Analysts claim Cisco got shafted by APPLE over iphone name cave in

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pb...D=/20070222/TECH03/701260366/1001/TECH
Apple got best of Cisco in iPhone deal, analysts say
MICHELLE KESSLER, USA TODAY

Apple and Cisco Systems ended their feud over the iPhone name late Wednesday - and Apple appears to have won, tech analysts said.

The two Silicon Valley tech giants said they agreed to share rights to the name and end their legal battle over it.

Cisco - the longtime owner of the name - had earlier said it would share it with Apple as long as the electronics-maker made its iPhone compatible with other companies' products. The settlement addressed that concern, with the two companies pledging to "explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and (business) communications."

Other terms were confidential.

Since the full deal was not made public, it's hard to say for sure which company came out on top, says tech analyst Roger Kay with Endpoint Technologies Associates. But it sure looks like a "face-saving" agreement for Cisco, he says.

"It looks like Cisco caved," says independent tech analyst Rob Enderle. The pledge of interoperability talks "looks like the typical promise that (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs has no intention of keeping," he says.

Cisco declined to comment beyond the official statement. Apple did not return phone calls.

The controversy over the iPhone name began last year, when Apple was developing a feature-packed cell phone. Long before it had an official name, Apple fans dubbed it the iPhone. That's because many Apple products begin with an "i," including the iPod music player and iTunes music store.

But there was a problem: Cisco, the world's largest network equipment maker, owned the iPhone trademark. It had originally been registered in 1996 by InfoGear, a networking company later acquired by Cisco. After the deal, Cisco adopted the name and introduced a line of iPhones, which it still sells today.

Cisco's iPhones are corporate office phones that place calls over an Internet connection instead of a traditional phone network. They do not compete directly with Apple's iPhone.

Lawyers from the two companies talked, but Apple broke off the discussion, Cisco said. Hours later, Apple announced its iPhone. Cisco sued in U.S. District Court.

At the time, Cisco said what it really wanted was for Apple to make the iPhone compatible with other products. Cisco advocates such standards because it sells the networking gear that connects them.

But now it appears that Apple will get the name without fully meeting Cisco's demands, Kay says.

"It looks like Cisco got shafted," he says. "Maybe there's something in the (undisclosed) terms, but I don't see how they're getting the good end of the deal."

I diagree ... I can't imagine Cisco isnt asking for some monitary payment like $10-15 per iphone sold for use of the name - If it even close to as popular as the 70 million sold so far RAZR that's almost a billion bucks.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
a $600 phone will never be as popular as a free phone.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.
 

kalster

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2002
7,355
6
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
http://indystar.gns.gannett.com/apps/pb...D=/20070222/TECH03/701260366/1001/TECH
Apple got best of Cisco in iPhone deal, analysts say
MICHELLE KESSLER, USA TODAY

Apple and Cisco Systems ended their feud over the iPhone name late Wednesday - and Apple appears to have won, tech analysts said.

The two Silicon Valley tech giants said they agreed to share rights to the name and end their legal battle over it.

Cisco - the longtime owner of the name - had earlier said it would share it with Apple as long as the electronics-maker made its iPhone compatible with other companies' products. The settlement addressed that concern, with the two companies pledging to "explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and (business) communications."

Other terms were confidential.

Since the full deal was not made public, it's hard to say for sure which company came out on top, says tech analyst Roger Kay with Endpoint Technologies Associates. But it sure looks like a "face-saving" agreement for Cisco, he says.

"It looks like Cisco caved," says independent tech analyst Rob Enderle. The pledge of interoperability talks "looks like the typical promise that (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs has no intention of keeping," he says

Cisco declined to comment beyond the official statement. Apple did not return phone calls.

The controversy over the iPhone name began last year, when Apple was developing a feature-packed cell phone. Long before it had an official name, Apple fans dubbed it the iPhone. That's because many Apple products begin with an "i," including the iPod music player and iTunes music store.

