One of the more interesting intellectual property lawsuits in recent years is starting to unfold as two IP behemoths — Apple and Cisco — square off over Apple’s new “iPhone.” The alleged issue is trademark infringement.
What make this such an interesting suit is that it really isn’t about trademarks. There are deeper business issues, and it was a negotiations impasse caused the twin events — Apple’s new product announcement and Cisco’s lawsuit announcement.
This isn’t one of those cases where somebody adopted a name only to discover that somebody else had the name. No. Apple knew full well that Cisco owned the name. In fact, Apple and Cisco had been talking for several weeks about working together. The problem was the business philosophies of the two companies.
Mark Chandler, Cicso’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a blog, “What were the issues that kept us from agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.”
What Cisco wanted, according to Chandler, was “an open approach. We hoped out products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network produces the basis to make this happen — it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want.”
Apple, according the The Wall Street Journal, “has kept tight control over internally developed technology to be able to offer exclusive features. Many competitors, for instance, have asked Apple to make it possible for songs purchased from the company’s iTunes music store to be loaded on their portable music players. But only Apple’s hit iPod can do that.”
So when the peace talks failed, Apple and Cisco decided to go to war.
Cisco controls the high ground. They own the iPhone trademark. They bought in 2000 when they acquired Infogear Technology. Infogear’s registrations for iPhone date back to 1996 well before Apple launched its iPods and iMacs. In fact, Cisco has been supporting iPhones for years, according to Chandler, and have begun shipping its new version of iPhone since last spring.
Apple argues that other companies have used “iPhone” for internet-based calls and that Apple is the first to use this name for a cellphone product.
The winners in this case are going to be: Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, intellectual property counsel for Apple, and Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, legal counsel for Cisco. Don’t hold your breath for an early settlement.
_______
Author
James T. Berger, Managing Editor of The Wiglaf Journal, does extensive work for intellectual property law firms. His particular specialty is developing and critiquing surveys for trademark infringement cases.
New multifeature iPhone not likely to be a huge hit
When we returned from vacation recently and I looked back over the technology headlines I had missed, the one item that struck me was the announcement of a new, $500 gadget called the "iPhone." Didn't I review that thing a while back? I thought.
A few clicks on the controls of the Internet Time Machine proved I wasn't dreaming. I did review a gadget called iPhone - a decade ago.
But lack of originality isn't the only reason that Apple's long-awaited entry into the cell phone business might not be the colossal, lifestyle-changing hit the company created with the iPod.
Yes, the iPhone will sell like hotcakes inside the Apple Cult, but is the heathen public really willing to pay that kind of money for a toy that duplicates what they already own? The iPhone is a slick and very expensive digital music/video player and handheld wireless Web browser that also happens to make phone calls. It won't be available until June, but faithful Macolytes are already lining up to buy it.
The iPhone I tried in January 1997 had nothing to do with Apple and was an entirely different animal - a $500 desktop computer-phone with a 7 1/2-inch touch screen and elfin keyboard. Running software from a company called InfoGear, it was designed to exchange e-mail over a dial-up connection and perform basic Web browsing chores without the bulk or expense of a full PC.
The iPhone worked reasonably well, but ultimately it was a solution in search of a problem. People who wanted Internet access bought real computers instead, and the iPhone disappeared - unmourned.
Eventually, Cisco Systems Inc., the giant networking equipment manufacturer, landed the rights to the iPhone brand when it acquired InfoGear in 2000. On Jan. 10, the day after Apple introduced its version, Cisco sued Apple for trademark infringement.
Cisco argued that Apple's use of "iPhone" conflicted with phones marketed by Cisco's Linksys subsidiary - in packages with "iPhone" stickers plastered over the photo of an existing Linksys model.
But Apple's real problem may be that the new iPhone, like its namesake, is a solution in search of a problem.
Yes, the iPhone is an elegant combination of hardware and software, a delight to the eye and ear. And it will sell a million units the day it's available because the Cult of Apple requires followers to buy whatever chairman-for-life Steve Jobs decides to hawk this month. If Jobs tied a couple of tin cans together with a string and called it a telephone, a million Macolytes would call him a "visionary minimalist" and shell out $500 for it.
But what about the rest of the world? First, consider that most of Apple's target audience already owns a perfectly good iPod (or some other music player) and a perfectly good cell phone. Both may be better than their counterparts in the new combo gadget.
For example, the basic $500 iPhone can store 2 gigabytes of music, while the $600 premium version stores 4 gigs. They use flash memory, like the lightweight iPod Nano line.
But "real" iPods, the models with hard drives, store 30 to 60 gigabytes of music. So music fans who like to travel with their whole collection will have to give up most of their music to use an iPhone - or carry two gadgets, one of which duplicates the other. Macolytes will have no problem with this, but the heathen will probably think twice.
Another issue: Apple is selling the iPhone exclusively through Cingular. That alone should make knowledgeable phone customers suspicious. In Consumer Reports' most recent satisfaction survey of more than 50,000 cell phone customers nationwide, Cingular's service ranked last or next-to-last in every metropolitan area. And for now, at least, the iPhone won't work on Cingular's third-generation, high-speed wireless network, but on an older, slower system.
For users who depend on a cell phone for their livelihood, switching to a less dependable carrier could be a big price to pay for a little extra cool.
And how about the total cost of ownership? Neither Apple nor Cingular has announced monthly pricing, but to access the Web outside of free Wi-Fi hotspots, send e-mail or text messages, download ring tones or use all those other cool online services that Apple is pushing, customers will have to sign up for a data plan that could cost as much as or more than their voice plan.
Despite the millions that wireless carriers have spent marketing these services elsewhere, customers just haven't been buying. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, data accounted for less than 11 percent of the industry's total service revenue in the first half of 2005.
The irony is that competing wireless carriers may actually wish Cingular and the iPhone well, hoping they'll jump-start a market for services that existing customers have ignored in droves.
Finally, there's the conundrum that confronts all potential buyers of multipurpose devices. The more gadgets you cram into one package, the more things there are to go wrong - and the more likely it is that something will.
When something does go wrong - and given my family's history with broken iPods, that's a near certainty - you'll lose the use of your phone and your music player and your portable Web access while it's being fixed, if indeed it can be fixed. Do you really want your business communications dependent on the health of your music player? Of course, none of these issues will dampen enthusiam for the iPhone inside the Cult. And the iPhone might actually gain a few converts.
The gotta-have-it threshold of consumers - particularly the 20- and 30-somethings who buy these gadgets - has been increasing with their disposable income. Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360 game consoles are flying off the shelves at $500 to $600.
For many of their buyers, the iPhone could be another toy to add to their collections.
A few clicks on the controls of the Internet Time Machine proved I wasn't dreaming. I did review a gadget called iPhone - a decade ago.
But lack of originality isn't the only reason that Apple's long-awaited entry into the cell phone business might not be the colossal, lifestyle-changing hit the company created with the iPod.
Yes, the iPhone will sell like hotcakes inside the Apple Cult, but is the heathen public really willing to pay that kind of money for a toy that duplicates what they already own? The iPhone is a slick and very expensive digital music/video player and handheld wireless Web browser that also happens to make phone calls. It won't be available until June, but faithful Macolytes are already lining up to buy it.
The iPhone I tried in January 1997 had nothing to do with Apple and was an entirely different animal - a $500 desktop computer-phone with a 7 1/2-inch touch screen and elfin keyboard. Running software from a company called InfoGear, it was designed to exchange e-mail over a dial-up connection and perform basic Web browsing chores without the bulk or expense of a full PC.
The iPhone worked reasonably well, but ultimately it was a solution in search of a problem. People who wanted Internet access bought real computers instead, and the iPhone disappeared - unmourned.
Eventually, Cisco Systems Inc., the giant networking equipment manufacturer, landed the rights to the iPhone brand when it acquired InfoGear in 2000. On Jan. 10, the day after Apple introduced its version, Cisco sued Apple for trademark infringement.
Cisco argued that Apple's use of "iPhone" conflicted with phones marketed by Cisco's Linksys subsidiary - in packages with "iPhone" stickers plastered over the photo of an existing Linksys model.
But Apple's real problem may be that the new iPhone, like its namesake, is a solution in search of a problem.
Yes, the iPhone is an elegant combination of hardware and software, a delight to the eye and ear. And it will sell a million units the day it's available because the Cult of Apple requires followers to buy whatever chairman-for-life Steve Jobs decides to hawk this month. If Jobs tied a couple of tin cans together with a string and called it a telephone, a million Macolytes would call him a "visionary minimalist" and shell out $500 for it.
But what about the rest of the world? First, consider that most of Apple's target audience already owns a perfectly good iPod (or some other music player) and a perfectly good cell phone. Both may be better than their counterparts in the new combo gadget.
For example, the basic $500 iPhone can store 2 gigabytes of music, while the $600 premium version stores 4 gigs. They use flash memory, like the lightweight iPod Nano line.
But "real" iPods, the models with hard drives, store 30 to 60 gigabytes of music. So music fans who like to travel with their whole collection will have to give up most of their music to use an iPhone - or carry two gadgets, one of which duplicates the other. Macolytes will have no problem with this, but the heathen will probably think twice.
Another issue: Apple is selling the iPhone exclusively through Cingular. That alone should make knowledgeable phone customers suspicious. In Consumer Reports' most recent satisfaction survey of more than 50,000 cell phone customers nationwide, Cingular's service ranked last or next-to-last in every metropolitan area. And for now, at least, the iPhone won't work on Cingular's third-generation, high-speed wireless network, but on an older, slower system.
For users who depend on a cell phone for their livelihood, switching to a less dependable carrier could be a big price to pay for a little extra cool.
And how about the total cost of ownership? Neither Apple nor Cingular has announced monthly pricing, but to access the Web outside of free Wi-Fi hotspots, send e-mail or text messages, download ring tones or use all those other cool online services that Apple is pushing, customers will have to sign up for a data plan that could cost as much as or more than their voice plan.
Despite the millions that wireless carriers have spent marketing these services elsewhere, customers just haven't been buying. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, data accounted for less than 11 percent of the industry's total service revenue in the first half of 2005.
The irony is that competing wireless carriers may actually wish Cingular and the iPhone well, hoping they'll jump-start a market for services that existing customers have ignored in droves.
Finally, there's the conundrum that confronts all potential buyers of multipurpose devices. The more gadgets you cram into one package, the more things there are to go wrong - and the more likely it is that something will.
When something does go wrong - and given my family's history with broken iPods, that's a near certainty - you'll lose the use of your phone and your music player and your portable Web access while it's being fixed, if indeed it can be fixed. Do you really want your business communications dependent on the health of your music player? Of course, none of these issues will dampen enthusiam for the iPhone inside the Cult. And the iPhone might actually gain a few converts.
The gotta-have-it threshold of consumers - particularly the 20- and 30-somethings who buy these gadgets - has been increasing with their disposable income. Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360 game consoles are flying off the shelves at $500 to $600.
For many of their buyers, the iPhone could be another toy to add to their collections.
Make Your Own iPhone
I was browsing TechCrunch earlier and I ran across this printout iPhone, sure to be the hot item this side of June. And given the price of the iPhone it might be as close as many of us get to Apple’s mythical device once it actually comes out.
Anyway, just print-and-fold and you’ve got yourself an iPhone. It won’t actually function, of course, but I’m sure you’ll still be the envy of all your friends.
Cisco Troubles With iPhone Trademark in Canada
By: Christopher Meinck
Cisco is currently filing suit against Apple in the US for trademark infringement. In Canada, Comwave Telecom has been using 'iPhone' for years and has also filed an application with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. According to CNET, Comwave Telecom has sent Cisco a letter of warning alleging a violation of their 'iPhone' trademark.
The term iPhone has been in use by Comwave since 2004 and they filed for a trademark application in 2005. According to experts quoted in the story, they base trademark awards on such issues as:
First company using the brand name in Canada or in applying to register the name
Apple filed an application for the term 'iPhone' in 2004, prior to Comwave's application. Cisco had filed an application (through Infogear) to obtain a trademark for the iPhone name in 1998, but abandoned those efforts in the middle of 2003. "We recently became aware of Comwave and we're investigating the issue thoroughly," said Cisco spokesman John Noh."Our legal department has put Cisco on notice," said Yuval Barzakay, president of Toronto-based Comwave. "We will see how they react and then gauge our next action."
Cisco is currently filing suit against Apple in the US for trademark infringement. In Canada, Comwave Telecom has been using 'iPhone' for years and has also filed an application with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. According to CNET, Comwave Telecom has sent Cisco a letter of warning alleging a violation of their 'iPhone' trademark.
The term iPhone has been in use by Comwave since 2004 and they filed for a trademark application in 2005. According to experts quoted in the story, they base trademark awards on such issues as:
First company using the brand name in Canada or in applying to register the name
Apple filed an application for the term 'iPhone' in 2004, prior to Comwave's application. Cisco had filed an application (through Infogear) to obtain a trademark for the iPhone name in 1998, but abandoned those efforts in the middle of 2003. "We recently became aware of Comwave and we're investigating the issue thoroughly," said Cisco spokesman John Noh."Our legal department has put Cisco on notice," said Yuval Barzakay, president of Toronto-based Comwave. "We will see how they react and then gauge our next action."
iPhone could be exclusive to Carphone Warehouse
Carphone Warehouse, Europes largest mobile phone retailer, wants exclusive rights to sell the iPhone in the UK later this year.
While the final decision will be down to Apple we wouldn’t bet against them choosing a single retailer for the UK like they did with Cingular in the US.
Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse, discussed the iPhone during the companies quarterly results and said he is looking for an exclusive deal with Apple in the UK. Optimistically the company has a pre-order form on their website already.
Although the results for 2006 were very good for Carphone, which has 700 stores in the UK and has signed up 3.26 million subscribers in the last 3 months, it is suffering after losing the rights to sell Vodafone contracts. Since Vodafone signed an exclusive deal with Phones4U Carphone has been unable to sell any Vodafone deals in its stores. Dunstone sees this as the biggest threat for 2007.
If Carphone Warehouse can secure exclusive rights to the iPhone its clear that Vodafone would come running back pretty quickly. For Apple to sign with a retailer in the UK rather than a network makes a lot of sense. Networks are a matter for personal preference and a lot of people would not be willing to switch or pay an upgrade fee to get the iPhone on their current contract. Carphone would have access to the majority of networks, all of them if Vodafone signs another deal, and is best placed to sell more iPhones than any other retailer.
The strong results for 2006 are apparently due to cheap prices of Motorola handsets resulting in large volumes of sales.
While the final decision will be down to Apple we wouldn’t bet against them choosing a single retailer for the UK like they did with Cingular in the US.
Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse, discussed the iPhone during the companies quarterly results and said he is looking for an exclusive deal with Apple in the UK. Optimistically the company has a pre-order form on their website already.
Although the results for 2006 were very good for Carphone, which has 700 stores in the UK and has signed up 3.26 million subscribers in the last 3 months, it is suffering after losing the rights to sell Vodafone contracts. Since Vodafone signed an exclusive deal with Phones4U Carphone has been unable to sell any Vodafone deals in its stores. Dunstone sees this as the biggest threat for 2007.
If Carphone Warehouse can secure exclusive rights to the iPhone its clear that Vodafone would come running back pretty quickly. For Apple to sign with a retailer in the UK rather than a network makes a lot of sense. Networks are a matter for personal preference and a lot of people would not be willing to switch or pay an upgrade fee to get the iPhone on their current contract. Carphone would have access to the majority of networks, all of them if Vodafone signs another deal, and is best placed to sell more iPhones than any other retailer.
The strong results for 2006 are apparently due to cheap prices of Motorola handsets resulting in large volumes of sales.
Researcher: iPhone is no smart phone
The iPhone is clever in design and has some nifty capabilities, but the combination mobile phone and digital music player is not a smart phone, a market researcher said Thursday.
Much of the media has placed Apple's device, unveiled this month at the Macworld conference in San Francisco, in the same category as gadgets like the Palm Treo, the Motorola Q, and Research In Motion's (RIM) BlackBerry Pearl. But the major difference between those devices and the iPhone is the fact that Apple's gizmo is closed to third-party applications.
"Therefore, we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smart phone: it is a very high-end feature phone," Philip Solis, analyst for ABI Research said.
At $500, the iPhone is considerably more expensive then smart phones, which are priced as low as $200. Many of those phones, however, lack the music capabilities of the iPhone.
Having an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications promotes competition in the software space, and produces products that add value to the device. Solis said. "Feature phones have third-party applications too -- but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware, such as Java and BREW."
Applications designed for smart phones can access core functionality within the operating system, and tend to be more powerful and efficient than third-party software on feature phones. "The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications," Solis said.
