The great combined Smrtphone OS thread

[MACHINE]

Originally Posted by Simon

I just can't wait to see what an Iphone looks like after bouncing around in a bag with my car keys and a handful of change for an hour or so.

Probably the same as an ipod would?

There are hands on impressions of the phone turning up on the net now and they are all positive. By June apple will have it slick as fuck.

Its got an accelerometer in it. Wait for the iPhone light saber widget and its already the coolest phone ever.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by Simon

Sure sounds like it, doesn't it??

Only when you turn your hearing aid up.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by MACHINE

Probably the same as an ipod would?

You mean "scratched all to hell with an unreadable screen"?

[p01s0n]

man i cant wait to take a photo of the new thick-rimmed glasses i bought with my camera phone, so i can use bluetooth to send it to my iphone, so i can find a wireless hotspot to upload my blog entry to the blogosphere using the built in safari browser (web 2.0 compatible). i know when the update is done cause the widget on my iphones desktop tells me.

[Jodi]

Much Ado about Nothing

[markE]

http://www.iphonecountdown.com/

[Markh]

Geez, Apple is working hard to sell a product using a name it has no right to.

Cisco has filed a lawsuit against Apple because apparantly Jobs was too thick to work out a deal for using the name before he started promoting it.

iPhone is a trademark that has been owned by Cisco for quite some time now.

[Whiplash]

Yeh but who pulled the sneaky on that one. iPod, iPhone ... kinda logical. It's like the Offspring saying they were going to call one of their albums "Chinese Democracy" because Axl Rose took so long to make an album of that name.

[ZengE]

None of the guys in my office thought anything of the 'iPhone' and in fact, most thought that the re-invention of the iPaq was kinda pointless. I was amused when I heard the story on CNN about CISCO serving it up to Apple regarding the name.

Originally Posted by Stuff

Apple faces iPhone trademark lawsuit

Cisco Systems has announced it is suing Apple for infringing its "iPhone" trademark, which the networking giant said it has owned since 2000.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and seeks to prevent Apple from "infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco's registered iPhone trademark".

The suit will no doubt dampen the immense hype surrounding Apple's iPhone, whose announcement yesterday caused the company's share price to surge by more than 8 per cent.

Analysts and media worldwide hailed the phone as "game-changing" and "revolutionary".

Cisco's move comes just one day after it said it was in negotiations with Apple to give it permission to use the trademark as the name for its hybrid mobile phone product.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone during his Macworld keynote address in San Francisco on Tuesday.

A Cisco announcement, released after Mr Jobs's speech, stated only "a few remaining items" in the agreement needed to be sorted out, and that "we expect to receive a signed agreement today".

Wednesday's lawsuit suggests that the agreement was not signed and that Apple and Cisco disagreed over the licensing terms.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco's senior vice-president and general counsel.

"There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission."

The iPhone trademark was initially obtained by Infogear on March 20 1996, and transferred to Cisco in 2000 after it acquired the company.

Cisco is seeking an injunction to prevent Apple from using the iPhone name.

Apple registered the iPhone trademark in Australia in 2002 and also owns it in Britain.

Cisco's US iPhone trademark remained largely unused until, in December last year amid intense speculation over a possible iPhone release from Apple, Cisco unveiled a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) handset range through its Linksys division.

It was criticised for its apparent attempt to capitalise on the media buzz the iPhone was generating at the time, and it is expected that Wednesday's lawsuit will only intensify this criticism.

But Terry Albertstein, Cisco's director of corporate affairs for the Asia Pacific region, "absolutely" denies that Cisco is simply attempting to capitalise on the media furore surrounding the iPhone.

"A lot of industry analysts have speculated that this is about money or about the hype that the Apple announcement has generated, but that’s actually not the case," he said.

"It’s really a very good faith effort on our part to utilise our trademark.

"We remain open to trying to negotiate a settlement with them, to have them use the iPhone trademark with our legal permission."

Source

[Baal]

"We remain open to trying to negotiate a settlement with them, to have them use the iPhone trademark with our legal permission."

Or in other words. "We know that whatever we made with the name 'iphone' wouldn't make nearly as much cash, so we'd fucking love some sort of licensing deal!"

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Yeh but who pulled the sneaky on that one. iPod, iPhone ... kinda logical. It's like the Offspring saying they were going to call one of their albums "Chinese Democracy" because Axl Rose took so long to make an album of that name.

That would be an apt analogy, but only if Axl Rose had actually released "Chinese Democracy" a month before the Offspring. Because Cisco launched Iphone last month.