But there was a problem: Cisco, the world's largest network equipment maker, owned the iPhone trademark. It had originally been registered in 1996 by InfoGear, a networking company later acquired by Cisco. After the deal, Cisco adopted the name and introduced a line of iPhones, which it still sells today.

Cisco's iPhones are corporate office phones that place calls over an Internet connection instead of a traditional phone network. They do not compete directly with Apple's iPhone.

Lawyers from the two companies talked, but Apple broke off the discussion, Cisco said. Hours later, Apple announced its iPhone. Cisco sued in U.S. District Court.

At the time, Cisco said what it really wanted was for Apple to make the iPhone compatible with other products. Cisco advocates such standards because it sells the networking gear that connects them.

But now it appears that Apple will get the name without fully meeting Cisco's demands, Kay says.

"It looks like Cisco got shafted," he says. "Maybe there's something in the (undisclosed) terms, but I don't see how they're getting the good end of the deal."

I diagree ... I can't imagine Cisco isnt asking for some monitary payment like $10-15 per iphone sold for use of the name - If it even close to as popular as the 70 million sold so far RAZR that's almost a billion bucks.

were they trying to answer the phone with an iphone :p ;)
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
I'm sure there's a dollar amount that Apple gave to Cisco that's undisclosed. They only got shafted if no money was exchanged, which I doubt since Cisco had a lot less to lose than Apple did. Cisco losing the name "iPhone" wouldn't be a huge lose and they could easily handle the legal fees necessary.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: rockyct
I'm sure there's a dollar amount that Apple gave to Cisco that's undisclosed. They only got shafted if no money was exchanged, which I doubt since Cisco had a lot less to lose than Apple did. Cisco losing the name "iPhone" wouldn't be a huge lose and they could easily handle the legal fees necessary.

Thats what I was thinking. How these "analysts" just assume nothing was exchanged defies logic.

You know a whole lot of dumb people.

No just adults not pimple farmers who sweat $600.
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

I would never pay $600 for something that didn't have the basic Windows Mobile features on it. Not to mention that it's using the inferior Cingular network.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Remember that some earlier threads mentioned that Cisco may have lost the trademark rights because they filed a fake usage report with the patent office (PhotoShopping "iPhone" onto a different product to pretend the mark was in use).

Cisco's lawyers may have told them the odds of winning were low enough to make getting any concessions from Apple at all worthwhile.
 

Philippine Mango

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2004
5,594
0
0
Originally posted by: rockyct
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

I would never pay $600 for something that didn't have the basic Windows Mobile features on it. Not to mention that it's using the inferior Cingular network.

I'd take a GSM phone anyday over verizon...
 

Pegun

Golden Member
Jan 18, 2004
1,334
0
71
Originally posted by: ElFenix
a $600 phone will never be as popular as a free phone.

Thats what they said about radio and MP3 Players....
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

And you didn't buy accidental damage/loss protection after the first time...why?
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

RAZRs got free pretty fast. In CA probably after 3 months you could get them for free. In OR they were $100 for the longest time but should be free now.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: rockyct
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

I would never pay $600 for something that didn't have the basic Windows Mobile features on it. Not to mention that it's using the inferior Cingular network.


Proof Cinguar is inferior? I happy with them..no complaints.

I don't want windows on a phone - they are too damn small to do anything useful or at any comfort level. I could see those features useful like if market was crashing I had to make an emergency trade while I was out fishing or something but that's about it.

I am buying phone not a computer for it's slimline look, it's ipod player, its total touchscreen, it's voicemail features and sweet intuitive menuing system.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Remember that some earlier threads mentioned that Cisco may have lost the trademark rights because they filed a fake usage report with the patent office (PhotoShopping "iPhone" onto a different product to pretend the mark was in use).

Cisco's lawyers may have told them the odds of winning were low enough to make getting any concessions from Apple at all worthwhile.