ABI said it believes the closed system chosen by Apple for the iPhone could hamper sales. "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music," ABI analyst Stuart Carlaw said.
Much of the media has placed Apple's device, unveiled this month at the Macworld conference in San Francisco, in the same category as gadgets like the Palm Treo, the Motorola Q, and Research In Motion's (RIM) BlackBerry Pearl. But the major difference between those devices and the iPhone is the fact that Apple's gizmo is closed to third-party applications.
"Therefore, we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smart phone: it is a very high-end feature phone," Philip Solis, analyst for ABI Research said.
At $500, the iPhone is considerably more expensive then smart phones, which are priced as low as $200. Many of those phones, however, lack the music capabilities of the iPhone.
Having an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications promotes competition in the software space, and produces products that add value to the device. Solis said. "Feature phones have third-party applications too -- but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware, such as Java and BREW."
Applications designed for smart phones can access core functionality within the operating system, and tend to be more powerful and efficient than third-party software on feature phones. "The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications," Solis said.
ABI said it believes the closed system chosen by Apple for the iPhone could hamper sales. "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music," ABI analyst Stuart Carlaw said.
Apple's 'iPhone' problems in Canada
Apple could face yet another lawsuit over the use of the iPhone moniker for its forthcoming "revolutionary" mobile phone. Announced earlier this month, Apple apparently snubbed a protracted period of good-faith negotiations with Cisco, by announcing the product at Macworld Expo with a US launch date of June. A new report says that Apple will likely face iPhone branding problems in Canada as well. Bloomberg reports that Comwave Telecom has used the iPhone brand since 2004 to sell Internet phone service to its customers and filed documents opposing Apple's motion to take the name. Despite reports on Thursday that confirmed Rogers Wireless would serve as the sole provider for Apple's iPhone in Canada, the company has not formally announced plans to ship the iPhone in Canada.
Responding to the possible iPhone naming controversy in Canada, the Cupertino-based company said that it had "nothing to announce at this time" about plans to sell the phone in Canada and declined to comment further.
Company president Yuval Barzakay said in an interview yesterday that his closely held company of about 100 employees plans to fight for its rights. He, however, declined to say how many customers the Toronto-based company has or disclose its revenue, according to the report.
"It's a crucial brand for us," said Barzakay, 36. "Our legal folks believe we're certainly in the driver's seat." Until Apple offers the iPhone in Canada, Comwave has no reason to claim damages, he told Bloomberg.
With current challenges from LG's Prada mobile phone and possible competition from Google and Samsung, Apple's naming troubles could have been easily avoided. Cisco CEO John Chambers described the company's lawsuit against Apple as a "minor skirmish," saying that the iPhone name-related confrontation could have been avoided if Apple had been willing to negotiate. Cisco owned the 'iPhone' trademark since 2000 when it acquired a firm that had registered the name, but waited to use the name until it launched a Linksys-branded product.
"We told Apple for five years, 'This is our trademark. We'll license it to you, but it is ours,'" Chambers said. "All we ask is that people respect our trademarks and our intellectual property. We would have traded that for just interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco products."
Responding to the possible iPhone naming controversy in Canada, the Cupertino-based company said that it had "nothing to announce at this time" about plans to sell the phone in Canada and declined to comment further.
Company president Yuval Barzakay said in an interview yesterday that his closely held company of about 100 employees plans to fight for its rights. He, however, declined to say how many customers the Toronto-based company has or disclose its revenue, according to the report.
"It's a crucial brand for us," said Barzakay, 36. "Our legal folks believe we're certainly in the driver's seat." Until Apple offers the iPhone in Canada, Comwave has no reason to claim damages, he told Bloomberg.
With current challenges from LG's Prada mobile phone and possible competition from Google and Samsung, Apple's naming troubles could have been easily avoided. Cisco CEO John Chambers described the company's lawsuit against Apple as a "minor skirmish," saying that the iPhone name-related confrontation could have been avoided if Apple had been willing to negotiate. Cisco owned the 'iPhone' trademark since 2000 when it acquired a firm that had registered the name, but waited to use the name until it launched a Linksys-branded product.
"We told Apple for five years, 'This is our trademark. We'll license it to you, but it is ours,'" Chambers said. "All we ask is that people respect our trademarks and our intellectual property. We would have traded that for just interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco products."
Researcher: iPhone no smart phone
The iPhone is clever in design and has some nifty capabilities, but the combination mobile phone and digital music player isn't a smartphone, a market researcher said Thursday.
Much of the media has placed Apple's device, unveiled this month at the Macworld conference in San Francisco, in the same category as gadgets like the Palm Treo, the Motorola Q, and Research In Motion's BlackBerry Pearl. But the major difference between those devices and the iPhone is the fact that Apple's gizmo is closed to third-party applications.
"Therefore, we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smart phone; it's a very high-end feature phone," says Philip Solis, an analyst for ABI Research.
At $500, the iPhone is considerably more expensive than smartphones, which are priced as low as $200. Many of those phones, however, lack the music capabilities of the iPhone.
Having an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications promotes competition in the software space and produces products that add value to the device, Solis says. "Feature phones have third-party applications too, but these are relatively weak and limited to applications that work with the middleware such as Java and Brew."
Applications designed for smartphones can access core functionality within the operating system and tend to be more powerful and efficient than third-party software on feature phones. "The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications," Solis says.
ABI says the closed system chosen by Apple for the iPhone could hamper sales. "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music," ABI analyst Stuart Carlaw says.
Much of the media has placed Apple's device, unveiled this month at the Macworld conference in San Francisco, in the same category as gadgets like the Palm Treo, the Motorola Q, and Research In Motion's BlackBerry Pearl. But the major difference between those devices and the iPhone is the fact that Apple's gizmo is closed to third-party applications.
"Therefore, we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smart phone; it's a very high-end feature phone," says Philip Solis, an analyst for ABI Research.
At $500, the iPhone is considerably more expensive than smartphones, which are priced as low as $200. Many of those phones, however, lack the music capabilities of the iPhone.
Having an open, commercial operating system that supports third-party applications promotes competition in the software space and produces products that add value to the device, Solis says. "Feature phones have third-party applications too, but these are relatively weak and limited to applications that work with the middleware such as Java and Brew."
Applications designed for smartphones can access core functionality within the operating system and tend to be more powerful and efficient than third-party software on feature phones. "The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications," Solis says.
ABI says the closed system chosen by Apple for the iPhone could hamper sales. "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music," ABI analyst Stuart Carlaw says.
The iPhone is No Smartphone - Report
Apple's iPhone was the talk of the town after its January 9 launch. Industry observers were by and large impressed with the new device, praising its user interface, innovation, and seamless integration. But two senior ABI Research analysts -- wireless research director Stuart Carlaw, and principal mobile broadband analyst Philip Solis -- point out that while the iPhone is undoubtedly clever and capable, it is not correct to call it a smartphone, as much of the media has done.
ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications. The iPhone runs the Apple Macintosh computer operating system, OS X, so at first glance it would seem to fall into the smartphone category, which might help justify its announced $500+ pricetag. But, says Solis, "It turns out that this device will be closed to third party applications. Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone."
Feature phones' functionality (dictated by the software which controls the hardware) is closed and controlled by an operator or the device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem, where competition in the software space creates applications that add value. "Sure," concedes Solis, "feature phones have third party applications too - but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware such as Java and BREW. Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the OS itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient. The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications."
Stuart Carlaw adds, "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music. Apple must get the phone engineering part of the equation right, and it is difficult to see how they will accomplish that with no track record in the industry. Even though they are working with some prominent suppliers, the task of putting all of the building blocks together cannot be underestimated."
ABI Research defines a smartphone as a cellular handset using an open, commercial operating system that supports third party applications. The iPhone runs the Apple Macintosh computer operating system, OS X, so at first glance it would seem to fall into the smartphone category, which might help justify its announced $500+ pricetag. But, says Solis, "It turns out that this device will be closed to third party applications. Therefore we must conclude at this point that, based on our current definition, the iPhone is not a smartphone: it is a very high-end feature phone."
Feature phones' functionality (dictated by the software which controls the hardware) is closed and controlled by an operator or the device manufacturer, whereas smartphones are supported by a third-party ecosystem, where competition in the software space creates applications that add value. "Sure," concedes Solis, "feature phones have third party applications too - but these are relatively weak and limited applications that work with the middleware such as Java and BREW. Applications designed for smartphones can be written to access core functionality from the OS itself, and are therefore usually more powerful and efficient. The competition in an open environment also yields more cutting edge, rich applications."
Stuart Carlaw adds, "Consumers will not be willing to settle for a second-rate cell phone just to have superior music. Apple must get the phone engineering part of the equation right, and it is difficult to see how they will accomplish that with no track record in the industry. Even though they are working with some prominent suppliers, the task of putting all of the building blocks together cannot be underestimated."
iPhone: HP gets 'touchy'
Hewlett-Packard's new TouchSmart PC is more likely to popularise "touch-based" communications than Apple's iPhone, a senior HP executive claimed.
In an interview, Ameer Karim, HP's director of Worldwide Product Marketing for Consumer PC and Digital Entertainment, said there was a "cult" surrounding the as-yet unreleased Apple mobile phone.
"Who's going to spend $600 on a phone? We believe we'll be able to deliver more touch devices through TouchSmart PCs than the iPhone," Karim said at the launch of HP's new consumer desktop and notebook range in Seoul, South Korea.
He said he believed MP3 players in phones were impractical because if they were dropped while exercising and listening to music, for example, a customer would lose their only form of communication.
But Karim conceded that "there’s going to be a cult following that will buy the iPhone regardless of the price."
Stacy Wolff, director of Mobile Product Design at HP, said that Apple has had a great effect on the PC industry. "We all respect Apple. There is no-one in the industry who doesn't."
Apart from the TouchSmart PC, HP also unveiled the entry-level convertible TX1000 notebook.
The TouchSmart PC uses optical sensors to detect touch input on a 19" LCD screen, and will be available in Australia in April from US$2,499. Local pricing is yet to be announced.
Both the TouchSmart and the TX1000 use the AMD Turion X2 chip instead of the more popular Intel Core Duo. Adrian Koch, senior vice president of HP Personal Systems Group for Asia-Pacific, said this was based on timing, and it was still working with Intel on other products in the new range.
"HP believes in customer choice. We have worked with both companies (Intel and AMD) for a very, very long time. Sometimes this will change for a given time", Koch said.
Other products launched include a Compaq Presario desktop, the HP iPAQ rw6828, and a series of desk-friendly HP Pavillion PCs.
Ty Pendlebury travelled to Seoul as a guest of HP.
In an interview, Ameer Karim, HP's director of Worldwide Product Marketing for Consumer PC and Digital Entertainment, said there was a "cult" surrounding the as-yet unreleased Apple mobile phone.
"Who's going to spend $600 on a phone? We believe we'll be able to deliver more touch devices through TouchSmart PCs than the iPhone," Karim said at the launch of HP's new consumer desktop and notebook range in Seoul, South Korea.
He said he believed MP3 players in phones were impractical because if they were dropped while exercising and listening to music, for example, a customer would lose their only form of communication.
But Karim conceded that "there’s going to be a cult following that will buy the iPhone regardless of the price."
Stacy Wolff, director of Mobile Product Design at HP, said that Apple has had a great effect on the PC industry. "We all respect Apple. There is no-one in the industry who doesn't."
Apart from the TouchSmart PC, HP also unveiled the entry-level convertible TX1000 notebook.
The TouchSmart PC uses optical sensors to detect touch input on a 19" LCD screen, and will be available in Australia in April from US$2,499. Local pricing is yet to be announced.
Both the TouchSmart and the TX1000 use the AMD Turion X2 chip instead of the more popular Intel Core Duo. Adrian Koch, senior vice president of HP Personal Systems Group for Asia-Pacific, said this was based on timing, and it was still working with Intel on other products in the new range.
"HP believes in customer choice. We have worked with both companies (Intel and AMD) for a very, very long time. Sometimes this will change for a given time", Koch said.
Other products launched include a Compaq Presario desktop, the HP iPAQ rw6828, and a series of desk-friendly HP Pavillion PCs.
Ty Pendlebury travelled to Seoul as a guest of HP.
How the iPhone could have changed the cell-phone industry but didn't
The iPhone looks pretty sweet. Yep, it's got that fancy touchscreen that you can use two fingers on, it changes direction depending on how you hold it, and it can tell when you're trying to enter a number and when it's rubbing against a pack of smokes in your pocket. It's certainly one of the coolest phones ever designed, if not the coolest, and it's pretty much a guaranteed hit.
You can't really fault Apple on the design unless you want to be really nitpicky, but that's not to say they did everything perfectly. Apple is one of the only device manufacturers on the planet that has the sway to change how the cell-phone business is done, and the iPhone gave the company an opportunity to really change the American cell-phone market for the better. However, when that opportunity knocked, Apple decided to ignore it, leaving the consumer to foot the bill for their laziness.
The Great Rebate Debate
What makes the cell-phone industry in this country so lousy is the fact that in order to buy a phone, you need to sign up for some kind of long-term contract (typically two years). These contracts force you to stick with one provider no matter what. You want to upgrade to a new phone in a year? Well, if you want a rebate (which is why most fancy phones over here are so cheap) you can either re-sign with your carrier for an additional two years or, if the phone you want is only sold by another carrier, you can pay hundreds of dollars to cancel your contract early.
In Europe and Asia consumers aren't faced with these choices. If they want to switch phones or carriers they can do so whenever they please. Switching phones is as easy as swapping SIM cards, and they pay their cell-phone bills month to month. The catch is they also have to pay a premium for their devices, but they're used to it. There are no free phones for signing a contract in Europe, and the notion of having a device subsidized by a carrier is foreign to them.
Here in the States, however, people expect to get their phones for free or close to it. They sign these awful two-year contracts, but in exchange for their promise to pay hundreds of dollars in usage charges to a single carrier, they get $500 phones for less than half their "official" prices.
The Better Call
How could Apple have changed this? Well, it was clear from the hype surrounding the iPhone before it was ever announced that there was a huge demand for this product. People are willing to shell out more for it because of its features and, well, the fact that it's made by Apple. Apple could have sold their iPhone without attaching it to a carrier, allowing people to buy it without a discount and letting them choose who they want to provide service to it. Instead, they went with AT&T in as traditional a partnership as you can get. People will not only have to pay $500 or $600 for the phone, but they'll also need to sign up for two years of AT&T service.
You might be saying, "Yeah, but if there was no two-year commitment, the phone would cost over $1,000!" Not true. The iPhone costs Apple about $250 to manufacture, so there's a 50% profit on every unit sold. That means the two-year contract isn't subsidizing anything and whatever money would go to lowering the cost of the device is just icing on the cake.
So what are we left with? A situation worse than when Apple entered the market. Now we're stuck with the idea that it's just fine to drop $600 for an unsubsidized phone and be forced into signing a two-year contract on top of it. Will this give other phone manufacturers the chutzpah to start keeping the contract subsidies for themselves? Let's hope not. The last thing we need is for one of the most blatantly anticonsumer industries in this country to start thinking they can rip us off even more. Thanks, Apple. Somehow we expected more from you.
Needham: iPhone takes shine off RIM's Pearl
By Aidan Malley
Research In Motion's first genuine chance at breaking out of its stodgy corporate niche may have been prematurely cut short thanks to Apple's introduction of the iPhone, financial analysts at Needham & Co. said on Tuesday in a research note.
In guidance provided to stock traders, analysts John Lynch and Charlie Wolf downgraded RIM's rating from Buy to Hold, pointing to new questions about the Canadian smartphone maker's long-term prospects now that it had to grapple with a more direct competitor to its recently introduced BlackBerry Pearl. Lynch and Wolf together observed that while the Pearl was still the friendliest towards business and government buyers, the iPhone's emphasis on strong performance with a media-savvy focus had the "potential to impinge" on RIM's newly gained toehold in the mainstream.
While RIM is a "moving target" and may have a fresh model on offer by the time the iPhone rolls out in June, the analysts said, Apple's first cellphone may be the only real competitor the Pearl has seen since its September launch. The slim BlackBerry was the first from its creator to integrate a camera -- normally a taboo item for secrecy-obsessed offices -- and shifted attention towards music and video playback while keeping the immediacy of "push" e-mail that earned previous BlackBerries their workplace throne.
The mix is said to have loosened RIM's once stiff public image and has helped bring legions of first-time buyers to its doors. Even so, the Needham analysts warned that this might not be enough to sway mainstream buyers, who might be lured to Apple through better media controls.
