to keep the iPhone name for its newly-announcd communications device, according to to a published report.
Following the introduction of the Apple iPhone on Tuesday, Cisco today was quick to dispel worries that its recently launched VoIP phone of the same name would trigger a prolonged trademark dispute.
Speaking to the financial news outlet MarketWatch, the networking giant said on Tuesday that it had conducted "extensive discussions" with Apple to come to a mutual agreement on the use of the iPhone moniker. Progress is reportedly swift and the deal may be completed as of today.
"We expect to receive a signed agreement [Tuesday]," a Cisco representative said.
Terms of the agreement were not revealed in the statement, which confirms Apple's awareness of the now ten year old trademark property in advance of today's Macworld San Francisco keynote by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.
Differences in the nature of the devices may play a part in the settlement. While Cisco's Linksys-branded iPhone taps into online voice services such as Skype or Yahoo! Messenger for Internet-based calling, the Apple handset is more conventional and provides voice calling only through cellular networks, reserving its EDGE and Wi-Fi connections for visual tasks such as e-mail and web browsing.
Apple had not returned a request for comments on the negotiations as of Tuesday afternoon, MarketWatch said.
What sucks is Cisco probably only trademarked it once they saw the original imac and thought it sounded cool.
Oh well if falls through it can just be called "Apple phone."
This might even get cisco some accidental sales of somepeople who may think it's an apple product.
"Oh wow apple made a cell phone and a skype phone!"
Oh.... I think it was a smart decision on Cisco's part: I am sure they made a few bucks in this transfer of naming rights! (The so-called "iPhone" that they introduced a few weeks ago looked REALLY lame, and not much of a cash flow generator, anyway -- they'll probably make more $$ selling hardware that supports Apple's new breakthroughs).
Well if the Apple Computer Inc dispute with Apple Core is anything to go by this probably means they made an agreement never to step into the IM side of things
Speaking of trademarks, I was sure Steve would have a 'one more thing' today and announce that the Beatles are now on iTunes. I mean there were so many Beatles references throughout the keynote and then the company name changed to Apple Inc. Perhaps something still to be announced shortly>
So the iTV is renamed appleTV (with the cool apple logo insterted instead of "i"). I don't understand why they didn't do the same thing with the iPhone -- applePhone anyone? It makes no sense to me that they would drop the "i" from one product and keep it for the other. Perhaps it's only the computer side that is going to lose "i" (I'm looking at you iMac!).
Well if the Apple Computer Inc dispute with Apple Core is anything to go by this probably means they made an agreement never to step into the IM side of things
That would be kind of weird. How does one differentiate SMS from IM in legalese?
I was actually wondering how long it would take for a Skype type app to be developed to run on the Apple iPhone, since it already has Wi-Fi and it runs OSX. I would be VERY interested in something like that. Would certainly be better than running up airtime while on a Wi-Fi hotspot or home network.
Maybe that would then step on the Cisco Trademark.
So the iTV is renamed appleTV (with the cool apple logo insterted instead of "i"). I don't understand why they didn't do the same thing with the iPhone -- applePhone anyone? It makes no sense to me that they would drop the "i" from one product and keep it for the other. Perhaps it's only the computer side that is going to lose "i" (I'm looking at you iMac!).
My guess is that under the hood the AppleTV and iPhone are more similar than Apple is letting on.
They did say that the AppleTV has an intel processor inside and I suspect it is running some form of OSX as well.
As far as the name goes, I believe Jobs felt that the "iPhone" moniker was critical to it's success and as a result was willing to pay any price.
The rights to the "iTV" trademark were probably not seen as important.
I think the "Apple TV" will morph from an external box into an actual TV.
After All how different is a LCD HDTV and a Cinema Display?
My guess is that under the hood the AppleTV and iPhone are more similar than Apple is letting on.
They did say that the AppleTV has an intel processor inside and I suspect it is running some form of OSX as well.
Well, Intel makes a lot of different processors. An Intel chip - even one capable of running Darwin - doesn't mean there's a full-blown Mac inside.
And the embedded OS X is almost certainly a stripped-down version. There would be no point to including a huge multi-GB OS installation on an embedded device. But it would make perfect sense to develop an embedded version, just like there exists an embedded-Linux kernel that some other devices use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
As far as the name goes, I believe Jobs felt that the "iPhone" moniker was critical to it's success and as a result was willing to pay any price.
The rights to the "iTV" trademark were probably not seen as important.