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...VisitorWrapper

[Ashley]

Someone posted this on a forum with the same thread, except everybodies based in japan.

No thanks, i'll stick with my $80 DoCoMo made by Panasonic which does 10x more then that thing, with 3G, GPS, 2.3megapixel camera, 4gb HDD and video phone, on a service that is $50 a month for practically unlimited calls/emails, can make purchases at 7-11's, train stations, vending machines, world wide coverage, and no contract what-so-ever.

[silva^]

Fuckin hell Simon aint u got nothing nice to say about Iphone, you've done nothing but bitch the entire thread and you've never even seen one, what the hell crawled up your butt and died!!

[Ashley]

Originally Posted by silva^

Fuckin hell Simon aint u got nothing nice to say about Iphone, you've done nothing but bitch the entire thread and you've never even seen one, what the hell crawled up your butt and died!!

His macbook battery died, and the build quality of the whole thing is pretty crap. Apple = great products, shitty build.

[Doogie]

I actually agree with Simon. This phone although great in a lot of ways is missing some fundamental features.

One 3G.. I mean WTF? Edge? Great... so in NZ where that network is disabled I have to use 2G?

Mail... IMAP? Have you seriously tried to use IMAP on a cellphone? It works great on 3G.. but 2G? Also, I bet there will be no functionality available for Exchange, one thing which is going to be a killer for a lot of people. The crowd you'll attract with this thing is the Crackberries. If you don't have a mail app to compete then what's the point?

I have all the things that this iPhone has right now, and I have 3G to boot. I have a phone with 2G of memory, 2mp camera, I can play music, AAC, have photos, do slideshows etc. Sure it doesn't have the fancy touchscreen, but my N71 is a good all round phone.

Of course all this will probably change in the next year.. they'll add HSDPA and probably have support for Blackberry Express. But for the moment.. nup.

[Markh]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Yeh but who pulled the sneaky on that one. iPod, iPhone ... kinda logical. It's like the Offspring saying they were going to call one of their albums "Chinese Democracy" because Axl Rose took so long to make an album of that name.

But the name was trademarked in 1997 and a device using that name was created and sold by Infogear. When Cisco acquired Infogear they discontinued the product but they held on to the tradename.

Apple knew that Cisco owned that tradename before they announced their iPhone, writers at ZDNet assumed that Apple must have licensed the use of that name when Apple announced their product.

[surreal]

As alluded to earlier,
I strongly believe Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, who are much more agile phone vendors, will build on whatever parts of the iPhone work well and provide us with some sexy equivalents by the time iPhone makes it to NZ..

But the touchscreen aspect might be tricky to improve. maybe.

[MACHINE]

I cant help thinking of those famous words from 2001

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." by Rob “CmdrTaco” Malda

And we all know what he was talking about.

[wugambino]

ill keep my blackberry thanks

[Adunaphel]

Oh dear.... Watched the vid - found it totally uninspiring.

I almost feel compelled to apologize to those who appear to have fallen inlove with the iHype.

[The Edge]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10418787

[Rocket]

They probably just went ahead of hit and are willing to take the hit, getting it to market with that name and getting the market share / exposure outweighs respecting the trademark. What are the courts going to make them do, a total product recall? naaa probably just a fat cheque. They will sell alot more of other product due the the iphone being on the market.

I mean if they call it anything else, it would of just been wrong? iCell? ha sounds to tech.

Markh

Cisco has filed a lawsuit against Apple because apparently Jobs was too thick to work out a deal for using the name before he started promoting it.

Heh, theres one person thick there and it certainly isn't Steve Jobs.

[Rocket]

Something else interesting.

In that herald article posted above

In a blow to Apple yesterday, Cisco Systems said it was suing for infringing its "iPhone" trademark, which the networking giant says it has owned since 2000. Cisco is seeking an injunction to prevent Apple from using the iPhone name.

and from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

iPod is a brand of portable media players designed and marketed by Apple and launched in 2001

Can't really see cisco holding this name in spite of apple. But who really knows eh.

[BaM]

Originally Posted by The Edge

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10418787

There are an awful lot of coulds and mights in that article.

I thought reporters were meant to report facts?

GG scaremongering Herald story.

[- Vexed -]

Originally Posted by wugambino

ill keep my blackberry thanks

Treo 750v for me. Love it.

The iPhones pretty gimmicky if you ask me, I also watched the keynote and was thoroughly uninspired. Was hoping for some new Macs or something interesting.