"We expect a lot of would-be Pearl buyers will find iPhone's email [sic] to be good enough," Lynch and Wolf wrote, "in light of its unprecedented multimedia functionality and web browsing experience."
Besides its more tempting touchscreen interface, the iPhone's 4GB or 8GB of flash memory makes it a rare breed in the typically storage-shy American market and gives it enough room to store some owners' entire music collections. The Pearl has little free memory built-in and depends almost exclusively on microSD cards to load songs, capping its storage at 2GB.
Still, the analysts note that the iPhone's success is far from a surefire prospect. "Some buyers will need the reliable push email of BlackBerry, and some will balk at iPhone’s gaudy price tag," they said, also expressing caution over the uncertainty of a device whose feature list is far from certain. "We prefer to wait on the sidelines while questions over iPhone’s functionality are hashed out.”
Price may well be the Cupertino's ultimate Achilles Heel as it tries to break RIM's grip. Although far less ambitious, the Pearl that users can buy through AT&T (the iPhone's eventual destination) costs only half the iPhone's intimidating $499 price when part of a two-year contract -- and doesn't require that contract for an eventual sale. The Pearl sells for $399 unattached to any service plan.
In light of such tall barriers, Lynch and Wolf have even raised the possibility of a compromise and suggested that the ascent of one company didn't have to mean the downfall of another. "Both Apple and RIM will be winners," Needham's researchers were quick to add when issuing the Hold rating. "We [only] think our prior estimates were too aggressive."
Research In Motion's first genuine chance at breaking out of its stodgy corporate niche may have been prematurely cut short thanks to Apple's introduction of the iPhone, financial analysts at Needham & Co. said on Tuesday in a research note.
In guidance provided to stock traders, analysts John Lynch and Charlie Wolf downgraded RIM's rating from Buy to Hold, pointing to new questions about the Canadian smartphone maker's long-term prospects now that it had to grapple with a more direct competitor to its recently introduced BlackBerry Pearl. Lynch and Wolf together observed that while the Pearl was still the friendliest towards business and government buyers, the iPhone's emphasis on strong performance with a media-savvy focus had the "potential to impinge" on RIM's newly gained toehold in the mainstream.
While RIM is a "moving target" and may have a fresh model on offer by the time the iPhone rolls out in June, the analysts said, Apple's first cellphone may be the only real competitor the Pearl has seen since its September launch. The slim BlackBerry was the first from its creator to integrate a camera -- normally a taboo item for secrecy-obsessed offices -- and shifted attention towards music and video playback while keeping the immediacy of "push" e-mail that earned previous BlackBerries their workplace throne.
The mix is said to have loosened RIM's once stiff public image and has helped bring legions of first-time buyers to its doors. Even so, the Needham analysts warned that this might not be enough to sway mainstream buyers, who might be lured to Apple through better media controls.
"We expect a lot of would-be Pearl buyers will find iPhone's email [sic] to be good enough," Lynch and Wolf wrote, "in light of its unprecedented multimedia functionality and web browsing experience."
Besides its more tempting touchscreen interface, the iPhone's 4GB or 8GB of flash memory makes it a rare breed in the typically storage-shy American market and gives it enough room to store some owners' entire music collections. The Pearl has little free memory built-in and depends almost exclusively on microSD cards to load songs, capping its storage at 2GB.
Still, the analysts note that the iPhone's success is far from a surefire prospect. "Some buyers will need the reliable push email of BlackBerry, and some will balk at iPhone’s gaudy price tag," they said, also expressing caution over the uncertainty of a device whose feature list is far from certain. "We prefer to wait on the sidelines while questions over iPhone’s functionality are hashed out.”
Price may well be the Cupertino's ultimate Achilles Heel as it tries to break RIM's grip. Although far less ambitious, the Pearl that users can buy through AT&T (the iPhone's eventual destination) costs only half the iPhone's intimidating $499 price when part of a two-year contract -- and doesn't require that contract for an eventual sale. The Pearl sells for $399 unattached to any service plan.
In light of such tall barriers, Lynch and Wolf have even raised the possibility of a compromise and suggested that the ascent of one company didn't have to mean the downfall of another. "Both Apple and RIM will be winners," Needham's researchers were quick to add when issuing the Hold rating. "We [only] think our prior estimates were too aggressive."
Reviews the iPhone (Verdict: Groundbreaking, Expensive, Not Out Yet)
You think our coverage of the iPhone is overblown? Hah! CNET has already reviewed the damn thing (kinda), giving it an 8.3 and the much coveted Editor's Choice label. Ok, so maybe the review is more of a "what would a review look like" type deal, but many of the comments are still relevant.
The iPhone is called "groundbreaking" and CNET lauds its ability to easily switch from a landscape to portrait orientation. CNET also loves the Google Maps integration and the fact that it doubles as a video iPod. CNET does have some issues with the Jesus phone, however.
In case you haven't heard, the iPhone is expensive ($499 for the 4GB, $599 for the 8GB) and CNET doesn't like that. Apparently, the touchscreen is a "facial-oil magnet" and the lack of 3G support is terribly lame. Oh, and there's no wireless integration with the iTunes Store.
We really must salute CNET for taking the time to review a product that won't be available for several more months. Kudos are in order. I'm thinking of reviewing the PlayStation 4, personally. – Nicholas Deleon
Apple: Introducing iPhone
by Apple
iPhone combines three products — a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching — into one small and lightweight handheld device. iPhone also introduces an entirely new user interface based on a large multi-touch display and pioneering new software, letting you control everything with just your fingers. So it ushers in an era of software power and sophistication never before seen in a mobile device, completely redefining what you can do on a mobile phone.
Widescreen iPod
iPhone is a widescreen iPod with touch controls that lets you enjoy all your content — including music, audiobooks, videos, TV shows, and movies — on a beautiful 3.5-inch widescreen display. It also lets you sync your content from the iTunes library on your PC or Mac. And then you can access it all with just the touch of a finger.
Music
Scroll through your songs, artists, albums, and playlists with just a flick of a finger. Album artwork is dramatically presented on the large display. And now use Cover Flow to browse your music library by album artwork for the first time on an iPod.
Revolutionary Phone
iPhone is a revolutionary new mobile phone that allows you to make a call by simply pointing your finger at a name or number in your address book, a favorites list, or a call log. It also automatically syncs all your contacts from a PC, Mac, or Internet service. And it lets you select and listen to voicemail messages in whatever order you want — just like email.
Receiving and making a call
With iPhone, making a call is as simple as touching a name or number. In addition, you can easily construct a favorites list for your most frequently made calls, and quickly merge calls together to create conference calls.
Breakthrough Internet Device
iPhone features a rich HTML email client and Safari — the most advanced web browser ever on a portable device — which automatically syncs bookmarks from your PC or Mac. Safari also includes built-in Google and Yahoo! search. iPhone is fully multi-tasking, so you can read a web page while downloading your email in the background over Wi-Fi or EDGE.
Safari Web Browser
With its advanced Safari browser, iPhone lets you see any web page the way it was designed to be seen, then easily zoom in by simply tapping on the multi-touch display with your finger.
High Technology
Multi-touch
iPhone features the most revolutionary user interface since the mouse. It's an entirely new interface based on a large multi-touch display and innovative new software that lets you control everything using only your fingers. So you can glide through albums with Cover Flow, flip through photos and email them with a touch, or zoom in and out on a section of a web page — all by simply using iPhone's multi-touch display.
iPhone combines three products — a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching — into one small and lightweight handheld device. iPhone also introduces an entirely new user interface based on a large multi-touch display and pioneering new software, letting you control everything with just your fingers. So it ushers in an era of software power and sophistication never before seen in a mobile device, completely redefining what you can do on a mobile phone.
Widescreen iPod
iPhone is a widescreen iPod with touch controls that lets you enjoy all your content — including music, audiobooks, videos, TV shows, and movies — on a beautiful 3.5-inch widescreen display. It also lets you sync your content from the iTunes library on your PC or Mac. And then you can access it all with just the touch of a finger.
Music
Scroll through your songs, artists, albums, and playlists with just a flick of a finger. Album artwork is dramatically presented on the large display. And now use Cover Flow to browse your music library by album artwork for the first time on an iPod.
Revolutionary Phone
iPhone is a revolutionary new mobile phone that allows you to make a call by simply pointing your finger at a name or number in your address book, a favorites list, or a call log. It also automatically syncs all your contacts from a PC, Mac, or Internet service. And it lets you select and listen to voicemail messages in whatever order you want — just like email.
Receiving and making a call
With iPhone, making a call is as simple as touching a name or number. In addition, you can easily construct a favorites list for your most frequently made calls, and quickly merge calls together to create conference calls.
Breakthrough Internet Device
iPhone features a rich HTML email client and Safari — the most advanced web browser ever on a portable device — which automatically syncs bookmarks from your PC or Mac. Safari also includes built-in Google and Yahoo! search. iPhone is fully multi-tasking, so you can read a web page while downloading your email in the background over Wi-Fi or EDGE.
Safari Web Browser
With its advanced Safari browser, iPhone lets you see any web page the way it was designed to be seen, then easily zoom in by simply tapping on the multi-touch display with your finger.
High Technology
Multi-touch
iPhone features the most revolutionary user interface since the mouse. It's an entirely new interface based on a large multi-touch display and innovative new software that lets you control everything using only your fingers. So you can glide through albums with Cover Flow, flip through photos and email them with a touch, or zoom in and out on a section of a web page — all by simply using iPhone's multi-touch display.
Apple’s iPhone touch-screen – will it work as advertised?
What mobile devices have been missing is a touch-screen that “just works”. I use a Tablet PC with Vista loaded onto it, and love the functionality that a touch-screen interface delivers. But I wish it worked by finger touch, too. At least one model, from either Motion or Electrovaya has arrived with this capability, but it’s not something that everyone else has rushed to copy, which is a shame.
Touch-screen technology is available for consumer flat-screen TVs. Pioneer has a naturally transparent cover that fits over the top of their Plasma TVs that activates a touch screen capability when running the Windows Media Center OS, and is quite fun to use.
Touch screens on ATM machines always seem to work well, with no bad experiences immediately coming to mind, unlike the experiences of many PDA style smartphones. While it is quite easy to become proficient at using an interface with a stylus, many people instinctively use their finger with such phones, which doesn’t always work because of the size difference between a stylus and your fingertip.
Someone even invented a pointed tip that you could slip over your index finger to use way back in the Palm V days. But sadly they never really seemed to take off, otherwise everyone would be using them today.
High-end remote control manufacturers who have created expensive and highly advanced touch-screen models are reported to have found that users simply prefer buttons on this kind of device, in addition to some kind of screen to display information, simply because the tactile feedback in a remote control is a very handy thing – you can change channels, volume and take control without needing to look at the keypad to see which button you’re pressing.
Perhaps future touch screen displays, large and small, will have the ability to somehow create little bumps in different patterns on the screen, (be they squares, circles, triangles, little pyramids, semi spheres) with some kind of transparent nano-gel. That would give people the tactile feedback they want while enjoying the benefits of an infinitely re-programmable screen.
One report mentioned the iPhone has to be used with your bare finger – you can’t wear a glove and have it work. Given that gloves can come in different thicknesses, future touch screens may need incredibly accurate sensitivity to compensate for the bigger impact zone of a gloved finger, yet still actually work.
Also - how easy it is to enlarge button sizes on the iPhone screen for those whose eyesight might benefit from larger icons and larger text? This is probably already a feature, and if not, it could easily be programmed. It will be interesting to see how it would look. Larger buttons would also have larger impact zones, which may help some users.
While Steve Jobs’ demonstration of the iPhone at the Macworld keynote looked insanely simple to use, prompting me to think that the iPhone and its control system are something that even my mother could understand and start using within 5 minutes.
Apple's online iPhone demonstrations makes it look very easy, too. Actually they look like almost exact duplicates of what Steve Jobs was showing on stage. Reports of people having actually used an iPhone, including that of iTWire colleague Stan Beer have all been very favorable, although it has to be said virtually everyone that has tried it has only been granted a few minutes controlled access, with only a lucky few getting a few minutes more.
So what are some of the other questions we want answers to, and what happens if the iPhone doesn't deliver as expected? Read onto page 2 for the conclusion...
The questions we’d like answers to, such as will the screen get scratched and stop working, or become otherwise gummed up, is it harder to use without looking at it, does it need frequent recalibration, what happens if you accidentally drop your iPhone from table height onto the floor and plenty of others are yet to be answered, and for now, we just have to wait.
But surely Steve Jobs has thought of these issues – he has been through the 1st-generation iPod Nano screen scratch fiasco after all. Global reports of problems soon after or even on the day of general iPhone release won’t be fun for anyone.
If Apple really have delivered the world’s first truly useable touch-screen, a new generation of handheld devices will finally appear, as the rest of the world is spurred on to create devices as equally as easy to use, and hopefully better!
How good the LG Prada’s touch-screen will be is also yet to be determined, and it will be fascinating to compare them head-to-head, and then to see who else decides to deliver similar technology of their own.
Apple’s policy of vetting all third party content for the iPhone will hopefully guarantee that every third party app allowed for release (online sale and download for immediate installation) will have the same quality smooth touch interface that the rest of the iPhone has already displayed.
How successful Apple’s iPhone screen and touch interface ultimately ends up being, with the expectation that it will exceed expectations, a new standard – the next generation of human user interface design, in mobile devices anything else that can be controlled by touch screen – has finally been set.
People are looking at touch-screen technology in a new way, with the expectation that it should ‘just work’. There’s no stopping major progress and innovation in this area now, just like the innovation that’s running hot in renewable energy technologies, electric cars, Internet technologies and much more to come. From the standpoint of technology evolution, it’s a great time to be alive!
The prediction that we’ll see more technological innovation in the next 30 years than we’ve seen in the last 2000 looks like it will come true, as long as the world doesn’t destroy itself through war, environmental catastrophe, global economic meltdown, avian influenza pandemic or other doomsday scenario, which I hope that humanity is smart enough and or lucky enough to avoid, or at least avoid the doomsday aspect thereof. Humans always want a soft landing, although we don’t always get it.
The iPhone looks to being the first to truly deliver this ‘just works’ experience on an advanced mobile communicator, a bit like the ‘information pads’ or the PADD from Star Trek, but one that’s real, and not a TV show prop. Apple’s rumoured ‘Mac Tablet’ which was reported to be running on a similarly modified version of OS X and would have a larger screen could emulate the PADD concept even more.
If that’s the case, hopefully there’ll also be a Mac Tablet that combines the best of the iPhone interface with the ability to run existing Mac OS X apps, and one which could have touch-screen interfaces created for software like Photoshop, Office, iLife and any other software that wanted to implement it, no doubt according to strict Apple guidelines. Of your finger would serve as the mouse, but if needed, you could easily use a Bluetooth or USB keyboard and mouse for data entry and more precise mouse control.
But before all that, in theory, anyway, unless a Mac Tablet comes out at the same time to give Jobs the ultimate touch control lineup and the greatest worldwide publicity ever, comes the iPhone itself in June.
So what happens if the iPhone doesn’t revolutionize the touch screen interface and mobility as much as expected, despite the stunning interface we’ve all just seen? The iPhone 2 and future devices, whether from Apple or not, surely will. There’s no turning back now!
Touch-screen technology is available for consumer flat-screen TVs. Pioneer has a naturally transparent cover that fits over the top of their Plasma TVs that activates a touch screen capability when running the Windows Media Center OS, and is quite fun to use.
Touch screens on ATM machines always seem to work well, with no bad experiences immediately coming to mind, unlike the experiences of many PDA style smartphones. While it is quite easy to become proficient at using an interface with a stylus, many people instinctively use their finger with such phones, which doesn’t always work because of the size difference between a stylus and your fingertip.
Someone even invented a pointed tip that you could slip over your index finger to use way back in the Palm V days. But sadly they never really seemed to take off, otherwise everyone would be using them today.
High-end remote control manufacturers who have created expensive and highly advanced touch-screen models are reported to have found that users simply prefer buttons on this kind of device, in addition to some kind of screen to display information, simply because the tactile feedback in a remote control is a very handy thing – you can change channels, volume and take control without needing to look at the keypad to see which button you’re pressing.
Perhaps future touch screen displays, large and small, will have the ability to somehow create little bumps in different patterns on the screen, (be they squares, circles, triangles, little pyramids, semi spheres) with some kind of transparent nano-gel. That would give people the tactile feedback they want while enjoying the benefits of an infinitely re-programmable screen.
One report mentioned the iPhone has to be used with your bare finger – you can’t wear a glove and have it work. Given that gloves can come in different thicknesses, future touch screens may need incredibly accurate sensitivity to compensate for the bigger impact zone of a gloved finger, yet still actually work.
