http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/09/steve-jobs-did-have-an-iphone-in-his-pocket/?src=010907_1408_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters

And it's called iPhone! www.apple.com

I wonder if the trademark for Linksys' iPhone is "Linksys iPhone..."

heath

Cisco has owned the trademark to IPHONE since the late 1990s:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=o9j0p1.2.6

heath

Cisco and Apple have been in discussions over the name and Cisco expects a signed deal today (1/9/07):

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01-09T190050Z_01_N09161330_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-IPHONE-CISCO-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

hwm

If Apple's new phone was network-neutral (Instead of running on Cingular only), I'd consider buying one.

But Alas, I have a different provider...

The Razr started out in early 2005, for $600, on Cingular, but is now on pretty much all networks.

heath

Will you be able to use skype or Gizmo on the new iPhone? If so, I'll get one!

Only Cingular right now.

h

The prices are steep but they aren't for everone.

8GB iPhone - $600
4GB iPhone - $500

Thats for a standard 2yr contract. This product is definetly cool but Ill keep my Katana for now. Its cool though for sure.

- Kyle

If Apple's new phone was network-neutral (Instead of running on Cingular only), I'd consider buying one. But Alas, I have a different provider...

That's a major issue, also considering Cingular's appaling ratings for customer service. That to me is even more important than coverage. I left Sprint's incredible coverage area in Los Angeles, and moved to T-Mobile with their slightly smaller area. I even paid the $150 early fee. I just couldn't stand their arrogant customer service and constant botches of my account billing. I got 3 phones and an Edge card from T-mobile for the same price, and the people are great (Highest overall national service satisfaction for cell provider.) So yes, if iPhone would interface with T-mobile, I would consider it also. I read about the features, flat LCD keyboard, 8GB storage, etc. and it sounds like a great blend between a phone and iPod. Maybe they will have an unlocked GSM version that will work with any GSM provider...

Cingular never bugged me as far as customer service, but they're reliability isn't too good. Consumer Reports ranked them near the bottom of the majors (Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.), with Sprint dead last.

The prices are steep, but may come down. The Razr cost $600 at one point and I paid $300 for mine in 2005 (it broke recently and instead of using my warranty, I bought a Samsung flip phone). Besides, everyone said iPods were too expensive and some said they wouldn't do much. And look what happened there!

heath

ps-I bet a Windows version comes out, just to sink Zune further.

Yup, Zune's been doomed from day uno.
Jeez, I just saw some more cool features, it has a sensor that turns off the display when you put it against your ear, to save juice and bad clicks. I'd love that with my Dash, it keeps clicking buttons.
Boy, OSX on that little guy; I wonder when FCP-Mobile will come out! That'll be cool: editor wires a sequence to your phone with all the proxies, you move some clips around, and send back the sequence via Edge network.

No need for a seperate phone, blackberry (I know people who do this--A LOT of people) or iPod! That alone is worth $500-600. Unless you want a PS3 or Xbox 360 with HD DVD attachment...

heath

Aside from the fact that EVERYONE was calling it iPhone until Linksys put their iPhone out, I don't understand why Apple didn't just call it the Apple Phone. With the Apple TV, it was called iTV for months...

heath

Interesting article about how Apple kept the iPhone design a secret:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

man... I must have spent 5K in the last 10 years on phones ( not including the service )... blackberries, sidekicks, smartphones, nokia 9000 series.... and finally a phone that gets it right!

hopefully..... one will be able to move files from a laptop to the iphone and use an ftp ap to get files to a server on location.

I do it now with my tmobile dash smartphone... but it's a pain... and the windows moblie software seems to be missing things.

I watched a lot of the presentation last night...Jobs mentiones PCs and Macs, so I guess it's safe to assume we'll have versions for both users.

heath

Cingular never bugged me as far as customer service, but they're reliability isn't too good. Consumer Reports ranked them near the bottom of the majors (Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.), with Sprint dead last.

.

What did they mean by "reliability"? Is that the customer service? Or the receptivity? I've had both Sprint and Cingular phones and neither have been great, though Cingular's reception seems particularly poor, though I suppose that depends on the actual phone and not the provider?

One thing I'm wondering about the iPhone is the display -- I know the display on my iPod scratches very easily. I wonder if they've figured out a way to keep the iPhone display more durable.

Dave,

I could've sworn they mentioned a cover or something, that's already on it (clear, obviously) to protect it.

I'm talking about Cingular's reliabiltiy when on the phone. I've also learned it's where you're at. I have good reception in South Florida as there isn't a huge city nearby (Miami's 70+ miles from me). Phone plays into it a little, too.