I think the "Apple TV" will morph from an external box into an actual TV.
After All how different is a LCD HDTV and a Cinema Display?
iPhone was necessary because the public was using the name for over a years, in anticipation of the product.
Is there a potential "iTV" trademark violation? The only conflict I can think of would be with a TV station in the UK. And that may not be an actual violation - there's quite a difference between a broadcasting network and a set-top box. But TV is also a pretty catchy name. (Apologies to those whose web browsers can't render the Apple-logo character. )
Merging TV with a real television? Maybe, but I don't know. It's one thing to compete with companies like Microsoft and TiVo. It's another to go head-to-head against Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, and all those other TV vendors. I won't say it's impossible, but Apple won't get into a new market without some piece of innovation that nobody else has thought of yet (like they did with the iPhone). Simply placing the circuitry of an existing set-top box inside an existing monitor is hardly innovative.
Is there a potential "iTV" trademark violation? The only conflict I can think of would be with a TV station in the UK. And that may not be an actual violation - there's quite a difference between a broadcasting network and a set-top box.
I don't think it would be a violation unless they used Apple Computer's logo.
Quote:
(Apologies to those whose web browsers can't render the Apple-logo character. )
Firefox for Mac sees it just fine. It's probably only a problem for Windows systems.
Quote:
Merging TV with a real television? Maybe, but I don't know. It's one thing to compete with companies like Microsoft and TiVo. It's another to go head-to-head against Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, and all those other TV vendors. I won't say it's impossible, but Apple won't get into a new market without some piece of innovation that nobody else has thought of yet (like they did with the iPhone). Simply placing the circuitry of an existing set-top box inside an existing monitor is hardly innovative.
I don't think it can be remotely competitive on price or features. HDTVs are being sold only very slightly above cost by retailers, and there isn't much I see that can be done to improve upon the current stable of TVs, save for maybe a nicer enclosure and having them pre-calibrated at the factory with decent white points and such, most TVs are set intentionally harsh just so they look more vivid on the showroom floor.
I don't think it would be a violation unless they used Apple Computer's logo.
I think you misunderstood me. There is clearly no violation today - the TV station is ITV and the Apple product is TV. Completely different.
The question I was trying to answer was if they changed the name from the previous code-name ("iTV") due to possible trademark infringement. If there would be any, the TV station would win - they have existed using that name for decades now.
Comments
Yes, I'm one of the tablet folk who'd prefer to buy one of these and use it for wifi Safari and Mail instead of making calls. And that I'll be able to do of course, only with Cingular getting their cut too (or whoever it turns out to be compatible with over here, Vodafone?).
Dang it, this thing is so sweet but I'm all confused. I want a Tablet Mac MacBook Nano etc. etc. but this thing's so damn cool!
Following the introduction of the Apple iPhone on Tuesday, Cisco today was quick to dispel worries that its recently launched VoIP phone of the same name would trigger a prolonged trademark dispute.
Speaking to the financial news outlet MarketWatch, the networking giant said on Tuesday that it had conducted "extensive discussions" with Apple to come to a mutual agreement on the use of the iPhone moniker. Progress is reportedly swift and the deal may be completed as of today.
"We expect to receive a signed agreement [Tuesday]," a Cisco representative said.
Terms of the agreement were not revealed in the statement, which confirms Apple's awareness of the now ten year old trademark property in advance of today's Macworld San Francisco keynote by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.
Differences in the nature of the devices may play a part in the settlement. While Cisco's Linksys-branded iPhone taps into online voice services such as Skype or Yahoo! Messenger for Internet-based calling, the Apple handset is more conventional and provides voice calling only through cellular networks, reserving its EDGE and Wi-Fi connections for visual tasks such as e-mail and web browsing.
Apple had not returned a request for comments on the negotiations as of Tuesday afternoon, MarketWatch said.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Oh well if falls through it can just be called "Apple phone."
This might even get cisco some accidental sales of somepeople who may think it's an apple product.
"Oh wow apple made a cell phone and a skype phone!"
What sucks is Cisco probably only trademarked it once they saw the original imac and thought it sounded cool.
Oh well if falls through it can just be called "Apple phone."
This might even get cisco some accidental sales of somepeople who may think it's an apple product.
"Oh wow apple made a cell phone and a skype phone!"
