I think you're right, but don't give the "i" thing up TOTALLY... something with Mac would probably be more appropriate...
But I think "i" is good for things like the iMac and iPod
oh absolutely. Especially "iPod". i think this product has become an icon in our culture that it's evolved into a word that we commonly use in our everyday dialog, and also from it came "podcast". so i think to rename the iPod would be like removing a word from the Dictionary. with this in mind i think we can understand why apple jealously guard the iPod name and "pod".
anyway, i'm not proposing to Completely give up on the "i". (this was my bad because i wasn't clear.) some "i" that are properly placed become like conjoined twins. i think the iPod will always be the iPod. it's not the same if its called the apple (logo) "pod". however, removing the "i" from iMac and replacing it with the apple logo would be redundant because "Mac" in the context of computers is synonymous with Apple. unlike "PC", i think it has a unique identity as the iPod.
It already does have the Apple logo in front of the name. As far as I can remember, no other Apple product has ever had the logo associated with the name in such a (trademark type) fashion. Well...except the new Apple TV. Maybe Steve is rethinking it all.
I think you have a good point there - one Cisco lawyers haven't noticed.
Why not just call it phone instead? I'm tired of the whole meaningless "i" thing anyway. If it comprises numerous Apple products (not just the iPod) into one device then it's a better name for it anyway. They did just change their name to Apple, Inc. after all.
Calling smart businessmen like Jobs and the rest at Apple "silly" is even more silly. You don't believe for a second that they haven't discussed all angles in the iPhone brand case???
I think Cisco deliberately stalled negotiations so the deal would not be closed before Jobs keynote JUST to be able to sue. The american way of handling most everything.
Tough shit Apple..change the name of the device and get over with it already. Luckily it seems like there's no "iphone" text or logo on the actual device yet.
It is almost impossible to write -> thus screwing up for all media reporting and all web users searching for it.
The name will (as previously mentioned) be "Apple iPhone", this way noone (i.e. Cisco) can claim infringement.
On all Apple pressreleases/ads they will use the apple logo intead of the word Apple (as on their web right now).
People in general will just use the "IPhone" name when referring to the "Apple iPhone", media will report on "the iPhone" or "the iPhone from Apple", web shops will list it as "iPhone" (and the Cisco one as "Cisco "iPhone" - note: not the one from Apple".
IMO, moving forward w/the iPhone name is a bad move on Apple's part. First of all, Cisco clearly has rights to the name. Secondly, paying licensing fees (which will be sizable) will be a revenue drain. Lastly, and most importantly, this is a legal challenge that may distract Apple.
At any given moment, Apple is facing any number of law suits, this is just business. However, the back-dating issue and this are two cases that Apple brought on themselves. According to the news sites, Apple 'missed' an imposed Tuesday night deadline to sign the paper work. Why?
Once they publicly committed to the iPhone name, Apple lost its bargaining leverage. Some of you are arguing that the iPhone brand is now ruined, and because of this Cisco should acquiesce to Apple's demands. Why? In previous negotiations, Apple could have threatened to use a different name if Cisco's fees were too high. Apple is now tied to the name, and it would take a huge effort to re-brand the iPhone. All advantage is with Cisco now.
This is very disappointing to see Apple muck this up. Yes, Steve, et al. were aware of the situation, and knowingly challenged Cisco. But I think this shows a headiness that will lead Apple into trouble.
Why dont apple research trade marked name before naming their products, sometimes steve and his band can be so stupid!
The main reason why Apple didn't do this is because consumers had already named the phone for them- it was a brand that existed before it's conception- thus rumour managed to do a hefty amount of unintentional marketing for Apple. If you search for iPhone in google you're likely to get more results for Apple than Cisco.
Apple may be very clever here- i'm guessing I know how the company will defend itself- it could set a new precedent in trademark law. If Apple have registered the trademark, they may have registered it as '(APPLE IMAGE)iPhone' not simply 'iPhone' which is a registered trademark of cisco. They may also defend themselves by saying that putting 'i' in front of a word is a logical step in technology, hence the- 'iPod', Apple may even say that they coined the term 'i' (small i) followed by (Subject matter). E-mail, E-commerce, are all phrases that are exempt from trademark rules as they are widely known terms.