Also - how easy it is to enlarge button sizes on the iPhone screen for those whose eyesight might benefit from larger icons and larger text? This is probably already a feature, and if not, it could easily be programmed. It will be interesting to see how it would look. Larger buttons would also have larger impact zones, which may help some users.
While Steve Jobs’ demonstration of the iPhone at the Macworld keynote looked insanely simple to use, prompting me to think that the iPhone and its control system are something that even my mother could understand and start using within 5 minutes.
Apple's online iPhone demonstrations makes it look very easy, too. Actually they look like almost exact duplicates of what Steve Jobs was showing on stage. Reports of people having actually used an iPhone, including that of iTWire colleague Stan Beer have all been very favorable, although it has to be said virtually everyone that has tried it has only been granted a few minutes controlled access, with only a lucky few getting a few minutes more.
So what are some of the other questions we want answers to, and what happens if the iPhone doesn't deliver as expected? Read onto page 2 for the conclusion...
The questions we’d like answers to, such as will the screen get scratched and stop working, or become otherwise gummed up, is it harder to use without looking at it, does it need frequent recalibration, what happens if you accidentally drop your iPhone from table height onto the floor and plenty of others are yet to be answered, and for now, we just have to wait.
But surely Steve Jobs has thought of these issues – he has been through the 1st-generation iPod Nano screen scratch fiasco after all. Global reports of problems soon after or even on the day of general iPhone release won’t be fun for anyone.
If Apple really have delivered the world’s first truly useable touch-screen, a new generation of handheld devices will finally appear, as the rest of the world is spurred on to create devices as equally as easy to use, and hopefully better!
How good the LG Prada’s touch-screen will be is also yet to be determined, and it will be fascinating to compare them head-to-head, and then to see who else decides to deliver similar technology of their own.
Apple’s policy of vetting all third party content for the iPhone will hopefully guarantee that every third party app allowed for release (online sale and download for immediate installation) will have the same quality smooth touch interface that the rest of the iPhone has already displayed.
How successful Apple’s iPhone screen and touch interface ultimately ends up being, with the expectation that it will exceed expectations, a new standard – the next generation of human user interface design, in mobile devices anything else that can be controlled by touch screen – has finally been set.
People are looking at touch-screen technology in a new way, with the expectation that it should ‘just work’. There’s no stopping major progress and innovation in this area now, just like the innovation that’s running hot in renewable energy technologies, electric cars, Internet technologies and much more to come. From the standpoint of technology evolution, it’s a great time to be alive!
The prediction that we’ll see more technological innovation in the next 30 years than we’ve seen in the last 2000 looks like it will come true, as long as the world doesn’t destroy itself through war, environmental catastrophe, global economic meltdown, avian influenza pandemic or other doomsday scenario, which I hope that humanity is smart enough and or lucky enough to avoid, or at least avoid the doomsday aspect thereof. Humans always want a soft landing, although we don’t always get it.
The iPhone looks to being the first to truly deliver this ‘just works’ experience on an advanced mobile communicator, a bit like the ‘information pads’ or the PADD from Star Trek, but one that’s real, and not a TV show prop. Apple’s rumoured ‘Mac Tablet’ which was reported to be running on a similarly modified version of OS X and would have a larger screen could emulate the PADD concept even more.
If that’s the case, hopefully there’ll also be a Mac Tablet that combines the best of the iPhone interface with the ability to run existing Mac OS X apps, and one which could have touch-screen interfaces created for software like Photoshop, Office, iLife and any other software that wanted to implement it, no doubt according to strict Apple guidelines. Of your finger would serve as the mouse, but if needed, you could easily use a Bluetooth or USB keyboard and mouse for data entry and more precise mouse control.
But before all that, in theory, anyway, unless a Mac Tablet comes out at the same time to give Jobs the ultimate touch control lineup and the greatest worldwide publicity ever, comes the iPhone itself in June.
So what happens if the iPhone doesn’t revolutionize the touch screen interface and mobility as much as expected, despite the stunning interface we’ve all just seen? The iPhone 2 and future devices, whether from Apple or not, surely will. There’s no turning back now!
Toshiba eyes faster chips to win in iPhone era
Toshiba, the world's second-largest NAND chip maker after Samsung, is eyeing an expected a surge in demand propelled by Apple's music-playing iPhone, analysts said.
The iPhone--which will come with 4GB or 8GB of NAND--has fueled hope among flash memory makers who have become weary of price falls eating away at profit margins, said Mizuho Investors Securities analyst Yuichi Ishida.
"The iPhone is testament that price falls are giving birth to new applications and new NAND demand," Ishida said.
Toshiba, which aims to take a combined 40 percent market share with partner SanDisk by 2008, will begin by shipping samples of its 2GB chips in March, using 56-nanometer process technology, and plans monthly shipments of 300,000 chips from April.
Cutting edge 50- and 56-nanometer microchips have smaller gaps between transistors than 60- or 70-nanometer ones, meaning more power can be packed into less space for lower per chip costs.
Toshiba also expects to begin mass production of 1GB NAND chips using 70-nanometer processes by the end of January.
Memory makers have been boosting plant spending in quest of ever smaller circuitry, despite price falls of some 70 percent in 2006.
"Whether NAND is going to be profitable or not in the short term is not the question," said Ishida. "Despite price falls, neither Toshiba or Samsung means to stop capital spending for fear of losing market share."
The iPhone--which will come with 4GB or 8GB of NAND--has fueled hope among flash memory makers who have become weary of price falls eating away at profit margins, said Mizuho Investors Securities analyst Yuichi Ishida.
"The iPhone is testament that price falls are giving birth to new applications and new NAND demand," Ishida said.
Toshiba, which aims to take a combined 40 percent market share with partner SanDisk by 2008, will begin by shipping samples of its 2GB chips in March, using 56-nanometer process technology, and plans monthly shipments of 300,000 chips from April.
Cutting edge 50- and 56-nanometer microchips have smaller gaps between transistors than 60- or 70-nanometer ones, meaning more power can be packed into less space for lower per chip costs.
Toshiba also expects to begin mass production of 1GB NAND chips using 70-nanometer processes by the end of January.
Memory makers have been boosting plant spending in quest of ever smaller circuitry, despite price falls of some 70 percent in 2006.
"Whether NAND is going to be profitable or not in the short term is not the question," said Ishida. "Despite price falls, neither Toshiba or Samsung means to stop capital spending for fear of losing market share."
iPhone Hang-Ups
Call it the Apple iPod a la mode.
The iPhone combines three products - the iPod, a mobile phone, and a breakthrough Internet browser. The small handheld device has a high-tech touch screen.
"It's a revolutionary device," said Don Mayer, the CEO at Small Dog Electronics.
Small Dog Electronics is big on Macs. The South Burlington store sells anything Apple, except the iPhone. Not because the demand isn't there. It's simply because the device isn't and won't be.
"Longtime customers say I want one. Can you get me one? That has not stopped and we continue to get email and requests. Unfortunately, we have to say we're not going to be able to sell that product to them," said Mayer.
That's because Apple has an exclusive distribution deal with ATT's Cingular Wireless. Since Cingular doesn't serve Vermont, upstate New York or New Hampshire, the iPhone won't be sold here. And Cingular warns against buying the iPhone elsewhere with intentions of using it in our region through roaming wireless networks. Cingular has to pay their roaming partners for each call.
"If a person buys a phone in an area where we have coverage, knowing in advance that they'll spend little time in that area and use it in an area we don't have coverage, in that case we'd have the right to terminate your contract," said Mark Siegel, a Spokesman for AT&T's Cingular Wireless. "You could certainly could buy the phone, but eventually your calling patterns will catch up with you," he said.
Cingular wouldn't say when or if they'll expand service in our region. And there's some question about whether certain features on the i-phone will work when it's roaming. The iPhone comes with a hefty price tag, between $500 and $600 and should be available in June.
Don't worry if you've got to have this technology, Apple dealers say other iPhone-like devices are being developed and eventually those will be offered here.
The iPhone combines three products - the iPod, a mobile phone, and a breakthrough Internet browser. The small handheld device has a high-tech touch screen.
"It's a revolutionary device," said Don Mayer, the CEO at Small Dog Electronics.
Small Dog Electronics is big on Macs. The South Burlington store sells anything Apple, except the iPhone. Not because the demand isn't there. It's simply because the device isn't and won't be.
"Longtime customers say I want one. Can you get me one? That has not stopped and we continue to get email and requests. Unfortunately, we have to say we're not going to be able to sell that product to them," said Mayer.
That's because Apple has an exclusive distribution deal with ATT's Cingular Wireless. Since Cingular doesn't serve Vermont, upstate New York or New Hampshire, the iPhone won't be sold here. And Cingular warns against buying the iPhone elsewhere with intentions of using it in our region through roaming wireless networks. Cingular has to pay their roaming partners for each call.
"If a person buys a phone in an area where we have coverage, knowing in advance that they'll spend little time in that area and use it in an area we don't have coverage, in that case we'd have the right to terminate your contract," said Mark Siegel, a Spokesman for AT&T's Cingular Wireless. "You could certainly could buy the phone, but eventually your calling patterns will catch up with you," he said.
Cingular wouldn't say when or if they'll expand service in our region. And there's some question about whether certain features on the i-phone will work when it's roaming. The iPhone comes with a hefty price tag, between $500 and $600 and should be available in June.
Don't worry if you've got to have this technology, Apple dealers say other iPhone-like devices are being developed and eventually those will be offered here.
No Cingular, no iPhone
If Apple Inc.'s newly announced, highly anticipated iPhone is as groundbreaking as the company and industry analysts suggest, this is one revolution some Americans will have to observe from the sidelines.
Apple signed an exclusive, multiyear deal with AT&T's Cingular Wireless to distribute the handset, and the bottom line is this: No Cingular service, no iPhone.
That's cruel calculus for technology lovers and Apple enthusiasts who have been anticipating the product for more than two years. The iPhone combines an iPod music player, cell phone and full-featured Internet browser in a sleek, svelte device.
As with all cool new tech devices, young people are a target market. Interviews with a random sampling of students at Rye High School showed there's a lot of buzz about the product, but also a lot of concern about the cost and the lack of availability to those who do not have Cingular service.
"It's sick!" senior Evan Mintz, 17, said when asked about the iPhone. (That's teen-speak for really, really cool.)
But he said he's in a bit of a bind because his contract with Verizon Wireless LLC has 18 months left and he likes the service.
"I wish they weren't linked with a provider and you could get it through any service," he said.
Yajaira Gonzalez, also a 17-year-old senior, said she has Cingular service and would love to get the iPhone as a gift. "All the kids are going to want that," she said.
Emi Katsuta, 18 and a senior, said she gets her cellular service from T-Mobile but likes the iPhone. "It has a lot of cool gadgets," she said.
Cell phone users in many rural areas around the nation will not be able to get the service. Cingular, like most other wireless service providers, allows users to "roam" on other carriers' networks, but requires new customers to live in communities the company serves directly.
Apple signed an exclusive, multiyear deal with AT&T's Cingular Wireless to distribute the handset, and the bottom line is this: No Cingular service, no iPhone.
That's cruel calculus for technology lovers and Apple enthusiasts who have been anticipating the product for more than two years. The iPhone combines an iPod music player, cell phone and full-featured Internet browser in a sleek, svelte device.
As with all cool new tech devices, young people are a target market. Interviews with a random sampling of students at Rye High School showed there's a lot of buzz about the product, but also a lot of concern about the cost and the lack of availability to those who do not have Cingular service.
"It's sick!" senior Evan Mintz, 17, said when asked about the iPhone. (That's teen-speak for really, really cool.)
But he said he's in a bit of a bind because his contract with Verizon Wireless LLC has 18 months left and he likes the service.
"I wish they weren't linked with a provider and you could get it through any service," he said.
Yajaira Gonzalez, also a 17-year-old senior, said she has Cingular service and would love to get the iPhone as a gift. "All the kids are going to want that," she said.
Emi Katsuta, 18 and a senior, said she gets her cellular service from T-Mobile but likes the iPhone. "It has a lot of cool gadgets," she said.
Cell phone users in many rural areas around the nation will not be able to get the service. Cingular, like most other wireless service providers, allows users to "roam" on other carriers' networks, but requires new customers to live in communities the company serves directly.
iPhone trademarks: the real issues
Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called 'iPhone' they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco.
Earlier this month Apple Computer, now known as just “Apple,” became embroiled in a trademark lawsuit with Cisco Systems, Inc. over Apple’s proposed use of the term “iPhone” in connection with its new smart-phone.
Cisco claims that Apple’s use of the term infringes its trademark and creates a “substantial likelihood of confusion” with Cisco’s iPhone product. Apple claims that Cisco’s claim to trademark protection is tenuous. In this case, it is quite possible that both trademarks can peacefully coexist. In the words of Rodney King, “can't we all just get along?”
Primer on trademark law
There is much confusion in non-academic circles about just what is a trademark, a service mark, and exactly how you get one, lose one, or protect one. Put simply, a trademark is nothing more than something that is associated with the provider of goods, and a service mark is something that is associated with a provider of services.
Thus, company names like “General Motors” or “Cisco” are trademarks, just as particular product lines like “Mustang” or “Big Gulp.” Trademarks can include colors (yellow and red for Kodak film), logos, typefaces, tag lines (“good to the last drop”) and may also include what is called “trade dress” – how the product or packaging looks (anyone see the new LG “Prada” phone?). The idea is, when you see the trademark, you think of the particular item or company, and not something else.
One myth about trademarks is that you have to do something to get one. In fact, all you have to do, really, is to just use the trademark. Open a pet spa in Topeka, Kansas called “Dog Day Afternoon” and you have a trademark. You could stop someone else from opening a competing store with the same name. If you want additional legal protection, and you want to put people on notice about not only the identity but also the scope of your trademark, you can register your trademark. In the United States, this is done through a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov. You can also protect trademarks that you intend to use later on.
Now, not everything can be trademarked. I couldn’t trademark the phrase “Law Office” for the provision of legal services because the term is descriptive rather than identifying. But the phrase “1-800-LAWYERS” or lawyers.com might be subject to trademark. If something merely describes what it is, or if the description is or becomes generic, then trademark protection may either not be grated or may be lost. Thus, companies have had to fight to keep their trademarks from becoming generic – think “Kleenex” or “Jello” or in earlier times “Sanka,” “Radarange,” or “Frigidare.”
Another common myth is that two people cannot have the same trademark. Not true. Kelly Tires, Kelly Furniture, Kelly Temporary Employment services are all registered trademarks. Two trademarks can peacefully coexist if, for example, they describe substantially different products or services, exist in different geographic areas, or are otherwise sufficiently distinct or are made so. (Another example: Burlington Coat Factory is not associated with Burlington Industries...)
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?).
The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
iPhoney iPhone
On March 20, 1996, a small California company called Infogear registered the mark “iPhone” with the USPTO. The company made products to allow people to connect to the Internet without a computer, but apparently never made or marketed a product that they called iPhone. Infogear was aquired in 2000 by Cisco Systems, who obtained, among other things, the rights to the iPhone trademark. This points out the importance of actually registering a trademark in increasing the value of your company.
In about 2004, Cisco’s Linksys division began to actually make an iPhone product – essentially a phone connected to its router to allow for easier VoIP telephony. The Cisco/Linksys iPhone apparently stood for “Internet Phone.”
Now Cisco wasn’t the only one to use or register the mark iPhone for VoIP products. In March of 1995, a California company called Teledex registered the iPhone mark to describe a, “Telephone that integrates a display and interactive abilities with an IP-based network to deliver both voice communication and graphic-based content and services to hotel guestrooms.”
A British company called Orate Telecommunications Services also offers a VoIP phone called an iPhone. Other companies have applied for US trademarks using iPhone, but later abandoned them, including the NY-based XTreme Mobile in March 2005, the California-based SFMobile in October of 2003, a guy named Ravi Lahote in February of 2000, and a guy named Stephen Page in Pleasanton, California in April of 1994.
In fact, in May of 1997, a California company called Cidco applied for a trademark in iPhone for “communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions” Sounds a bit like the Apple product, but not much. Confused?
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?). The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
Rights to a trademark
As a general rule, the company that either first uses a trademark, or first registers it, has the presumptive rights to use the mark. In this case however, the product that Cisco/Linksys made and marketed may be substantially different than the product proposed by Apple.
Or is it? Sure, the Apple phone is a “smart phone” – a cell phone, a music and video player, and Internet access device, whereas the Cisco/Linksys product appears to be just a network-based VoIP phone. Of course, the Apple iPhone may also have the capability of making VoIP calls, piggybacking on its WiFi connection.