Oh.... I think it was a smart decision on Cisco's part: I am sure they made a few bucks in this transfer of naming rights! (The so-called "iPhone" that they introduced a few weeks ago looked REALLY lame, and not much of a cash flow generator, anyway -- they'll probably make more $$ selling hardware that supports Apple's new breakthroughs).
Well if the Apple Computer Inc dispute with Apple Core is anything to go by this probably means they made an agreement never to step into the IM side of things
That would be kind of weird. How does one differentiate SMS from IM in legalese?
Maybe that would then step on the Cisco Trademark.
So the iTV is renamed appleTV (with the cool apple logo insterted instead of "i"). I don't understand why they didn't do the same thing with the iPhone -- applePhone anyone? It makes no sense to me that they would drop the "i" from one product and keep it for the other. Perhaps it's only the computer side that is going to lose "i" (I'm looking at you iMac!).
My guess is that under the hood the AppleTV and iPhone are more similar than Apple is letting on.
They did say that the AppleTV has an intel processor inside and I suspect it is running some form of OSX as well.
As far as the name goes, I believe Jobs felt that the "iPhone" moniker was critical to it's success and as a result was willing to pay any price.
The rights to the "iTV" trademark were probably not seen as important.
I think the "Apple TV" will morph from an external box into an actual TV.
After All how different is a LCD HDTV and a Cinema Display?
My guess is that under the hood the AppleTV and iPhone are more similar than Apple is letting on.
They did say that the AppleTV has an intel processor inside and I suspect it is running some form of OSX as well.
Well, Intel makes a lot of different processors. An Intel chip - even one capable of running Darwin - doesn't mean there's a full-blown Mac inside.
And the embedded OS X is almost certainly a stripped-down version. There would be no point to including a huge multi-GB OS installation on an embedded device. But it would make perfect sense to develop an embedded version, just like there exists an embedded-Linux kernel that some other devices use.
As far as the name goes, I believe Jobs felt that the "iPhone" moniker was critical to it's success and as a result was willing to pay any price.
The rights to the "iTV" trademark were probably not seen as important.
I think the "Apple TV" will morph from an external box into an actual TV.
After All how different is a LCD HDTV and a Cinema Display?
iPhone was necessary because the public was using the name for over a years, in anticipation of the product.
Is there a potential "iTV" trademark violation? The only conflict I can think of would be with a TV station in the UK. And that may not be an actual violation - there's quite a difference between a broadcasting network and a set-top box. But TV is also a pretty catchy name. (Apologies to those whose web browsers can't render the Apple-logo character.
Merging TV with a real television? Maybe, but I don't know. It's one thing to compete with companies like Microsoft and TiVo. It's another to go head-to-head against Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, and all those other TV vendors. I won't say it's impossible, but Apple won't get into a new market without some piece of innovation that nobody else has thought of yet (like they did with the iPhone). Simply placing the circuitry of an existing set-top box inside an existing monitor is hardly innovative.
Is there a potential "iTV" trademark violation? The only conflict I can think of would be with a TV station in the UK. And that may not be an actual violation - there's quite a difference between a broadcasting network and a set-top box.
I don't think it would be a violation unless they used Apple Computer's logo.
(Apologies to those whose web browsers can't render the Apple-logo character.
Firefox for Mac sees it just fine. It's probably only a problem for Windows systems.
Merging TV with a real television? Maybe, but I don't know. It's one thing to compete with companies like Microsoft and TiVo. It's another to go head-to-head against Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, and all those other TV vendors. I won't say it's impossible, but Apple won't get into a new market without some piece of innovation that nobody else has thought of yet (like they did with the iPhone). Simply placing the circuitry of an existing set-top box inside an existing monitor is hardly innovative.
I don't think it can be remotely competitive on price or features. HDTVs are being sold only very slightly above cost by retailers, and there isn't much I see that can be done to improve upon the current stable of TVs, save for maybe a nicer enclosure and having them pre-calibrated at the factory with decent white points and such, most TVs are set intentionally harsh just so they look more vivid on the showroom floor.
I don't think it would be a violation unless they used Apple Computer's logo.
I think you misunderstood me. There is clearly no violation today - the TV station is ITV and the Apple product is TV. Completely different.
The question I was trying to answer was if they changed the name from the previous code-name ("iTV") due to possible trademark infringement. If there would be any, the TV station would win - they have existed using that name for decades now.
"We expect to receive a signed agreement [Tuesday]," a Cisco representative said.
I guess the talks fell through cuz Apple's being sued.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...20&newsLang=en