If you look to the Apple website the iPhone is preceded by an Apple logo on all but one occasion- thus:-
As they have already named the Apple TV- as (APPLE IMAGE)TV- they might have a defence.
However, if the contract was entered into under false pretenses- it is hardly a mitigating factor- Apple will struggle to use this as a defence to proceedings due to the fact they really have pulled a fast one. Instead of having to dish out money to Cisco on the sale of every iPhone- if I know Apple as well as I do- they will have to change the name before release- NOTICE- THE APPLE iPHONE says iPHONE NOWHERE ON THE PHONE. Calling it iPhone may have just been to garner some media support and market a product that already existed in the consumers head. Thus weighing up all the facts iThink it would be in Apple's interest, in business, to rebrand the phone before it goes to production (although this would be a controversial decision, it would make sense). OR alternatively- continue proceedings with an out of court settlement- which would definitely be in the best interests as the courts are not likely to favour Apple's position.
I'm sure there was just a misunderstanding somewhere- Apple would not have been foolish enough to discontinue the agreement between the two parties- it would make good business sense not to. I don't know much about US TM laws, although I am a law student in the UK and understand how these things work.
Sounds like someone trying to piggy back on someones coattails
I got that impression too. It seems awfully suspicious that cisco would own a trademark since 2000 and yet choose to release the product a short time before Apple's expo.
I wouldn't like two products on the market of the same name because it causes confusion and I also think the use of 'i' is getting old. However, the use of 'Mac' is worse. Macbook and Macbook Pro are some of the worst names Apple have used. ibook and powerbook were genius as is isight (eyesight) and ipod.
I don't particularly like iphone because it gives people a false impression about what it is. People were expecting an ipod with phone ability. This is a smart phone which is nothing like a normal phone - it's a pocket computer. If anything, it should be iSmartPhone or iPDA. There's also iTouch or iComm but again they don't describe the device.
This is a smart phone which is nothing like a normal phone - it's a pocket computer. If anything, it should be iSmartPhone or iPDA. There's also iTouch or iComm but again they don't describe the device.
PDA rings the wrong bells, SmartPhone is better but also not quite right.
Apple copyrighted "Mobile Me", maybe the should call it MePhone
I think Apple has to rethink their naming on a LOT of products...
1) iPod - They pretty much have to stick with it now, but it appears to me the iPhone should have been called the iPod and the iPod something else because Pod (until Apple marketed the iPod) had little or no association with music. SInce the iPhone is an iPod + plus a phone + a wireless internet device I think it is more of a "pod" than the iPod.
2) iTunes - no longer just for tunes; movies, TV shows, music videos, ?TV and now ?iPhone .... it IS literally the center of your digital entertainment life. It should be the REAL iLife. Keep the names of iDVD, iMovie and GarageBand ... they actually say something about the software.
3) iWork / iLife (as they are now) - I would LOVE Apple to add a spreadsheet app, then combine iWork and iLife into one application called AppleWorks Studio or something like that. Sell it for $129 and update it every 12 - 18 months. Well, what if I don't need iWeb or iDVD or iMovie, but need Keynote, Pages and Numbers? I dunno ... they already bundle iLife with new Macs, why not call the apps by their separate names and offer the major revisions with the OS X 10.5, 10.6, etc. updates and bump the price of OS X to $139 or $149 - still cheaper than Vista Sooper-Dooper edition.
It's had for me not to think of the ?iPhone as a miniature computer. Why not the MacPhone? I dunno ... just my $0.02, but I do believe that Apple needs to look at the names of more than just the ?iPhone....
Comments
I think you're right, but don't give the "i" thing up TOTALLY... something with Mac would probably be more appropriate...