Cingular has the largest subscriber base.

heath

I don't know about you guys... but I run my biz off my cell phone.... our home phone is only used for tele-marketers... seems like anyways.

here in louisville/cinci/indy area... tmobile seems to be the best of the worst.

I went to nextel for a while... thought if it was good enough for the building industry that it must be robust.... not so..... sometime would not get a voicemail till the next day! really po'd a few clients that were in a hurry.... lost a job cause of it. switched back to tmobile the next day with a $200 early out fee from nextel..... arguing about it did me no good.... still had to pay the fee ( and pay $250 for a new phone at tmobile! )

I have a love hate relationship with my phone.... mostly hate.


you think the iphone would solve all this? I don't.... but it might make me happy till the 1st dropped call or lost vm.

Who knows how the first generation of the iPhone will work, but I'm sure it'll be interesting, to say the least.

heath

Cisco and Apple have been in discussions over the name and Cisco expects a signed deal today (1/9/07)

Evidently there are a few little details left to finish up.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b6BF806C4-C30A-42C8-8578-4B79D4324D2E%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

Cisco Systems Inc. on Wednesday said that it and Apple Inc. have still not yet agreed to terms for naming Apple's cell phone the "iPhone." Cisco owns the iPhone trademark and was expecting Apple to deliver signed agreements sometime Tuesday. But as of Wednesday afternoon, that hasn't happened, a Cisco spokesman said.

I think the iPhone is a paradigm shifting, dare I say, defining, device, just like the Macintosh, QuickTime and the iPod before it. Think about it, it's a cinema, jukebox, phone, browser, and e-mail client in your pocket (http://kino-eye.com/2007/01/09/iphone/). Version 1 is only the tip of the iceberg. I remember when I used to demo QuickTime 1.0 to video pros and they laughed. They could not see it was a platform for time-based media that went way beyond the tiny movies of the original demos. This device shares some similar qualities, like the iPod before it.

Bill Gates' Keynote at CES paled in comparison to Steve's vision. I'm not saying there will not be problems and limitations faced by early adopters, but the future is bright for Apple. No wonder they've decided to change their name from "Apple Computer, Inc." to just "Apple, Inc."

When Verizon gets iPhone and when the iPhone can get PSP games and have at least a 8megapixel camera then I am in.

Cisco Systems Inc. on Wednesday said that it and Apple Inc. have still not yet agreed to terms for naming Apple's cell phone the "iPhone."

The plot thickens....

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070110/cisco_apple.html?.v=1

Cisco Systems Inc. said late Wednesday it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon, copying and using Cisco's registered iPhone trademark.

When Verizon gets iPhone and when the iPhone can get PSP games and have at least a 8megapixel camera then I am in.
Sony is coming out with a 60 gig PSP by the way.

Remove the phone capabilities and put in a 120 gig hard drive and you have yourself the next I-Pod. Toshiba does have a 1.8” 120 gig hard drive.

The plot thickens....

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070110/cisco_apple.html?.v=1
Hoo boy...iTV changed to Apple TV, why didn't they change it to the Apple Phone? I mean, I know they were kinda stuck with it because everyone in the media, etc., was calling it iPhone, but, wow.

This could be bad for Apple. Start signing that licensing agreement!

hwm

Summary of reactions here:

http://www.maclife.com/article/iphabulous

MacLife is MacAddict transformed. Not sure how I feel yet.

heath

Why the heck was Apple sooo stupid as to announce a name they know they didn't own?

Contracts should have been signed before the announcement. They just learned a lesson the hard way.

This could be bad for Apple. Start signing that licensing agreement!

We'll see how this plays out soon enough I suppose. But a few thoughts come to mind....

1. Nothing like filing a lawsuit to revive stalled negotiations.

2. Cisco may have been surprised by the amount of press the iPhone is generating and it now wants to up the ante.

3. Never underestimate the power of Apple's legal team. Whatever is happening, I'm sure that Apple is carefully planning every move.

4. Ever hear that old cliche: "there's no such thing as BAD publicity"?

As the initial excitement dies down some people are digging a little deeper into the iPhone's prospects. Personally, I would be very reluctant to place any bets against Steve Jobs given his recent track record. But there's some food for thought in these articles:

http://blogs.business2.com/utilitybelt/2007/01/with_the_highpr.html?source=yahoo_quote

Apple also decided to sign a multi-year exclusive deal with Cingular (T), which instantly makes it the enemy of not only every phone maker in the world, but also every other carrier in the United States – including giant Verizon

http://blogs.business2.com/netly/2007/01/steve_jobss_big.html

The bigger risk on the horizon has nothing to do with how Apple's hardware and software perform. It has to do with Cingular and its second-place cellular network. Cingular's coverage, even post merger, pales besides Verizon's. (And believe me, I'm no Verizon apologist

That could be a deal breaker for me also, Boyd. I have been waiting for a widescreen video iPod to come out. It's a shame that it's wrapped into a phone that I would be forced into a 2 year contract to get the advertised price. So then you have the carrier fees and other stuff lumped in. I was also hoping to see some type of removable mass storage like micro SD.

