I think what Cisco wants is interoperability with Cisco VOIP network hardware. In other words, the Apple iPhone has WiFi, right? So, if you (or more likely your company) use Cisco VOIP hardware for your telephone network, Cisco would like you to be able to use your Apple iPhone on that network.
For example, if the Apple iPhone had Cisco iPhone technology (hardware and/or software) built in, you could make and receive VOIP calls through Cisco VOIP hardware when you are connected to your network using the WiFi connection. It would actually be a cool feature. When you are at work and people call your extension, you could receive that call on your Apple iPhone. You should also be able to browse the corporate phone directory and make a call over WiFi instead of using your Cingular airtime.
I think Cisco was probably going to let this trademark go until Apple approached them about the issue, then they scrambled to create a Cisco iPhone product to keep the trademark because they saw an opportunity. You can assume that the Apple iPhone will have VOIP software available for it soon after it releases (if not by the time it releases) and Cisco wants to get in on that action (and maybe even have exclusive rights to the VOIP capabilities of the Apple iPhone).
If the shoe were on the other foot, Apple would definitely be suing Cisco and Cisco was smart to try to hold on to this trademark and exploit this opportunity. Cisco and Apple are both corporations. They are both interested in making the most money they can. They both want to offer good products at a good price so they can sell a lot and make more money. That's what companies do. Microsoft, Intel, Sun, etc. do the same thing. It's silly to be mad at Cisco or Apple for their actions. They are both doing what they think is in their best interest (and, theoretically, in the best interest of their shareholders).
Yes, and no. Cisco was late, unoless you admit a false application as true. That is dirty.
We don't know if Apple's tie-in with Cingular prevents them from allowing VOIP, so the choice may not have been theirs completely.
Also, I truly think Apple will eventually change the name of the iPhone to ApplePhone (like the TV device) and ride the wave of publicity they received. Cisco will never sell many of their iPhones, and people are probably already contacting them about it anyway. "Is that the iPhone that Apple released?" "No, but we have..." "Sorry, wrong number."
You can assume that the Apple iPhone will have VOIP software available for it soon after it releases ...
According to what I've heard so far, it won't, but this doesn't mean it won't be in version 2.0.
My gut feeling, however, is that Apple's iPhone will probably end up supporting iChat voice connections (meaning AOL-compatible), and will stop there.
Support for other VoIP packages (like Skype and Yahoo, like Cisco's iPhones do, or corporate solutions) don't seem likely to me, since Apple has never directly supported these on the Mac platform. Of course, it would be nice to be wrong about this.
Comments
I've had similar experiences with five different models of Linksys devices....I would suggest avoiding their hardware.
Ditto - Linksys sux. I am so much happier with Belkin.
For example, if the Apple iPhone had Cisco iPhone technology (hardware and/or software) built in, you could make and receive VOIP calls through Cisco VOIP hardware when you are connected to your network using the WiFi connection. It would actually be a cool feature. When you are at work and people call your extension, you could receive that call on your Apple iPhone. You should also be able to browse the corporate phone directory and make a call over WiFi instead of using your Cingular airtime.
I think Cisco was probably going to let this trademark go until Apple approached them about the issue, then they scrambled to create a Cisco iPhone product to keep the trademark because they saw an opportunity. You can assume that the Apple iPhone will have VOIP software available for it soon after it releases (if not by the time it releases) and Cisco wants to get in on that action (and maybe even have exclusive rights to the VOIP capabilities of the Apple iPhone).
If the shoe were on the other foot, Apple would definitely be suing Cisco and Cisco was smart to try to hold on to this trademark and exploit this opportunity. Cisco and Apple are both corporations. They are both interested in making the most money they can. They both want to offer good products at a good price so they can sell a lot and make more money. That's what companies do. Microsoft, Intel, Sun, etc. do the same thing. It's silly to be mad at Cisco or Apple for their actions. They are both doing what they think is in their best interest (and, theoretically, in the best interest of their shareholders).
We don't know if Apple's tie-in with Cingular prevents them from allowing VOIP, so the choice may not have been theirs completely.
Also, I truly think Apple will eventually change the name of the iPhone to ApplePhone (like the TV device) and ride the wave of publicity they received. Cisco will never sell many of their iPhones, and people are probably already contacting them about it anyway. "Is that the iPhone that Apple released?" "No, but we have..." "Sorry, wrong number."
You can assume that the Apple iPhone will have VOIP software available for it soon after it releases ...
According to what I've heard so far, it won't, but this doesn't mean it won't be in version 2.0.
My gut feeling, however, is that Apple's iPhone will probably end up supporting iChat voice connections (meaning AOL-compatible), and will stop there.
Support for other VoIP packages (like Skype and Yahoo, like Cisco's iPhones do, or corporate solutions) don't seem likely to me, since Apple has never directly supported these on the Mac platform. Of course, it would be nice to be wrong about this.