Sure it's nice tech and all, but as Simon and others have pointed out - whats the point of all that shiny nice-ness when (just like my nano) it has to be covered up by some crude (overpriced) case, lest it be scratched to shit. Certainly not practical for anyone who really uses these devices.

And am I the only one who thinks that the touch screen would just end up covered in smudged fingerprints?

[ZengE]

Originally Posted by Rocket

Something else interesting.

In that herald article posted above



and from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod


Can't really see cisco holding this name in spite of apple. But who really knows eh.

iPhone != iPod

CISCO purchased a company years ago that was, back then, selling a product under the iPhone trademark. The product in question is no longer sold but the rights to the name are still held by CISCO hence their claim to the name iPhone.

SAN JOSE, Calif., January 10, 2007 - Cisco® today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco's registered iPhone trademark.

Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear's original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. On Dec. 18, Linksys expanded the iPhone® family with additional products.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.

"Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand," Chandler concluded.

With its lawsuit, Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco's iPhone trademark. For more information on the Cisco iPhone product line, please visit www.linksys.com/iphone.

Source

[Rocket]

sorry my point kinda was that the whole iphone, ipod, imac thing wasnt about then? but i kinda forgot about the "imac"

[Simon]

I suspect Apple's near-pathological desire for pre-launch secrecy of any new product has bitten it here. To legally use the name "Iphone" Apple would have had to do a deal with Cisco. If a deal had been done, Cisco would have issued a press release, because such a deal would look good and probably boost the Cisco stock price, and companies have duties to their shareholders to do shit like that. But if Cisco issued a press release announcing that Apple had signed a deal to licence the "Iphone" trademark, then all secrecy would have gone out the window... and we all know how much Steve hates that.

[Genesis]

I remain pretty skeptical. It doesn't seem very practical at all, the thing looks like it's going to get raped.

My 6680 has survived being in my pocket for almost 2 years now and a quick change of casing for it as brought back to looking brand-new and theres no fucken way in hell are you going to be able to do anything like that with this thing. It'll have 2 years worth of wear and tear on it in about 10 days.

Indestructible Nokia's reprezent.

[xin]

Originally Posted by Genesis

I remain pretty skeptical. It doesn't seem very practical at all, the thing looks like it's going to get raped.

My 6680 has survived being in my pocket for almost 2 years now and a quick change of casing for it as brought back to looking brand-new and theres no fucken way in hell are you going to be able to do anything like that with this thing. It'll have 2 years worth of wear and tear on it in about 10 days.

Indestructible Nokia's reprezent.

Agreed. I've had my SE t68i and t610 and they've been unbreakable. Water, gravel, chizels, 10m drops, pockets, keys. You name it, they've survived.

[nostrom0]

http://www.iphoneunboxed.com/

[Simon]

Originally Posted by nostrom0

http://www.iphoneunboxed.com/

Did you notice he was so scared of scratching it that he didn't remove the plastic?

[CCS]

Or the tape!

[BaM]

Yeah it's just that iPhone PDF print-and-fold-em-up that I saw on some website the other day.

[Simon]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/i...ated-at-birth/

[Boofhead]

Originally Posted by Rocket

They probably just went ahead of hit and are willing to take the hit, getting it to market with that name and getting the market share / exposure outweighs respecting the trademark. What are the courts going to make them do, a total product recall? naaa probably just a fat cheque. They will sell alot more of other product due the the iphone being on the market.

I mean if they call it anything else, it would of just been wrong? iCell? ha sounds to tech.



Heh, theres one person thick there and it certainly isn't Steve Jobs.

Yeah, reminds me of when RIM were sued by NTP for the blackberry patents... rather than mess around trying to contest it they just said "here's $600 million, now go away".

[Doogie]

Originally Posted by Boofhead

Yeah, reminds me of when RIM were sued by NTP for the blackberry patents... rather than mess around trying to contest it they just said "here's $600 million, now go away".

Yeah difference was there that NTP were a lot smaller than Cisco is. Cisco is worth double what Apple is. Still I think a big cheque will probably head Cisco's way and it'll be all dandy.

[Boofhead]

Maybe not.

An investigation into the ongoing trademark dispute between Cisco and Apple over the name "iPhone" appears to show that Cisco does not own the mark as claimed in their recent lawsuit.

[[BT]Monza]

Pretty sure these haven't been posted

http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/

[tln]

Originally Posted by [BT]Monza

Pretty sure these haven't been posted

http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/

Having watched the ads - I have a feeling these things are going to sell like the proverbial hotcake!