But I think "i" is good for things like the iMac and iPod
oh absolutely. Especially "iPod". i think this product has become an icon in our culture that it's evolved into a word that we commonly use in our everyday dialog, and also from it came "podcast". so i think to rename the iPod would be like removing a word from the Dictionary. with this in mind i think we can understand why apple jealously guard the iPod name and "pod".
anyway, i'm not proposing to Completely give up on the "i". (this was my bad because i wasn't clear.) some "i" that are properly placed become like conjoined twins. i think the iPod will always be the iPod. it's not the same if its called the apple (logo) "pod". however, removing the "i" from iMac and replacing it with the apple logo would be redundant because "Mac" in the context of computers is synonymous with Apple. unlike "PC", i think it has a unique identity as the iPod.
We may all be getting worked up over nothing - have you noticed the branding?
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
It already does have the Apple logo in front of the name. As far as I can remember, no other Apple product has ever had the logo associated with the name in such a (trademark type) fashion. Well...except the new Apple TV. Maybe Steve is rethinking it all.
I think you have a good point there - one Cisco lawyers haven't noticed.
Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
not so easy to draw that conclusion,
apple has marketed the "pod" name like sony has done with "walkman" name, these companies "own" those names,
but we are all familiar with the word "phone", no one company has spent millions marketing the word "phone" and therefore has rights to it
i think APPLE PHONE is a good bet (apple tv, apple inc.)
in the mean time all this will give apple's iPhone allot of publicity for the next six months,
Nowhere on the product is the name "iPhone".
Just a shiny apple:
- Xidius
I think Cisco deliberately stalled negotiations so the deal would not be closed before Jobs keynote JUST to be able to sue. The american way of handling most everything.
It is almost impossible to write -> thus screwing up for all media reporting and all web users searching for it.
The name will (as previously mentioned) be "Apple iPhone", this way noone (i.e. Cisco) can claim infringement.
On all Apple pressreleases/ads they will use the apple logo intead of the word Apple (as on their web right now).
People in general will just use the "IPhone" name when referring to the "Apple iPhone", media will report on "the iPhone" or "the iPhone from Apple", web shops will list it as "iPhone" (and the Cisco one as "Cisco "iPhone" - note: not the one from Apple".
At any given moment, Apple is facing any number of law suits, this is just business. However, the back-dating issue and this are two cases that Apple brought on themselves. According to the news sites, Apple 'missed' an imposed Tuesday night deadline to sign the paper work. Why?
Once they publicly committed to the iPhone name, Apple lost its bargaining leverage. Some of you are arguing that the iPhone brand is now ruined, and because of this Cisco should acquiesce to Apple's demands. Why? In previous negotiations, Apple could have threatened to use a different name if Cisco's fees were too high. Apple is now tied to the name, and it would take a huge effort to re-brand the iPhone. All advantage is with Cisco now.
This is very disappointing to see Apple muck this up. Yes, Steve, et al. were aware of the situation, and knowingly challenged Cisco. But I think this shows a headiness that will lead Apple into trouble.
The name will (as previously mentioned) be "Apple iPhone", this way noone (i.e. Cisco) can claim infringement.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
Why dont apple research trade marked name before naming their products, sometimes steve and his band can be so stupid!
The main reason why Apple didn't do this is because consumers had already named the phone for them- it was a brand that existed before it's conception- thus rumour managed to do a hefty amount of unintentional marketing for Apple. If you search for iPhone in google you're likely to get more results for Apple than Cisco.
Apple may be very clever here- i'm guessing I know how the company will defend itself- it could set a new precedent in trademark law. If Apple have registered the trademark, they may have registered it as '(APPLE IMAGE)iPhone' not simply 'iPhone' which is a registered trademark of cisco. They may also defend themselves by saying that putting 'i' in front of a word is a logical step in technology, hence the- 'iPod', Apple may even say that they coined the term 'i' (small i) followed by (Subject matter). E-mail, E-commerce, are all phrases that are exempt from trademark rules as they are widely known terms.
If you look to the Apple website the iPhone is preceded by an Apple logo on all but one occasion- thus:-
As they have already named the Apple TV- as (APPLE IMAGE)TV- they might have a defence.