I'm sold on the AppleTV, but I wish they had introduced a phone that was open because I have no plans to give Cingular my hard earned dollar.

-gb-

Good links, Boyd!

heath

I want the iPhone... without the phone function.

iTV was an internal code name for what's now the Apple TV...and I now know what I'll ask for for my birthday :) I knew that when they debuted the "iTV" in Sptember that it would have to have HD streaming ability and I'm glad to know that it does. I can't stand the thought of subscribing to Cox HD TV for substandard quality. Now I don't have to.

I think the phone should have been called the iPod Phone to play on the iPod popularity.

I would love to have one for the widescreen hi res iPod but 8 gigs is a minuscule amount of storage these days. I use my 30 gig iPod almost exclusively for video and it's now become too small.

I know the iPhone will increase in specs and come down in price so I'll wait.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cisco-sues-apple-over-use/story.aspx?guid=%7B05D79CF8%2D7767%2D48E8%2D82BD%2D508F156055EE%7D&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo

Looks like the battle lines are being drawn...

"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said. "Apple is the first company to ever use the 'iPhone' name for a cell phone," she said. "We believe that Cisco's trademark registration is tenuous at best." Kerris added: "If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail."

That's ridiculous. Apple needs to be careful--no one's indestructible.

heath

Didn't Apple Inc. get into a simular scuffle with Apple Records? I'm surprised Mighty Mouse didn't sue them, too.

Glenn,

I thought about the Mighty Mouse thing more than once. Maybe that's a case of Apple quietly taking care of it.

hwm

Apple needs to be careful--no one's indestructible.

Well of course that's true, but they prevailed over the Beatles and have settled a myriad of other lawsuits about MacOS and the iPod. They wouldn't make such a gutsy statement if their lawyers didn't feel they could fight this. Don't forget, Steve Jobs dubbed himself the "iCEO" when he returned to Apple from NeXT :-)

And like I said above, this is yet another story to keep them in the news and drum the term "iPhone" into the public consciousness. If nothing else, it will be fun to watch the battle...

Didn't Apple Inc. get into a simular scuffle with Apple Records?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm

Mr Justice Anthony Mann ruled that the computer company used the Apple logo in association with its store, not the music, and so was not in breach.

Actually this sounds a bit like the quote from the Apple spokeswoman above, who said they were the first to apply the name "iPhone" to a mobile phone...

Funny how they played the Beatles yesterday. My crazy rumor (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83352) I wanted to see happen was the Beatles going to iTunes, with a Beatles-branded iPod.

hwm

Heath, you weren't the only one who noticed that.... maybe your prediction wasn't so far off the mark after all?

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/01/keynotereax/index.php

Steve’s slides were loaded with Beatles references. Album covers, Beatles songs playing, etc. They were everywhere. Too plentiful to miss. And yet, no announcement was made about the Beatles collection being available on the iTunes store—was there some sort of last-minute legal hold-up?

I heard, but haven't checked, that Apple Records is appealing either next week or later this month/early next month.

hwm

I heard, but haven't checked, that Apple Records is appealing either next week or later this month/early next month.

hwm

Gluttons for punishment I see. Apple Recrords doesn't stand a chance. I remember reading an excellent argument about how they lost. Wish I still had it.

I'm bummed that iPhone is on Cingular. I'm on Verizon but hopefully this allows Apple to get up to their %1 marketshare goal and then they can branch out to other carriers or go MVNO.

I think the first song I would load onto the iPhone would have to be "The Girl from iPanema"

And how about The Pirates of Silicon Valley for your first movie?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0168122/

:-)

I think the first song I would load onto the iPhone would have to be "The Girl from iPanema"
Hotel gettin' to ya? (grin)

heath

Here's Jim Cramer's theory about the lawsuit...

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/markets/activetraderupdate/10332081.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

Cisco's trying to get cool. It isn't cool now. Here's the deal: I believe that what Cisco really wants is to have Apple open up the Apple TV device -- the just-announced set-top box that streams video from your PC to your TV -- and other products for Cisco to interface with.

USA Today also ran an article quoting a Cisco official who said something a little different, but similar to this...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-01-10-cisco-sues-apple_x.htm

Financial terms were not an issue, Chandler said. Cisco primarily wanted two things: clarity over who would use the iPhone name and interoperability between Apple's iPhone and other companies' products, he says.