Now the question is, would anyone seeing one of these products think of the other, or would the use of one trademark in some way “dilute” the other? Lawsuit aside, Apple will no doubt spend boatloads of money promoting its iPhone. In the wake of this publicity onslaught, it is unlikely that Cisco will be able to make people think “Cisco” when they think “iPhone” – thus weakening their trademark.
This may, however, be a circumstance where Apple’s “i-Everything” strategy has already impacted the previously registered trademark. The mere prefix “I” may already serve to identify Apple computer, just as the “Mc” in “Mc[AnyFood]” identifies a certain hamburger company in Oak Brook, Illinois. It may be a circumstance like that in Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” where the 19th century character “Hedley Lamarr” is concerned about infringing the name of the 20th century actress of the similar moniker. Mel Brooks’ character Governor William J. Le Petomane explains, “What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her.”
This is sort of “reverse trademark confusion.” Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called “iPhone” they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco.
So let's look at Cisco’s corner: they own the registered trademark. They got it first. They make a product called iPhone. They have marketed and sold it in commerce. The phone has something to do with the Internet and talking to people. And up until the moment of the MacWorld announcement they were in negotiations with Cisco to buy or license the trademark.
According to Cisco’s lawsuit, Apple set up a Delaware Corporation called “Ocean Telecom” in September of 2006 to apply for a trademark in the iPhone mark, and Ocean Telecom also claims to have used the iPhone mark starting in March of 2006 in Trinidad and Tobago. Apple also applied for the iPhone trademark in Australia in September of 2006.
Now in Apple’s corner. They already own trademarks to the iEverything line, and most people already associate the prefix with them – possibly preempting the field (hmmm... should I register iLawyer?) They may argue that iPhone is descriptive or generic – although that argument is weakened by their efforts to protect their own iPod franchise.
The ultimate issue will come down to this: is there a substantial likelihood that people looking for the Cisco product – or a product with capabilities like the Cisco product – would be confused by the Apple entry into the market?
I think that, to answer the question, I will personally need to examine in detail the capabilities of the various products, their look, their feel, their interface. Are you listening Mr. Jobs? Just email me for the address to mail my iPhone – or whatever you want to call it.
SecurityFocus columnist Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as a lawyer specializing in computer crime, computer security, and privacy matters in Bethesda, Maryland.
Earlier this month Apple Computer, now known as just “Apple,” became embroiled in a trademark lawsuit with Cisco Systems, Inc. over Apple’s proposed use of the term “iPhone” in connection with its new smart-phone.
Cisco claims that Apple’s use of the term infringes its trademark and creates a “substantial likelihood of confusion” with Cisco’s iPhone product. Apple claims that Cisco’s claim to trademark protection is tenuous. In this case, it is quite possible that both trademarks can peacefully coexist. In the words of Rodney King, “can't we all just get along?”
Primer on trademark law
There is much confusion in non-academic circles about just what is a trademark, a service mark, and exactly how you get one, lose one, or protect one. Put simply, a trademark is nothing more than something that is associated with the provider of goods, and a service mark is something that is associated with a provider of services.
Thus, company names like “General Motors” or “Cisco” are trademarks, just as particular product lines like “Mustang” or “Big Gulp.” Trademarks can include colors (yellow and red for Kodak film), logos, typefaces, tag lines (“good to the last drop”) and may also include what is called “trade dress” – how the product or packaging looks (anyone see the new LG “Prada” phone?). The idea is, when you see the trademark, you think of the particular item or company, and not something else.
One myth about trademarks is that you have to do something to get one. In fact, all you have to do, really, is to just use the trademark. Open a pet spa in Topeka, Kansas called “Dog Day Afternoon” and you have a trademark. You could stop someone else from opening a competing store with the same name. If you want additional legal protection, and you want to put people on notice about not only the identity but also the scope of your trademark, you can register your trademark. In the United States, this is done through a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov. You can also protect trademarks that you intend to use later on.
Now, not everything can be trademarked. I couldn’t trademark the phrase “Law Office” for the provision of legal services because the term is descriptive rather than identifying. But the phrase “1-800-LAWYERS” or lawyers.com might be subject to trademark. If something merely describes what it is, or if the description is or becomes generic, then trademark protection may either not be grated or may be lost. Thus, companies have had to fight to keep their trademarks from becoming generic – think “Kleenex” or “Jello” or in earlier times “Sanka,” “Radarange,” or “Frigidare.”
Another common myth is that two people cannot have the same trademark. Not true. Kelly Tires, Kelly Furniture, Kelly Temporary Employment services are all registered trademarks. Two trademarks can peacefully coexist if, for example, they describe substantially different products or services, exist in different geographic areas, or are otherwise sufficiently distinct or are made so. (Another example: Burlington Coat Factory is not associated with Burlington Industries...)
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?).
The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
iPhoney iPhone
On March 20, 1996, a small California company called Infogear registered the mark “iPhone” with the USPTO. The company made products to allow people to connect to the Internet without a computer, but apparently never made or marketed a product that they called iPhone. Infogear was aquired in 2000 by Cisco Systems, who obtained, among other things, the rights to the iPhone trademark. This points out the importance of actually registering a trademark in increasing the value of your company.
In about 2004, Cisco’s Linksys division began to actually make an iPhone product – essentially a phone connected to its router to allow for easier VoIP telephony. The Cisco/Linksys iPhone apparently stood for “Internet Phone.”
Now Cisco wasn’t the only one to use or register the mark iPhone for VoIP products. In March of 1995, a California company called Teledex registered the iPhone mark to describe a, “Telephone that integrates a display and interactive abilities with an IP-based network to deliver both voice communication and graphic-based content and services to hotel guestrooms.”
A British company called Orate Telecommunications Services also offers a VoIP phone called an iPhone. Other companies have applied for US trademarks using iPhone, but later abandoned them, including the NY-based XTreme Mobile in March 2005, the California-based SFMobile in October of 2003, a guy named Ravi Lahote in February of 2000, and a guy named Stephen Page in Pleasanton, California in April of 1994.
In fact, in May of 1997, a California company called Cidco applied for a trademark in iPhone for “communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions” Sounds a bit like the Apple product, but not much. Confused?
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?). The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
Rights to a trademark
As a general rule, the company that either first uses a trademark, or first registers it, has the presumptive rights to use the mark. In this case however, the product that Cisco/Linksys made and marketed may be substantially different than the product proposed by Apple.
Or is it? Sure, the Apple phone is a “smart phone” – a cell phone, a music and video player, and Internet access device, whereas the Cisco/Linksys product appears to be just a network-based VoIP phone. Of course, the Apple iPhone may also have the capability of making VoIP calls, piggybacking on its WiFi connection.
Now the question is, would anyone seeing one of these products think of the other, or would the use of one trademark in some way “dilute” the other? Lawsuit aside, Apple will no doubt spend boatloads of money promoting its iPhone. In the wake of this publicity onslaught, it is unlikely that Cisco will be able to make people think “Cisco” when they think “iPhone” – thus weakening their trademark.
This may, however, be a circumstance where Apple’s “i-Everything” strategy has already impacted the previously registered trademark. The mere prefix “I” may already serve to identify Apple computer, just as the “Mc” in “Mc[AnyFood]” identifies a certain hamburger company in Oak Brook, Illinois. It may be a circumstance like that in Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” where the 19th century character “Hedley Lamarr” is concerned about infringing the name of the 20th century actress of the similar moniker. Mel Brooks’ character Governor William J. Le Petomane explains, “What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her.”
This is sort of “reverse trademark confusion.” Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called “iPhone” they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco.
So let's look at Cisco’s corner: they own the registered trademark. They got it first. They make a product called iPhone. They have marketed and sold it in commerce. The phone has something to do with the Internet and talking to people. And up until the moment of the MacWorld announcement they were in negotiations with Cisco to buy or license the trademark.
According to Cisco’s lawsuit, Apple set up a Delaware Corporation called “Ocean Telecom” in September of 2006 to apply for a trademark in the iPhone mark, and Ocean Telecom also claims to have used the iPhone mark starting in March of 2006 in Trinidad and Tobago. Apple also applied for the iPhone trademark in Australia in September of 2006.
Now in Apple’s corner. They already own trademarks to the iEverything line, and most people already associate the prefix with them – possibly preempting the field (hmmm... should I register iLawyer?) They may argue that iPhone is descriptive or generic – although that argument is weakened by their efforts to protect their own iPod franchise.
The ultimate issue will come down to this: is there a substantial likelihood that people looking for the Cisco product – or a product with capabilities like the Cisco product – would be confused by the Apple entry into the market?
I think that, to answer the question, I will personally need to examine in detail the capabilities of the various products, their look, their feel, their interface. Are you listening Mr. Jobs? Just email me for the address to mail my iPhone – or whatever you want to call it.
SecurityFocus columnist Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as a lawyer specializing in computer crime, computer security, and privacy matters in Bethesda, Maryland.
iPhone and Apple TV for Enterprise Mac readers
This story has already been posted in InfoWorld's Tech Watch (News) section. A colleague from Apple told me that in this blog, the last thing I had to say about iPhone was the potential downsides of the device.
I didn't mean to let that stand. Here's the full text of the Macworld Expo roundup story I submitted to News, which was cut way back for publication. My apologies to Apple and others who missed it.
Apple's got the urge to converge
Tom Yager
Steve Jobs delivered this year’s Macworld Expo keynote to an over-capacity crowd. He boasted that the Mac’s PowerPC-to-Intel transition had been completed in seven months, grinned about having sold half of new Macs to newcomers to the platform, and then he said "let’s move on."
Brother, has Apple moved on. Apple has dropped "computer" from its corporate name and is taking the sharp turn toward services, mobile and consumer electronics that Jobs emotionally identified as his two and a half-year dream. It's evident from the packed exhibit floor that the Mac is still very much in ascension. But for Jobs, who thrives on the new as much as Apple observers do, Mac is, for now, a fait accompli. Now it's convergence time.
The first of Apple's two market-shaking new products is Apple TV, the first credible entry into set-top TV over broadband. Apple TV is a receiver, digital content store and wireless LAN broadcaster for Apple's iTunes. The tiny box is neither a Mac nor a digital video recorder. The USB port is reserved for "service and diagnostics," not human interface devices, and all of Apple TV’s audio and video ports are outputs. Apple TV syncs content only from Macs and PCs within Ethernet or wireless (802.11 a/b/g/n) shouting distance that are running iTunes desktop software, and it can also reach out directly to Apple’s iTunes service with a touch of its gumstick remote. Apple TV will stream content, live or recorded, to as many as five additional PCs and Macs, each of which can watch or listen to anything on Apple TV's 40 GB hard drive. In other words, Apple TV turns every PC and Mac in your home or office into a tunable wireless digital television, but every channel has iTunes on it. It is possible, if a bit fiddly, to encode personal digital media, and even DVDs, and import them into the proprietary iTunes Library. Even with its peculiarities, at $299, Apple TV will become a popular home theatre component, a playground for hackers and the enabler for a future Apple venture into live and pay per view television.
Apple’s new iPhone is the penultimate converged mobile device, bringing together a mobile phone, a widescreen iPod and an Internet communicator in a a sub-12mm thin handheld that places iPhone users at three times the normal risk of plowing into oncoming traffic. iPhone has no physical keyboard; one pops up on-screen when you need it. Likewise, there is no scrollwheel, escape button, call start/end button or any tactile buttons at all except one that returns you to the application launch menu.
iPhone's exterior design is similar to Sony's PSP and Nokia's n-Series, but iPhone's interface is operated solely by a combination of a finger-driven GUI—-no stylus or handwriting recognition—-environmental sensors and wired or Bluetooth headset controls.
Inside its classy black polycarbonate chassis, iPhone has absolutely everything but a hard drive. It has a speaker, a microphone, a headphone jack, 4 or 8 GB of flash memory, a 2 megapixel camera, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless LAN, GSM/GPRS/EDGE mobile phone and data transceiver, an accelerometer that senses portrait/landscape orientation, and a proximity sensor that answers a call when you bring iPhone to your ear, and it's all managed by an embedded OS X operating system. Fantasize about what a company with unlimited time, money and imagination could do with all of that and you've got the iPhone.
iPhone's most stellar feature among its galaxy of features is its Multi-Touch UI. Sure, it lets you check checkboxes with a tap and fill in forms with an on-screen keyboard, but its intuitive innovation is exemplified in three gestures: Sweep, pinch and double-tap. The sweep gesture scrolls, and the device tries to be smart about how far and fast you wanted it to scroll. Scroll speed operates on a curveThe pinch (I'd call it pinch/spread) action is the "only Apple would think of this" of 2007. If you draw your thumb and forefinger together while they're touching the screen, whatever is on the screen will shrink, zoom out or otherwise get small. If you push your thumb and forefinger apart, whatever is on the screen will zoom in, grow or get big in an application-defined way. If you're looking at something that's just too small, double-tap it and it will enlarge to fill the display.
iPhone is a two-handed device, built for your fingertips rather than your thumbs. During the demo, Steve never rested his fingers on the display, and his one-fingered stabbing motion made the on-screen QUERTY keyboard look awkward and imprecise. I think it's better than he made it look. I see myself pecking around pretty quickly in an unlucky woodworker's touch typing style, and if iPhone doesn't already have a Bluetooth keyboard profile built in, it can't be far off.
Jobs’ explicit mention of iPhone’s OS X roots suggests that iPhone will be open to developers. If that’s so, then developers salivating over the prospect of a UNIX mobile device will account for a great many sales, and their apps will bring no small number of users to iPhone and Mac clients. As for iPhone’s target market beyond the super-savvy, Steve offered a one-sentence positioning statement: “iPhone is like a Blackberry without Exchange.” He wants 1 percent of the mobile market in 2007. That’s a tall order for a $500-$600 handset, especially given that the top-end mobile market is fairly well consolidated. But judging from the collective groan sent up by the Macworld Expo keynote crowd, Apple can count on at least 4,000 customers when iPhone ships in June.
I didn't mean to let that stand. Here's the full text of the Macworld Expo roundup story I submitted to News, which was cut way back for publication. My apologies to Apple and others who missed it.
Apple's got the urge to converge
Tom Yager
Steve Jobs delivered this year’s Macworld Expo keynote to an over-capacity crowd. He boasted that the Mac’s PowerPC-to-Intel transition had been completed in seven months, grinned about having sold half of new Macs to newcomers to the platform, and then he said "let’s move on."
Brother, has Apple moved on. Apple has dropped "computer" from its corporate name and is taking the sharp turn toward services, mobile and consumer electronics that Jobs emotionally identified as his two and a half-year dream. It's evident from the packed exhibit floor that the Mac is still very much in ascension. But for Jobs, who thrives on the new as much as Apple observers do, Mac is, for now, a fait accompli. Now it's convergence time.
The first of Apple's two market-shaking new products is Apple TV, the first credible entry into set-top TV over broadband. Apple TV is a receiver, digital content store and wireless LAN broadcaster for Apple's iTunes. The tiny box is neither a Mac nor a digital video recorder. The USB port is reserved for "service and diagnostics," not human interface devices, and all of Apple TV’s audio and video ports are outputs. Apple TV syncs content only from Macs and PCs within Ethernet or wireless (802.11 a/b/g/n) shouting distance that are running iTunes desktop software, and it can also reach out directly to Apple’s iTunes service with a touch of its gumstick remote. Apple TV will stream content, live or recorded, to as many as five additional PCs and Macs, each of which can watch or listen to anything on Apple TV's 40 GB hard drive. In other words, Apple TV turns every PC and Mac in your home or office into a tunable wireless digital television, but every channel has iTunes on it. It is possible, if a bit fiddly, to encode personal digital media, and even DVDs, and import them into the proprietary iTunes Library. Even with its peculiarities, at $299, Apple TV will become a popular home theatre component, a playground for hackers and the enabler for a future Apple venture into live and pay per view television.
Apple’s new iPhone is the penultimate converged mobile device, bringing together a mobile phone, a widescreen iPod and an Internet communicator in a a sub-12mm thin handheld that places iPhone users at three times the normal risk of plowing into oncoming traffic. iPhone has no physical keyboard; one pops up on-screen when you need it. Likewise, there is no scrollwheel, escape button, call start/end button or any tactile buttons at all except one that returns you to the application launch menu.
iPhone's exterior design is similar to Sony's PSP and Nokia's n-Series, but iPhone's interface is operated solely by a combination of a finger-driven GUI—-no stylus or handwriting recognition—-environmental sensors and wired or Bluetooth headset controls.
Inside its classy black polycarbonate chassis, iPhone has absolutely everything but a hard drive. It has a speaker, a microphone, a headphone jack, 4 or 8 GB of flash memory, a 2 megapixel camera, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless LAN, GSM/GPRS/EDGE mobile phone and data transceiver, an accelerometer that senses portrait/landscape orientation, and a proximity sensor that answers a call when you bring iPhone to your ear, and it's all managed by an embedded OS X operating system. Fantasize about what a company with unlimited time, money and imagination could do with all of that and you've got the iPhone.
iPhone's most stellar feature among its galaxy of features is its Multi-Touch UI. Sure, it lets you check checkboxes with a tap and fill in forms with an on-screen keyboard, but its intuitive innovation is exemplified in three gestures: Sweep, pinch and double-tap. The sweep gesture scrolls, and the device tries to be smart about how far and fast you wanted it to scroll. Scroll speed operates on a curveThe pinch (I'd call it pinch/spread) action is the "only Apple would think of this" of 2007. If you draw your thumb and forefinger together while they're touching the screen, whatever is on the screen will shrink, zoom out or otherwise get small. If you push your thumb and forefinger apart, whatever is on the screen will zoom in, grow or get big in an application-defined way. If you're looking at something that's just too small, double-tap it and it will enlarge to fill the display.
iPhone is a two-handed device, built for your fingertips rather than your thumbs. During the demo, Steve never rested his fingers on the display, and his one-fingered stabbing motion made the on-screen QUERTY keyboard look awkward and imprecise. I think it's better than he made it look. I see myself pecking around pretty quickly in an unlucky woodworker's touch typing style, and if iPhone doesn't already have a Bluetooth keyboard profile built in, it can't be far off.
Jobs’ explicit mention of iPhone’s OS X roots suggests that iPhone will be open to developers. If that’s so, then developers salivating over the prospect of a UNIX mobile device will account for a great many sales, and their apps will bring no small number of users to iPhone and Mac clients. As for iPhone’s target market beyond the super-savvy, Steve offered a one-sentence positioning statement: “iPhone is like a Blackberry without Exchange.” He wants 1 percent of the mobile market in 2007. That’s a tall order for a $500-$600 handset, especially given that the top-end mobile market is fairly well consolidated. But judging from the collective groan sent up by the Macworld Expo keynote crowd, Apple can count on at least 4,000 customers when iPhone ships in June.
Will iPhone Mess Up Cell Phones Upgrade Cycle?
Olga Kharif
Could Steve Jobs' iPhone mess up cell phone upgrade cycle? I think that's a possibility.
Sure, for decades now, people have been replacing their mobile phones more and more frequently -- most recently, every 18 months. With the advent of touch-screen phones, I believe this trend could reverse.
Here's my thinking: The new iPhone from Apple, and the recently announced phone from LG brag touch screens instead of buttons. That means that if cell phone makers or carriers decide to add new functionalities to these phone when they are already in use, they could, potentially, do that over the air. Want to enable consumers to shoot, edit and post videos to a mobile site in a new way? Just send them an application with virtual buttons that will appear on their touch screens and allow for this application's use.
If consumers are able to get new applications this way, I think some of them will stick with their phones longer. After all, today's phones all feature cameras and Web access. Unless handset makers come out with additional hardware making replacing handsets every 18 months a must, I don't see why consumers will keep on changing their phones as often, especially since the phones' prices seem to be on the rise. After all, with a simple software upgrade, users will be able to drastically change their phones' looks and functionalities anyway. So, why splurge on a new phone? Do you agree?
Could Steve Jobs' iPhone mess up cell phone upgrade cycle? I think that's a possibility.
Sure, for decades now, people have been replacing their mobile phones more and more frequently -- most recently, every 18 months. With the advent of touch-screen phones, I believe this trend could reverse.
Here's my thinking: The new iPhone from Apple, and the recently announced phone from LG brag touch screens instead of buttons. That means that if cell phone makers or carriers decide to add new functionalities to these phone when they are already in use, they could, potentially, do that over the air. Want to enable consumers to shoot, edit and post videos to a mobile site in a new way? Just send them an application with virtual buttons that will appear on their touch screens and allow for this application's use.
If consumers are able to get new applications this way, I think some of them will stick with their phones longer. After all, today's phones all feature cameras and Web access. Unless handset makers come out with additional hardware making replacing handsets every 18 months a must, I don't see why consumers will keep on changing their phones as often, especially since the phones' prices seem to be on the rise. After all, with a simple software upgrade, users will be able to drastically change their phones' looks and functionalities anyway. So, why splurge on a new phone? Do you agree?
Can iPhone game too?
Look out Sony and Nintendo. Apple could eventually get into the gaming market. No, not with a new gaming console, but rather with game offerings for the new iPhone. Thus far, Apple's new iPhone has touted as a phone, music player, digital camera, Internet browser, but games were nowhere when Mr. Jobs unveiled the sleek little multi-functional tool.
Just recently, Apple decided to offer downloadable games for its iPod music player, and as a result, game industry cognoscenti think popular titles will be introduced for the iPhone as well. "[Games] are one of the things people expect to do with these types of devices," says Garth Chouteau, a spokesperson for PopCap Games.
Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment according to redherring.com. However, don't be surprised if Apple does add a gaming function onto its iPhone as mobile gaming already is taking off. Research firm Strategy Analytics predicts mobile gaming will generate $4.7 billion worldwide by 2010, up from $2.1 billion at the end of 2005.
Mr. Choateau seems behind the idea even though his company has no definitive plans to do so. "Apple is once again pioneering here -- we're cheerleaders," he says.
Just recently, Apple decided to offer downloadable games for its iPod music player, and as a result, game industry cognoscenti think popular titles will be introduced for the iPhone as well. "[Games] are one of the things people expect to do with these types of devices," says Garth Chouteau, a spokesperson for PopCap Games.
Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment according to redherring.com. However, don't be surprised if Apple does add a gaming function onto its iPhone as mobile gaming already is taking off. Research firm Strategy Analytics predicts mobile gaming will generate $4.7 billion worldwide by 2010, up from $2.1 billion at the end of 2005.
Mr. Choateau seems behind the idea even though his company has no definitive plans to do so. "Apple is once again pioneering here -- we're cheerleaders," he says.
Apple in Profit with iPhone
Apple stands to make fifty per cent profit on each iPhone sold. This high profit margin is not new to Apple as the company regularly has a margin of forty-five per cent or more in its Mac and iPod products.
iSuppli, a research firm has established that Apple stands to make fifty per cent profit on each iPhone sold. But the figure is preliminary, as no actual producti
For the iPhone 4GB version, the hardware cost totals to .85, and a total expense of .83, yielding a 50.7 per cent margin. The 8GB model stands in a more profitable ground, yielding a 53.1 per cent profit margin on a .85 hardware cost and .82 total expense. The most expensive part in the device is the NAND Flash memory, estimated at .00 per chip. The 3.5-inch touch screen at .50, and then the application processor at .50 closely follow this.
However, these high margins may not last too long because of the ever-changing competitive mobile phone industry. At a price of and , the devices are priced well above other phones in its category. So, to stay in the rat race, Apple may have to cut into margins earlier than it has in other categories.
iSuppli, a research firm has established that Apple stands to make fifty per cent profit on each iPhone sold. But the figure is preliminary, as no actual producti
For the iPhone 4GB version, the hardware cost totals to .85, and a total expense of .83, yielding a 50.7 per cent margin. The 8GB model stands in a more profitable ground, yielding a 53.1 per cent profit margin on a .85 hardware cost and .82 total expense. The most expensive part in the device is the NAND Flash memory, estimated at .00 per chip. The 3.5-inch touch screen at .50, and then the application processor at .50 closely follow this.
However, these high margins may not last too long because of the ever-changing competitive mobile phone industry. At a price of and , the devices are priced well above other phones in its category. So, to stay in the rat race, Apple may have to cut into margins earlier than it has in other categories.
Cisco admits iPhone licence violation
Cisco Systems plans to resolve a licence compliance issue regarding the use of Linux in one of its iPhones, the company wrote in a blog posting, but a researcher contends that Cisco has more work to do.
Cisco is working on fixing one problem in the WIP300 iPhone model, John Earnhardt, senior manager of global media operations for Cisco, writes on Cisco's news blog.
He says that Cisco has also investigated other issues that an open software researcher raised, but has verified that the phone complies with its licensing agreement except for the one issue.
Last week, Armijn Hemel, an open source enthusiast and consultant with Loohuis Consulting, revealed that he had reverse engineered Cisco's iPhone WIP300 and found that Cisco has not properly shared code used in the phone. The phone runs Linux and Cisco licensed the operating system under the GNU General Public Licence (GPL), requiring it to share the source code for changes to the operating system that it distributes.
Hemel spoke with Cisco in October, alerting the company to the omissions, he said. He first began publicly talking about the licensing violation last week.
When he first talked to Cisco, he did not identify the exact code that had not been shared but late last week he sent the networking giant a technical report pointing out the relevant code, he said during a phone interview on Monday. He contends that the phone has more than one issue and that he will watch for updates from Cisco. The company has not yet posted any changes or additions to the code it has already shared, he says.
The relevant code does not enable any type of radically interesting technology, Hemel adds, so it is possible that Cisco, like many other companies and individuals, simply failed to notice that it had not shared the code. Sifting through code to ensure that it is properly shared can be a tedious and expensive proposition, Hemel says.
The incident points to larger issues in the open source community. Many GPL licensees fail to appropriately adhere to the terms of the agreement, sometimes simply because they have not implemented internal policies to ensure that they properly document and share their innovations, says Shane Coughlan, Freedom Task Force coordinator for the Free Software Foundation Europe.
One voluntary organisation, the GPL Violations Project, for which Hemel works, has successfully enforced 100 licence violations, both in and out of court.
Cisco is working on fixing one problem in the WIP300 iPhone model, John Earnhardt, senior manager of global media operations for Cisco, writes on Cisco's news blog.
He says that Cisco has also investigated other issues that an open software researcher raised, but has verified that the phone complies with its licensing agreement except for the one issue.
Last week, Armijn Hemel, an open source enthusiast and consultant with Loohuis Consulting, revealed that he had reverse engineered Cisco's iPhone WIP300 and found that Cisco has not properly shared code used in the phone. The phone runs Linux and Cisco licensed the operating system under the GNU General Public Licence (GPL), requiring it to share the source code for changes to the operating system that it distributes.
Hemel spoke with Cisco in October, alerting the company to the omissions, he said. He first began publicly talking about the licensing violation last week.
When he first talked to Cisco, he did not identify the exact code that had not been shared but late last week he sent the networking giant a technical report pointing out the relevant code, he said during a phone interview on Monday. He contends that the phone has more than one issue and that he will watch for updates from Cisco. The company has not yet posted any changes or additions to the code it has already shared, he says.
The relevant code does not enable any type of radically interesting technology, Hemel adds, so it is possible that Cisco, like many other companies and individuals, simply failed to notice that it had not shared the code. Sifting through code to ensure that it is properly shared can be a tedious and expensive proposition, Hemel says.
The incident points to larger issues in the open source community. Many GPL licensees fail to appropriately adhere to the terms of the agreement, sometimes simply because they have not implemented internal policies to ensure that they properly document and share their innovations, says Shane Coughlan, Freedom Task Force coordinator for the Free Software Foundation Europe.
One voluntary organisation, the GPL Violations Project, for which Hemel works, has successfully enforced 100 licence violations, both in and out of court.
Apple iPhone Could Enjoy Profit Margins Over 50%
Apple and Cingular will enjoy a combined profit margin of over 50% on the forthcoming iPhone device, according to estimates by iSuppli, which recently put together a Bill of Materials (BoM) estimate for the device.
“iSuppli estimates that the 4-Gigabyte version of the Apple iPhone will carry a $229.85 hardware BoM and manufacturing cost and a $245.83 total expense, yielding a 50.7% margin on each unit sold at the $499 retail price,” explained Andrew Rassweiler, a senior analyst with iSuppli.
“Meanwhile, the 8-Gigabyte Apple iPhone will sport a $264.85 hardware cost and a $280.83 total expense, amounting to a 53.1% margin at the $599 retail price,” Rassweiler said.
This exceeds even the impressive margins associated with Apple’s iPod Nano device, and will allow for significant price reductions in the future, potentially giving the iPhone a competitive advantage against the LG PRADA and other rivals.
“With a 50 percent gross margin, Apple is setting itself up for aggressive price declines going forward,” commented iSuppli’s director and principal analyst, Jagdish Rebello, PhD.
“iSuppli estimates that the 4-Gigabyte version of the Apple iPhone will carry a $229.85 hardware BoM and manufacturing cost and a $245.83 total expense, yielding a 50.7% margin on each unit sold at the $499 retail price,” explained Andrew Rassweiler, a senior analyst with iSuppli.
“Meanwhile, the 8-Gigabyte Apple iPhone will sport a $264.85 hardware cost and a $280.83 total expense, amounting to a 53.1% margin at the $599 retail price,” Rassweiler said.
This exceeds even the impressive margins associated with Apple’s iPod Nano device, and will allow for significant price reductions in the future, potentially giving the iPhone a competitive advantage against the LG PRADA and other rivals.
“With a 50 percent gross margin, Apple is setting itself up for aggressive price declines going forward,” commented iSuppli’s director and principal analyst, Jagdish Rebello, PhD.
iPhone Trademarks: the Real Issues
by Mark Rasch
Apple's iPhone announcement and Cisco's iPhone trademark lawsuit has brought the iPhone moniker into the spotlight. But other companies also own and use iPhone trademarks, and market and sell their iPhone products. Mark Rasch explains how U.S. trademark law works and the real issues at play in this highly publicized trademark dispute.
“ This is sort of 'reverse trademark confusion.' Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called 'iPhone' they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco. ”
Mark Rasch Earlier this month Apple Computer, now known as just “Apple,” became embroiled in a trademark lawsuit with Cisco Systems, Inc. over Apple’s proposed use of the term “iPhone” in connection with its new smart-phone. Cisco claims that Apple’s use of the term infringes its trademark and creates a “substantial likelihood of confusion” with Cisco’s iPhone product. Apple claims that Cisco’s claim to trademark protection is tenuous. In this case, it is quite possible that both trademarks can peacefully coexist. In the words of Rodney King, “can't we all just get along?”
Primer on trademark law
There is much confusion in non-academic circles about just what is a trademark, a service mark, and exactly how you get one, lose one, or protect one. Put simply, a trademark is nothing more than something that is associated with the provider of goods, and a service mark is something that is associated with a provider of services. Thus, company names like “General Motors” or “Cisco” are trademarks, just as particular product lines like “Mustang” or “Big Gulp.” Trademarks can include colors (yellow and red for Kodak film), logos, typefaces, tag lines (“good to the last drop”) and may also include what is called “trade dress” – how the product or packaging looks (anyone see the new LG “Prada” phone?). The idea is, when you see the trademark, you think of the particular item or company, and not something else.
One myth about trademarks is that you have to do something to get one. In fact, all you have to do, really, is to just use the trademark. Open a pet spa in Topeka, Kansas called “Dog Day Afternoon” and you have a trademark. You could stop someone else from opening a competing store with the same name. If you want additional legal protection, and you want to put people on notice about not only the identity but also the scope of your trademark, you can register your trademark. In the United States, this is done through a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov. You can also protect trademarks that you intend to use later on.
Now, not everything can be trademarked. I couldn’t trademark the phrase “Law Office” for the provision of legal services because the term is descriptive rather than identifying. But the phrase “1-800-LAWYERS” or lawyers.com might be subject to trademark. If something merely describes what it is, or if the description is or becomes generic, then trademark protection may either not be grated or may be lost. Thus, companies have had to fight to keep their trademarks from becoming generic – think “Kleenex” or “Jello” or in earlier times “Sanka,” “Radarange,” or “Frigidare.”
Another common myth is that two people cannot have the same trademark. Not true. Kelly Tires, Kelly Furniture, Kelly Temporary Employment services are all registered trademarks. Two trademarks can peacefully coexist if, for example, they describe substantially different products or services, exist in different geographic areas, or are otherwise sufficiently distinct or are made so. (Another example: Burlington Coat Factory is not associated with Burlington Industries...)
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?). The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
iPhoney iPhone
On March 20, 1996, a small California company called Infogear registered the mark “iPhone” with the USPTO. The company made products to allow people to connect to the Internet without a computer, but apparently never made or marketed a product that they called iPhone. Infogear was aquired in 2000 by Cisco Systems, who obtained, among other things, the rights to the iPhone trademark. This points out the importance of actually registering a trademark in increasing the value of your company.
In about 2004, Cisco’s Linksys division began to actually make an iPhone product – essentially a phone connected to its router to allow for easier VoIP telephony. The Cisco/Linksys iPhone apparently stood for “Internet Phone.”
Now Cisco wasn’t the only one to use or register the mark iPhone for VoIP products. In March of 1995, a California company called Teledex registered the iPhone mark to describe a, “Telephone that integrates a display and interactive abilities with an IP-based network to deliver both voice communication and graphic-based content and services to hotel guestrooms.”
A British company called Orate Telecommunications Services also offers a VoIP phone called an iPhone. Other companies have applied for US trademarks using iPhone, but later abandoned them, including the NY-based XTreme Mobile in March 2005, the California-based SFMobile in October of 2003, a guy named Ravi Lahote in February of 2000, and a guy named Stephen Page in Pleasanton, California in April of 1994.
In fact, in May of 1997, a California company called Cidco applied for a trademark in iPhone for “communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions” Sounds a bit like the Apple product, but not much. Confused?
As a general rule, the company that either first uses a trademark, or first registers it, has the presumptive rights to use the mark. In this case however, the product that Cisco/Linksys made and marketed may be substantially different than the product proposed by Apple.
Or is it? Sure, the Apple phone is a “smart phone” – a cell phone, a music and video player, and Internet access device, whereas the Cisco/Linksys product appears to be just a network-based VoIP phone. Of course, the Apple iPhone may also have the capability of making VoIP calls, piggybacking on its WiFi connection.
Now the question is, would anyone seeing one of these products think of the other, or would the use of one trademark in some way “dilute” the other? Lawsuit aside, Apple will no doubt spend boatloads of money promoting its iPhone. In the wake of this publicity onslaught, it is unlikely that Cisco will be able to make people think “Cisco” when they think “iPhone” – thus weakening their trademark.
This may, however, be a circumstance where Apple’s “i-Everything” strategy has already impacted the previously registered trademark. The mere prefix “I” may already serve to identify Apple computer, just as the “Mc” in “Mc[AnyFood]” identifies a certain hamburger company in Oak Brook, Illinois. It may be a circumstance like that in Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” where the 19th century character “Hedley Lamarr” is concerned about infringing the name of the 20th century actress of the similar moniker. Mel Brooks’ character Governor William J. Le Petomane explains, “What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her.”
This is sort of “reverse trademark confusion.” Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called “iPhone” they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco.
So let's look at Cisco’s corner: they own the registered trademark. They got it first. They make a product called iPhone. They have marketed and sold it in commerce. The phone has something to do with the Internet and talking to people. And up until the moment of the MacWorld announcement they were in negotiations with Cisco to buy or license the trademark.
According to Cisco’s lawsuit, Apple set up a Delaware Corporation called “Ocean Telecom” in September of 2006 to apply for a trademark in the iPhone mark, and Ocean Telecom also claims to have used the iPhone mark starting in March of 2006 in Trinidad and Tobago. Apple also applied for the iPhone trademark in Australia in September of 2006.
Now in Apple’s corner. They already own trademarks to the iEverything line, and most people already associate the prefix with them – possibly preempting the field (hmmm... should I register iLawyer?) They may argue that iPhone is descriptive or generic – although that argument is weakened by their efforts to protect their own iPod franchise.
The ultimate issue will come down to this: is there a substantial likelihood that people looking for the Cisco product – or a product with capabilities like the Cisco product – would be confused by the Apple entry into the market?
I think that, to answer the question, I will personally need to examine in detail the capabilities of the various products, their look, their feel, their interface. Are you listening Mr. Jobs? Just e-mail me for the address to mail my iPhone – or whatever you want to call it.
Apple's iPhone announcement and Cisco's iPhone trademark lawsuit has brought the iPhone moniker into the spotlight. But other companies also own and use iPhone trademarks, and market and sell their iPhone products. Mark Rasch explains how U.S. trademark law works and the real issues at play in this highly publicized trademark dispute.
“ This is sort of 'reverse trademark confusion.' Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called 'iPhone' they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco. ”
Mark Rasch Earlier this month Apple Computer, now known as just “Apple,” became embroiled in a trademark lawsuit with Cisco Systems, Inc. over Apple’s proposed use of the term “iPhone” in connection with its new smart-phone. Cisco claims that Apple’s use of the term infringes its trademark and creates a “substantial likelihood of confusion” with Cisco’s iPhone product. Apple claims that Cisco’s claim to trademark protection is tenuous. In this case, it is quite possible that both trademarks can peacefully coexist. In the words of Rodney King, “can't we all just get along?”
Primer on trademark law
There is much confusion in non-academic circles about just what is a trademark, a service mark, and exactly how you get one, lose one, or protect one. Put simply, a trademark is nothing more than something that is associated with the provider of goods, and a service mark is something that is associated with a provider of services. Thus, company names like “General Motors” or “Cisco” are trademarks, just as particular product lines like “Mustang” or “Big Gulp.” Trademarks can include colors (yellow and red for Kodak film), logos, typefaces, tag lines (“good to the last drop”) and may also include what is called “trade dress” – how the product or packaging looks (anyone see the new LG “Prada” phone?). The idea is, when you see the trademark, you think of the particular item or company, and not something else.
One myth about trademarks is that you have to do something to get one. In fact, all you have to do, really, is to just use the trademark. Open a pet spa in Topeka, Kansas called “Dog Day Afternoon” and you have a trademark. You could stop someone else from opening a competing store with the same name. If you want additional legal protection, and you want to put people on notice about not only the identity but also the scope of your trademark, you can register your trademark. In the United States, this is done through a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov. You can also protect trademarks that you intend to use later on.
Now, not everything can be trademarked. I couldn’t trademark the phrase “Law Office” for the provision of legal services because the term is descriptive rather than identifying. But the phrase “1-800-LAWYERS” or lawyers.com might be subject to trademark. If something merely describes what it is, or if the description is or becomes generic, then trademark protection may either not be grated or may be lost. Thus, companies have had to fight to keep their trademarks from becoming generic – think “Kleenex” or “Jello” or in earlier times “Sanka,” “Radarange,” or “Frigidare.”
Another common myth is that two people cannot have the same trademark. Not true. Kelly Tires, Kelly Furniture, Kelly Temporary Employment services are all registered trademarks. Two trademarks can peacefully coexist if, for example, they describe substantially different products or services, exist in different geographic areas, or are otherwise sufficiently distinct or are made so. (Another example: Burlington Coat Factory is not associated with Burlington Industries...)
The key to whether or not two trademarks can peacefully coexist is whether there exists a “substantial likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Thus, McDonald’s hamburgers would not likely be confused with Old McDonald’s Farm, or McDonald’s Shoes (home of the golden arches?). The problem with this is that there is frequent overlap in the products or services offered by companies with pre-existing trademarks. Coca Cola is a provider of carbonated beverages, but also T-shirts, clothing, and a host of related accessories. Thus, trademarks that don’t infringe now may infringe later on. Okay. Law School lesson over. Let's look at how this impacts something called the iPhone.
iPhoney iPhone
On March 20, 1996, a small California company called Infogear registered the mark “iPhone” with the USPTO. The company made products to allow people to connect to the Internet without a computer, but apparently never made or marketed a product that they called iPhone. Infogear was aquired in 2000 by Cisco Systems, who obtained, among other things, the rights to the iPhone trademark. This points out the importance of actually registering a trademark in increasing the value of your company.
In about 2004, Cisco’s Linksys division began to actually make an iPhone product – essentially a phone connected to its router to allow for easier VoIP telephony. The Cisco/Linksys iPhone apparently stood for “Internet Phone.”
Now Cisco wasn’t the only one to use or register the mark iPhone for VoIP products. In March of 1995, a California company called Teledex registered the iPhone mark to describe a, “Telephone that integrates a display and interactive abilities with an IP-based network to deliver both voice communication and graphic-based content and services to hotel guestrooms.”
A British company called Orate Telecommunications Services also offers a VoIP phone called an iPhone. Other companies have applied for US trademarks using iPhone, but later abandoned them, including the NY-based XTreme Mobile in March 2005, the California-based SFMobile in October of 2003, a guy named Ravi Lahote in February of 2000, and a guy named Stephen Page in Pleasanton, California in April of 1994.
In fact, in May of 1997, a California company called Cidco applied for a trademark in iPhone for “communications terminals comprising computer hardware and software providing integrated telephone, data communications and personal computer functions” Sounds a bit like the Apple product, but not much. Confused?
As a general rule, the company that either first uses a trademark, or first registers it, has the presumptive rights to use the mark. In this case however, the product that Cisco/Linksys made and marketed may be substantially different than the product proposed by Apple.
Or is it? Sure, the Apple phone is a “smart phone” – a cell phone, a music and video player, and Internet access device, whereas the Cisco/Linksys product appears to be just a network-based VoIP phone. Of course, the Apple iPhone may also have the capability of making VoIP calls, piggybacking on its WiFi connection.
Now the question is, would anyone seeing one of these products think of the other, or would the use of one trademark in some way “dilute” the other? Lawsuit aside, Apple will no doubt spend boatloads of money promoting its iPhone. In the wake of this publicity onslaught, it is unlikely that Cisco will be able to make people think “Cisco” when they think “iPhone” – thus weakening their trademark.
This may, however, be a circumstance where Apple’s “i-Everything” strategy has already impacted the previously registered trademark. The mere prefix “I” may already serve to identify Apple computer, just as the “Mc” in “Mc[AnyFood]” identifies a certain hamburger company in Oak Brook, Illinois. It may be a circumstance like that in Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” where the 19th century character “Hedley Lamarr” is concerned about infringing the name of the 20th century actress of the similar moniker. Mel Brooks’ character Governor William J. Le Petomane explains, “What the hell are you worried about? This is 1874. You'll be able to sue her.”
This is sort of “reverse trademark confusion.” Even though the iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iSync, iWeb, iWork and iLife (but not iDefense, iLink or some other i-marks) monikers did not exist in 1996 when Infogear registered its trademark, I can bet you that, by 2007, even before Steve Jobs took the stage at MacWorld in San Francisco, if you asked people who made a product called “iPhone” they would invariably think Apple, not Cisco.
So let's look at Cisco’s corner: they own the registered trademark. They got it first. They make a product called iPhone. They have marketed and sold it in commerce. The phone has something to do with the Internet and talking to people. And up until the moment of the MacWorld announcement they were in negotiations with Cisco to buy or license the trademark.
According to Cisco’s lawsuit, Apple set up a Delaware Corporation called “Ocean Telecom” in September of 2006 to apply for a trademark in the iPhone mark, and Ocean Telecom also claims to have used the iPhone mark starting in March of 2006 in Trinidad and Tobago. Apple also applied for the iPhone trademark in Australia in September of 2006.
Now in Apple’s corner. They already own trademarks to the iEverything line, and most people already associate the prefix with them – possibly preempting the field (hmmm... should I register iLawyer?) They may argue that iPhone is descriptive or generic – although that argument is weakened by their efforts to protect their own iPod franchise.
The ultimate issue will come down to this: is there a substantial likelihood that people looking for the Cisco product – or a product with capabilities like the Cisco product – would be confused by the Apple entry into the market?
I think that, to answer the question, I will personally need to examine in detail the capabilities of the various products, their look, their feel, their interface. Are you listening Mr. Jobs? Just e-mail me for the address to mail my iPhone – or whatever you want to call it.
Is Apple's iPhone set to conquer the world?
Although the Apple iPhone is yet to be released, anticipation is running high and according to a silicon.com poll users are ready to splash out to purchase the must-have gadget when it is available.
Although the majority of respondents (60 per cent) said they were not planning to invest in Apple's latest gadget, an impressive 35 per cent said they would buy an iPhone.
Whether this early enthusiasm could ever translate into real sales remains to be seen. If Apple's iPhone really can conquer 35 per cent of market share, it would see the Cupertino company challenge Nokia for the title of top handset-maker in the world.
At this stage the poll certainly goes against Microsoft's prediction the iPhone will struggle. But it won't all be plain-sailing for Apple's marketing team - five per cent of respondents were left asking what on earth an iPhone is.
We also asked our CIO Jury what they thought of the potential business benefits of the Mac maker's first mobile phone device.
Half the group said they would consider using the iPhone but concerns were raised about the high price-tag and the fact the phone is tied to a single mobile operator. One CIO said the iPhone is an "unnecessary, overpriced and over-hyped box".
Although the majority of respondents (60 per cent) said they were not planning to invest in Apple's latest gadget, an impressive 35 per cent said they would buy an iPhone.
Whether this early enthusiasm could ever translate into real sales remains to be seen. If Apple's iPhone really can conquer 35 per cent of market share, it would see the Cupertino company challenge Nokia for the title of top handset-maker in the world.
At this stage the poll certainly goes against Microsoft's prediction the iPhone will struggle. But it won't all be plain-sailing for Apple's marketing team - five per cent of respondents were left asking what on earth an iPhone is.
We also asked our CIO Jury what they thought of the potential business benefits of the Mac maker's first mobile phone device.
Half the group said they would consider using the iPhone but concerns were raised about the high price-tag and the fact the phone is tied to a single mobile operator. One CIO said the iPhone is an "unnecessary, overpriced and over-hyped box".
iPhone To Energize Development Of Cellular Media Devices
In the recent report, Strategy Analytics expects the iPhone launch to be a sorely needed "shot-in-the-arm" to the traditional handset markets development efforts in cellular-enabled media devices, but the lack of W-CDMA support could prevent it from hitting Apple volume projections.
David Kerr, Vice President of the Global Wireless Practice at Strategy Analytics states, "While the hype around the iPhone is reaching dangerous levels, one benefit we are already seeing is a greater emphasis from handset OEMs on improving usability and making interaction with the handset easy and intuitive for media and productivity applications. Just as the Motorola RAZR energized design innovation, Apple's strong global brand and reputation for innovation in this area will be a catalyst for change. Traditional handset OEMs must improve or face being cast aside by operators who are looking for both strong usability and brands to drive their data service initiatives."
"It is possible that the lack of 3G cellular connectivity on the phone could be a bigger issue than Apple is ready to admit," adds Chris Ambrosio, Director at Strategy Analytics. "This puts significant pressure on the iPhone to be a strong performer out-of-the gate. European operators, who are increasingly willing to offer devices that emphasize off-portal content, if it helps drive their overall branded services value, will be watching early iPhone performance closely to determine how much impact the non-WCDMA iPhone has on Cingular Wireless churn and growth metrics. This will be a key determinant of whether it is worth adding to their increasingly 3G-focused portfolios."
David Kerr, Vice President of the Global Wireless Practice at Strategy Analytics states, "While the hype around the iPhone is reaching dangerous levels, one benefit we are already seeing is a greater emphasis from handset OEMs on improving usability and making interaction with the handset easy and intuitive for media and productivity applications. Just as the Motorola RAZR energized design innovation, Apple's strong global brand and reputation for innovation in this area will be a catalyst for change. Traditional handset OEMs must improve or face being cast aside by operators who are looking for both strong usability and brands to drive their data service initiatives."
"It is possible that the lack of 3G cellular connectivity on the phone could be a bigger issue than Apple is ready to admit," adds Chris Ambrosio, Director at Strategy Analytics. "This puts significant pressure on the iPhone to be a strong performer out-of-the gate. European operators, who are increasingly willing to offer devices that emphasize off-portal content, if it helps drive their overall branded services value, will be watching early iPhone performance closely to determine how much impact the non-WCDMA iPhone has on Cingular Wireless churn and growth metrics. This will be a key determinant of whether it is worth adding to their increasingly 3G-focused portfolios."
iPhone Comparisons to LG PRADA Debate Reaches Dull Nadir
The leading lights of Digg -- Alex Albrecht and Apple geek extraordinaire Kevin Rose -- dive into an in-depth but largely information-free debate comparing the LG KE-850 phone to Apple's iPhone. The argument was spawned from a post questioning whether the similarities of the touch-screen devices might result in a lawsuit.
And, as all such debates inevitably go, the substance of the argument is suspiciously absent. Instead, we get a long talk that amounts to: "They look the same!" "No, they don't!" "But they're both touchscreens!"
Is the world not ready for an honest conversation about interface and operating systems? I have more thoughts after the fold.
For unclaimed markets, such as truly mobile web browsing, an area where the iPhone will pioneer, it's difficult to understand the difference between a technical solution and a usable solution. WAP, the current technology used by even the smartest phones for mobile web browsing, can't view actual websites. Instead, most sites have a cut-down version that delivers much of the content in a way tiny screens and slow data pipes can handle. It sort of works, but it will never replace using a computer to browse.
The iPhone, by contrast, can handle the mainstream web. No matter what other facile similarities the device bears to other competitive solutions, the iPhone stands head and shoulders over the rest here. It means that mobile browsing might actually garner wide use. It's a usable solution instead of a trick to make something technically function. It's absolutely ridiculous in the above video when Albrecht claims the LG phone "probably" can look at real websites. I really doubt it. This is where interface and operating systems make the difference, and it's where Apple always looks best. Imitators need not apply.
The LG looks nice enough. It isn't a rip-off of the iPhone or vice versa. But it's even more expensive, and it won't make a dent in the same way.
And, as all such debates inevitably go, the substance of the argument is suspiciously absent. Instead, we get a long talk that amounts to: "They look the same!" "No, they don't!" "But they're both touchscreens!"
Is the world not ready for an honest conversation about interface and operating systems? I have more thoughts after the fold.
For unclaimed markets, such as truly mobile web browsing, an area where the iPhone will pioneer, it's difficult to understand the difference between a technical solution and a usable solution. WAP, the current technology used by even the smartest phones for mobile web browsing, can't view actual websites. Instead, most sites have a cut-down version that delivers much of the content in a way tiny screens and slow data pipes can handle. It sort of works, but it will never replace using a computer to browse.
The iPhone, by contrast, can handle the mainstream web. No matter what other facile similarities the device bears to other competitive solutions, the iPhone stands head and shoulders over the rest here. It means that mobile browsing might actually garner wide use. It's a usable solution instead of a trick to make something technically function. It's absolutely ridiculous in the above video when Albrecht claims the LG phone "probably" can look at real websites. I really doubt it. This is where interface and operating systems make the difference, and it's where Apple always looks best. Imitators need not apply.
The LG looks nice enough. It isn't a rip-off of the iPhone or vice versa. But it's even more expensive, and it won't make a dent in the same way.
Apple's iPhone PK LG's Prada
At top, Apple's new iPhone, recently revealed with hysterical hoopla. Below, the new KE850 phone from Korean firm LG in association with fashion designer Prada. Can you spot the difference? And which came first?
Plans for LG's buttonless, touchscreen phone, with MP3 player, bluetooth and similar whistles and bells to the iPhone, were announced late last year, and had won a design award before Apple's Steve Jobs took hyperbole to new heights this month by describing his iPhone as "revolutionary".
On Saturday, Jobs' claim that the iPhone was "five years ahead of what's on any other phone" was put further to the test when LG officially launched the KE850 and said it would go on sale four months earlier than Apple's product. LG's phone, priced at $US780 ($1100), will go on sale in Europe next month and in Asia from March. LG did not announce its US plans.
Apple's iPhone is set for US release in June and will cost $US599 ($NZ860) for the high-end model with 8Gb of internal memory. It is not expected to come to New Zealand until next year.
Apple iPhone courts failure with a late, defensive move
Few products have been launched with such a blizzard of publicity as the iPhone from Apple Inc.
To its many fans, Apple is more a religious cult than a company. An iToaster that downloads music while toasting bread probably would get the same kind of worldwide attention.
Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile phone industry, including Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc., won't be nervous over a new threat to their business.
The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant. Advertisement
If column inches and airtime guaranteed commercial success, Apple already would have a global hit on its hands. In recent weeks, it has been impossible to open a newspaper or look at a website without reading something about the shiny new phone.
Certainly, it looks like a nice piece of equipment. The iPhone combines Apple's iPod music and video player with a mobile phone as well as having wireless Internet access for e-mail.
Instead of lugging around a phone for making calls, an MP3 player for listening to music, and a Blackberry for checking your e-mail, you can do all three on one device. Even better, you only need one charger.
It will be released in the U.S. in June, with a rollout to the rest of the world later, and will cost $499 to $599, depending on how much storage space you want. How many might sell? Ten million in 2008, according to Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs.
Not everyone is sold on the idea. "The iPhone will not substantially alter the fundamental structure and challenges of the mobile industry," Charles Golvin, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc., said in a report this month.
There are three reasons that Apple is unlikely to make much of an impact on this market — and why it's too early to start dumping your Nokia shares.
•Apple is late to this party. The company didn't invent the personal computer or MP3 player, but it was among the pioneers of both products. Yet there is no shortage of phones out there. There already are big companies that dominate the space, all of whom will defend their turf. That means Apple will have to fight hard for every sale.
•The mobile phone industry depends on cooperation with the big networks. Phones — the high-end ones in particular — usually are sold with a network contract.
The provider subsidizes the handset and hopes to recoup its money with ridiculously expensive charges for calls and data. Yet Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp.
On top of that, its rivals will be pulling out all the stops to prevent the networks from offering iPhones. Sure, a big operator such as Vodafone Group PLC would like an exclusive deal to sell the iPhone in, say, the U.K. market. Against that, how much does it want to annoy Nokia — and what kind of incentives will Nokia be offering not to go with the Apple product?
There will be lots of tough conversations between companies that know each other well. Apple will find it hard to win those negotiations.
•iPhone is a defensive product. It is mainly designed to protect the iPod, which is coming under attack from mobile manufacturers adding music players to their handsets. Yet defensive products usually don't work — consumers are interested in new things, not reheated versions of old things.
Likewise, at whom is it pitched? The price and the e-mail features make it look like a business product. However, Apple is a consumer company. Will your accounting department spring for a fancy new handset just so you can listen to Eminem on your way to a business meeting?
In many ways, that is a shame. The mobile-phone industry is becoming a cozy cartel among network operators and a limited range of manufacturers. It could certainly use a blast of competition from an industry outsider.
It may come — but probably from an entrepreneurial startup somewhere. How about phones with fewer gadgets but better at making calls? Or with never-ending batteries? Or chargers that don't weigh three times as much as the phone?
It won't come from the iPhone. Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark.
To its many fans, Apple is more a religious cult than a company. An iToaster that downloads music while toasting bread probably would get the same kind of worldwide attention.
Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile phone industry, including Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc., won't be nervous over a new threat to their business.
The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant. Advertisement
If column inches and airtime guaranteed commercial success, Apple already would have a global hit on its hands. In recent weeks, it has been impossible to open a newspaper or look at a website without reading something about the shiny new phone.
Certainly, it looks like a nice piece of equipment. The iPhone combines Apple's iPod music and video player with a mobile phone as well as having wireless Internet access for e-mail.
Instead of lugging around a phone for making calls, an MP3 player for listening to music, and a Blackberry for checking your e-mail, you can do all three on one device. Even better, you only need one charger.
It will be released in the U.S. in June, with a rollout to the rest of the world later, and will cost $499 to $599, depending on how much storage space you want. How many might sell? Ten million in 2008, according to Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs.
Not everyone is sold on the idea. "The iPhone will not substantially alter the fundamental structure and challenges of the mobile industry," Charles Golvin, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc., said in a report this month.
There are three reasons that Apple is unlikely to make much of an impact on this market — and why it's too early to start dumping your Nokia shares.
•Apple is late to this party. The company didn't invent the personal computer or MP3 player, but it was among the pioneers of both products. Yet there is no shortage of phones out there. There already are big companies that dominate the space, all of whom will defend their turf. That means Apple will have to fight hard for every sale.
•The mobile phone industry depends on cooperation with the big networks. Phones — the high-end ones in particular — usually are sold with a network contract.
The provider subsidizes the handset and hopes to recoup its money with ridiculously expensive charges for calls and data. Yet Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp.
On top of that, its rivals will be pulling out all the stops to prevent the networks from offering iPhones. Sure, a big operator such as Vodafone Group PLC would like an exclusive deal to sell the iPhone in, say, the U.K. market. Against that, how much does it want to annoy Nokia — and what kind of incentives will Nokia be offering not to go with the Apple product?
There will be lots of tough conversations between companies that know each other well. Apple will find it hard to win those negotiations.
•iPhone is a defensive product. It is mainly designed to protect the iPod, which is coming under attack from mobile manufacturers adding music players to their handsets. Yet defensive products usually don't work — consumers are interested in new things, not reheated versions of old things.
Likewise, at whom is it pitched? The price and the e-mail features make it look like a business product. However, Apple is a consumer company. Will your accounting department spring for a fancy new handset just so you can listen to Eminem on your way to a business meeting?
In many ways, that is a shame. The mobile-phone industry is becoming a cozy cartel among network operators and a limited range of manufacturers. It could certainly use a blast of competition from an industry outsider.
It may come — but probably from an entrepreneurial startup somewhere. How about phones with fewer gadgets but better at making calls? Or with never-ending batteries? Or chargers that don't weigh three times as much as the phone?
It won't come from the iPhone. Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark.
Apple's bite: For iPhone, uPay 100% markup
Think about this when you head to buy your $599 iPhone: It cost Apple half that amount to make it.
A study by corporate analysts found Apple's markup will be about 100% when it hits stores in June.
The $499 4GB model will actually cost only $245 to make, and the $599 8GB version can be manufactured for $280.
The high prices allow Apple wiggle room to push the cost down at some point, a move researchers at consulting firm iSuppli say is inevitable.
"They are setting themselves up for some aggressive price cuts, around the holiday season or just after, I expect," Jagdish Rebello, iSuppli's director of wireless service said.
"Apple has been doing this level of markup in other industries, but the question is whether they can do this in the cell phone industry - The answer is no. It's a brutal market where products have a very short life cycle."
Apple often releases new products with large ad campaigns, but the gap between Apple's costs and the prices paid by consumers will still be large.
Most high-end multimedia phones get about a 20% markup, and if Apple followed that, it would put the retail price of an 8GB iPhone at around $350.
A study by corporate analysts found Apple's markup will be about 100% when it hits stores in June.
The $499 4GB model will actually cost only $245 to make, and the $599 8GB version can be manufactured for $280.
The high prices allow Apple wiggle room to push the cost down at some point, a move researchers at consulting firm iSuppli say is inevitable.
"They are setting themselves up for some aggressive price cuts, around the holiday season or just after, I expect," Jagdish Rebello, iSuppli's director of wireless service said.
"Apple has been doing this level of markup in other industries, but the question is whether they can do this in the cell phone industry - The answer is no. It's a brutal market where products have a very short life cycle."
Apple often releases new products with large ad campaigns, but the gap between Apple's costs and the prices paid by consumers will still be large.
Most high-end multimedia phones get about a 20% markup, and if Apple followed that, it would put the retail price of an 8GB iPhone at around $350.
Will iPhone be for you? Here's what to expect
You can be forgiven if you're under the impression that Apple's iPhone is right up there with the wheel in the category of world-changing inventions. While the iPhone, unveiled amid much hype by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs two weeks ago, combines a cell phone, music player and PDA in an easy-to-use package, it's not the only product of its kind. Ask the owners of Treo, BlackBerry and Chocolate devices.
But in keeping with Apple's tradition of innovation, the iPhone is intended to lap its competitors with ease of use and improved features. Here's what you can look forward to later this year, and why you may or may not want one.
The Basics
The basic product is a cell phone that can run PDA-type applications, access the Internet, receive and send e-mail, store and replay music and videos, and take photos. None of these are new capabilities for cell phones, although it is hard to find all of them done well in a single product.
What's New
The phone is designed to be operated with your fingertips, not a stylus. The "multi-touch" screen processes two finger movements at the same time, so you can grab a photo on the screen and pinch it smaller or stretch it bigger. Mac-type Internet-enabled widgets (stock quotes, weather) are available, a first for cell phones. Sensors determine how you're holding the phone (upright or sideways) and auto-switch the display to match. In conjunction with a proprietary version of Google maps, you can locate a business in Web mode on the map, then place a call to it with just a touch.
What's Improved
The color screen is bigger, with a higher resolution (480x320) and more colors. Sensors adjust screen brightness to ambient light, and cut off the screen when you hold the phone to your face to talk. The way you interact with the contact list to find and call someone is a big improvement over current technology. The 2-megapixel camera gives offers better resolution than many cell phone cameras, but is not the best available.
What's Cool
The music volume automatically lowers when you receive a call, and returns to normal when you hang up. Listen to voice-mail messages in the sequence you want to hear them. "Push" e-mail powered by Yahoo! Mail is free, in contrast to the fee-based e-mail service of the BlackBerry. The screen fits widescreen-formatted videos. Internet access automatically locks on to available Wi-Fi access points, or defaults to Cingular's EDGE network if Wi-Fi is not available. Quad-band GSM means you should get good cell phone coverage worldwide.
What's Not So Cool
Doesn't sync e-mail and contacts with Microsoft Outlook. Won't open Microsoft Word and Excel documents, as will many of its competitors. Music can't be downloaded directly to the iPhone (like Verizon VCast), and must be purchased from iTunes. Storage options of 4 GB or 8 GB seem anemic, compared to iPod storage of up to 40 GB. Voice dialing is not an option. Rechargeable battery not owner-replaceable. Doesn't use AT&T's (formerly Cingular) fastest (3G) network for Internet access, which mostly limits Internet service to the United States.
Legal Cloud
The name "iPhone" is a registered trademark of Cisco, used in marketing Cisco's line of Internet-based telephones. Apple negotiated with Cisco for rights to the name, but announced the product without those rights. Cisco is now suing Apple. Maybe by the time it reaches retail stores, it will be called the "Oops-Phone."
Compare To
Many Internet-capable phones use higher-speed networks. Verizon's Treo 700w SmartPhone syncs with Outlook and includes "Pocket" versions of Microsoft business applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.), supports a much broader selection of music and video media formats, and costs half as much. Sprint's BlackBerry 8703e doubles as a GPS navigator, giving turn-by-turn audible directions, and tracking its own GPS location to help rescue crews find you in an emergency.
Availability
iPhone is scheduled to be available in June from AT&T (the new name for the old Cingular network) and Apple. Expected price is $499 (4 GB storage) or $599 (8 GB storage). Sold only in a package with an AT&T service contract. Reboot Rod
But in keeping with Apple's tradition of innovation, the iPhone is intended to lap its competitors with ease of use and improved features. Here's what you can look forward to later this year, and why you may or may not want one.
The Basics
The basic product is a cell phone that can run PDA-type applications, access the Internet, receive and send e-mail, store and replay music and videos, and take photos. None of these are new capabilities for cell phones, although it is hard to find all of them done well in a single product.
What's New
The phone is designed to be operated with your fingertips, not a stylus. The "multi-touch" screen processes two finger movements at the same time, so you can grab a photo on the screen and pinch it smaller or stretch it bigger. Mac-type Internet-enabled widgets (stock quotes, weather) are available, a first for cell phones. Sensors determine how you're holding the phone (upright or sideways) and auto-switch the display to match. In conjunction with a proprietary version of Google maps, you can locate a business in Web mode on the map, then place a call to it with just a touch.
What's Improved
The color screen is bigger, with a higher resolution (480x320) and more colors. Sensors adjust screen brightness to ambient light, and cut off the screen when you hold the phone to your face to talk. The way you interact with the contact list to find and call someone is a big improvement over current technology. The 2-megapixel camera gives offers better resolution than many cell phone cameras, but is not the best available.
What's Cool
The music volume automatically lowers when you receive a call, and returns to normal when you hang up. Listen to voice-mail messages in the sequence you want to hear them. "Push" e-mail powered by Yahoo! Mail is free, in contrast to the fee-based e-mail service of the BlackBerry. The screen fits widescreen-formatted videos. Internet access automatically locks on to available Wi-Fi access points, or defaults to Cingular's EDGE network if Wi-Fi is not available. Quad-band GSM means you should get good cell phone coverage worldwide.
What's Not So Cool
Doesn't sync e-mail and contacts with Microsoft Outlook. Won't open Microsoft Word and Excel documents, as will many of its competitors. Music can't be downloaded directly to the iPhone (like Verizon VCast), and must be purchased from iTunes. Storage options of 4 GB or 8 GB seem anemic, compared to iPod storage of up to 40 GB. Voice dialing is not an option. Rechargeable battery not owner-replaceable. Doesn't use AT&T's (formerly Cingular) fastest (3G) network for Internet access, which mostly limits Internet service to the United States.
Legal Cloud
The name "iPhone" is a registered trademark of Cisco, used in marketing Cisco's line of Internet-based telephones. Apple negotiated with Cisco for rights to the name, but announced the product without those rights. Cisco is now suing Apple. Maybe by the time it reaches retail stores, it will be called the "Oops-Phone."
Compare To
Many Internet-capable phones use higher-speed networks. Verizon's Treo 700w SmartPhone syncs with Outlook and includes "Pocket" versions of Microsoft business applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.), supports a much broader selection of music and video media formats, and costs half as much. Sprint's BlackBerry 8703e doubles as a GPS navigator, giving turn-by-turn audible directions, and tracking its own GPS location to help rescue crews find you in an emergency.
Availability
iPhone is scheduled to be available in June from AT&T (the new name for the old Cingular network) and Apple. Expected price is $499 (4 GB storage) or $599 (8 GB storage). Sold only in a package with an AT&T service contract. Reboot Rod
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