However, if the contract was entered into under false pretenses- it is hardly a mitigating factor- Apple will struggle to use this as a defence to proceedings due to the fact they really have pulled a fast one. Instead of having to dish out money to Cisco on the sale of every iPhone- if I know Apple as well as I do- they will have to change the name before release- NOTICE- THE APPLE iPHONE says iPHONE NOWHERE ON THE PHONE. Calling it iPhone may have just been to garner some media support and market a product that already existed in the consumers head. Thus weighing up all the facts iThink it would be in Apple's interest, in business, to rebrand the phone before it goes to production (although this would be a controversial decision, it would make sense). OR alternatively- continue proceedings with an out of court settlement- which would definitely be in the best interests as the courts are not likely to favour Apple's position.
I'm sure there was just a misunderstanding somewhere- Apple would not have been foolish enough to discontinue the agreement between the two parties- it would make good business sense not to. I don't know much about US TM laws, although I am a law student in the UK and understand how these things work.
BENj
I think Apple should buy Cisco, problem solved.
Sounds like someone trying to piggy back on someones coattails
I got that impression too. It seems awfully suspicious that cisco would own a trademark since 2000 and yet choose to release the product a short time before Apple's expo.
I wouldn't like two products on the market of the same name because it causes confusion and I also think the use of 'i' is getting old. However, the use of 'Mac' is worse. Macbook and Macbook Pro are some of the worst names Apple have used. ibook and powerbook were genius as is isight (eyesight) and ipod.
I don't particularly like iphone because it gives people a false impression about what it is. People were expecting an ipod with phone ability. This is a smart phone which is nothing like a normal phone - it's a pocket computer. If anything, it should be iSmartPhone or iPDA. There's also iTouch or iComm but again they don't describe the device.
I love MoPho though.
You must be young. Go google Cicos net worth and Apple's net worth.
Or too old
(Cisco was founded the year the Mac debuted - i.e. Apple was already well established)
This is a smart phone which is nothing like a normal phone - it's a pocket computer. If anything, it should be iSmartPhone or iPDA. There's also iTouch or iComm but again they don't describe the device.
PDA rings the wrong bells, SmartPhone is better but also not quite right.
Apple copyrighted "Mobile Me", maybe the should call it MePhone
They should just forget Cisco and call it the Macberry...that won't piss any one off
How about "Apple Seed"? :P
1) iPod - They pretty much have to stick with it now, but it appears to me the iPhone should have been called the iPod and the iPod something else because Pod (until Apple marketed the iPod) had little or no association with music. SInce the iPhone is an iPod + plus a phone + a wireless internet device I think it is more of a "pod" than the iPod.
2) iTunes - no longer just for tunes; movies, TV shows, music videos, ?TV and now ?iPhone .... it IS literally the center of your digital entertainment life. It should be the REAL iLife. Keep the names of iDVD, iMovie and GarageBand ... they actually say something about the software.
3) iWork / iLife (as they are now) - I would LOVE Apple to add a spreadsheet app, then combine iWork and iLife into one application called AppleWorks Studio or something like that. Sell it for $129 and update it every 12 - 18 months. Well, what if I don't need iWeb or iDVD or iMovie, but need Keynote, Pages and Numbers? I dunno ... they already bundle iLife with new Macs, why not call the apps by their separate names and offer the major revisions with the OS X 10.5, 10.6, etc. updates and bump the price of OS X to $139 or $149 - still cheaper than Vista Sooper-Dooper edition.
It's had for me not to think of the ?iPhone as a miniature computer. Why not the MacPhone? I dunno ... just my $0.02, but I do believe that Apple needs to look at the names of more than just the ?iPhone....
How about "Apple Seed"? :P
"Apple Seed" is already used by their software beta seeding program, but then "iPod" was once a cluster of Macs at Apple. So a change could happen.
I think the branding of ?iPhone is what they are betting on.
EDIT: They need an Apple logo smiley so we can describe Apple's products now.