:thumbsup:

I thought it was a sticker, not a photochop though.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Remember that some earlier threads mentioned that Cisco may have lost the trademark rights because they filed a fake usage report with the patent office (PhotoShopping "iPhone" onto a different product to pretend the mark was in use).

Cisco's lawyers may have told them the odds of winning were low enough to make getting any concessions from Apple at all worthwhile.
That explains what the article didn't. Cisco may indeed have gotten torpedoed by Apple. Little Stevie strikes again.

Thanks for the heads up Dave
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: Pegun
Originally posted by: ElFenix
a $600 phone will never be as popular as a free phone.

Thats what they said about radio and MP3 Players....
That's what they said about the PS3 and wait... what happened?

AFAIK, MP3 players aren't $600 and neither are radio's in the general household.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Zebo
RAZR's are free? I paid $150 for mine (then $350 x 2 after I lost a couple) and will easily drop $600 for iphone after seeing its features and look. So will everyone I know.

And you didn't buy accidental damage/loss protection after the first time...why?

Because I'm an idiot. I like to think it's not going to happen again dispite my history of losing just about everything smaller than a paperback.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Originally posted by: Pegun
Originally posted by: ElFenix
a $600 phone will never be as popular as a free phone.

Thats what they said about radio and MP3 Players....
That's what they said about the PS3 and wait... what happened?

AFAIK, MP3 players aren't $600 and neither are radio's in the general household.

Interesting points... so you think Apple/Cingular is pricing themselves out of the market any ideas about what price would move them and how much room they got to work with?
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Interesting points... so you think Apple/Cingular is pricing themselves out of the market any ideas about what price would move them and how much room they got to work with?
Well, the first thing is that I don't know what price the service for this will run - data plans right now are insanely priced and need to come down for much more widespread use and adoption from the general consumer.

I don't really have a good guess on what price they would need to aim for to make this as successful as possible, but that's partially because I have my own issues with the product. Yes, that is a biased opinion getting in the way of things, but the fact is that I'm not sure what price it would work well at.

Here are my issues with it:
1. Cell phone *and* MP3 player? If my MP3 player runs out of batteries, no big deal. If my cell phone runs low, that's not good, might as well say ****** has hit the fan.
2. 1 of the 3 biggest selling points will require data services - what is Cingular going to offer? If I was just a normal consumer, I wouldn't shell out $50/month for internet access on my cell phone or whatever it is, get it down to $15 for unlimited data and then we'll be getting somewhere.
3. $600 for a phone? $600 is a lot of money to most any sane person, why would someone spend that much on a phone outside of business purposes?

All my thoughts require reasoning though and so I could easily be proven wrong if a lot of people bought it without that.

One idea I see: If Cingular offers it with a good plan and maybe $300 off with a 2 year contract, I'd say they have a product that I personally would encourage people to buy.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Yeah the ipod bit is a bit of a deal breaker for many unless they have like a 2000+ mA battery in there which they can't, based on size.. Go to gym in the morning for a couple hours and phone runs out at 2 pm while you're at work? Not good. Hopfully this wont be the case.. I will be watching the early adopters and power issues.

I think I pay $15 for a data package with cingular (thanks for reminding me to cancel it) its worthless for me - again everything on phone is too small even for email IMO.

3. Thats what I think will happen $400 or so like the PDA's cingular sells. Even the KAZR is selling like crazy at $250 so add in iphones features and look I'd $400 or so most customers would find agreeable.

 

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
Originally posted by: deathkoba
Cisco never made anything important anyway. Apple all the way baby.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for a good laugh, kid.. You may now return to watching Pokemon.
 
Oct 4, 2004
10,515
6
81
Originally posted by: deathkoba
Cisco never made anything important anyway. Apple all the way baby.

Huh? (Noobish comment follows) I thought the backbone (right word?) of the whole Internet was powered by some very high-end Cisco hardware? :confused: