One thing which is kinda a big deal is that the battery does not seem to be user changeable like in the iPods. What happens after a year when talk time goes down to 2 hours or worse and you have a 500-600 dollar device?

Storchen

Sweden4385 Posts

January 11 2007 16:44 GMT

#102

But it's actually pretty cool

I will buy one, love the design.

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

January 12 2007 02:25 GMT

#103

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone-qotd.htm

Details: Pros and Cons Etc.

mensrea

Canada5062 Posts

January 12 2007 21:08 GMT

#104

On January 11 2007 20:37 Wangsta wrote:

Show nested quote +

Cisco obtained the name "I.Phone" (short for Internet Phone) from some company they bought in 2003, forgot the name but I am 99% sure about these dates. That company obtained a patent for the name I.Phone in 1996 or something, and patents expire after 7 years. Also, I.Phone and iPhone are different, stand for different things, and represent separate markets. Even if their patent was still valid, there would be no real case.

Only partially correct. Don't have time to explain properly, but in a nutshell:

- Cisco (through the company they purchased) has a registered TRADEMARK (not a patent). A registered federal trademark in the US lasts for ten-year terms that can be renewed and extended indefinitely as long as the mark is being used by the registrant to identify a good or service.

- On the face of it, it appears that Apple is infringing on Cisco's intellectual property right with respect to the trademark "iPhone". Cisco is the owner of the registered trademark, and that brings with it a host of very powerful assumptions that favor Cisco.

- BUT: Apple is not stupid. They are certainly smarter and more thoughtful than any of the amateur pundits that are posting all over the internet right now about how they blundered. Apple must've done their homework and determined that a) there is a legal basis on which they can use iPhone without Cisco's permission, AND/OR b) they are confident they can negotiate a satisfactory settlement with Cisco for continued use of the "iPhone" mark regardless of what the law says. Bottom line: Apple has done a risk assessment and concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks. They did not just do this on a whim.

- Speaking of legal principles, there are a number ways Apple can joust with Cisco in the courtroom and come out on top. Off the top of my head:

1) Trademark rules in the US allow the use of the same mark by two different products/organizations if the product/industry is different enough so that consumers could not reasonably be confused between the two. There is actually a trucking/transportation company operating in N. America called "Sysco". They could probably call themselves "Cisco" and the real Cisco likely would not have a case against them because there is little reasonable chance of confusion (i.e. no one is going to call Cisco the trucking company to order internet equipment). Accordingly, Apple may argue that the iPhone cell phone is a significantly different product than what Cisco (Linksys) is offering (a VOIP phone) and that both companies should be allowed to use the "iPhone" name. I suspect this is why Apple's spokespeople having been heard repeating publicly the mantra that Apple is the first company to use the name "iPhone" for a cell phone.

2) Apple may try using the "McDonald's" defense. A trademark argument most famously used by our beloved fastfood chain, that anything that has a "Mc" in front of it, even if it has nothing to do with food (McPhone, McTshirt, McHouse, etc), is reasonably associated in the public's mind with our favorite global peddler of transfat-enriched food products and that McDonald's, by virtue of its marketing success, owns the entire family of potential trademarks. I think this argument is quaint, but weak. "i" is too weak as a distinguishing trademark, especially today. Too many products by too many companies are already out there for Apple to argue now that they somehow should have a monopoly on "i". They might of tried this a decade ago when the "iMacs" first started coming out, but too late now, me thinks.

3) The name "iPhone" may actually be too generic a term for any one company to claim exclusive ownership within an identifiable industry sector. In other words, both Apple AND Cisco may be able to use the name for their products.

I'm no expert and I haven't spent much time thinking about this issue, so I'm sure there are plenty of other legal arguments Apple could make.

Anyway, who cares? Clash of the titans, let the jousting begin! And the Apple phone looks like it could have some serious potential.

I'd hold off on purchasing one though until it's gone through a few iterations first. The "iPhone" won't be a mature product for another two or three years at least. But there is little doubt Apple has another hit on its hands.

NeoIllusions

United States37500 Posts

January 12 2007 21:09 GMT

#105

mensrea... you're back... ^o^

mensrea

Canada5062 Posts

January 12 2007 21:12 GMT

#106

;-)

Mynock

4492 Posts

January 12 2007 22:27 GMT

#107

I have no interest in this thread whatsoever, but I still read the whole of 'rea's post

Ouch?

(BTW, for people never really getting into any of the iFad (like me) - what exactly is it that made me "change the way I look at music" in an iPod? Cause I honestly never understood what's so significantly different about an iPod and an mp3 player except for the HD space and the price.)

-Mynock

XCetron

5226 Posts

January 13 2007 01:23 GMT

#108

I thought you said you were gonna quit the "-mynock" thing??

Pressure

7326 Posts

January 13 2007 01:27 GMT

#109

The return of mensrea, and with such an awesome post i actually read :OO

Hans-Titan

Denmark1711 Posts

January 13 2007 01:36 GMT

#110

Damn expensive, but damn sexy.

Me wants!

And to all of you people complaining about 600$, I can assure you the danish price will not be lower than 800$.. Stupid danish prices...

Hans-Titan

Denmark1711 Posts

January 13 2007 01:45 GMT

#111

Damn expensive, but damn sexy.

Me wants!

And to all of you people complaining about 600$, I can assure you the danish price will not be lower than 800$.. Stupid danish prices...

dredredre

100 Posts

January 13 2007 05:58 GMT

#112

All of you are mindless consumer sheep. An irreplacable part of the corporate ladder, the bottom rung. The masters offer you a new toy, and you obey. You never disappoint.

This is how you will be remembered.

asel

Germany1601 Posts

January 13 2007 06:12 GMT

#113

Apple just have to sell poo as "iShit" and everyone will buy it T_T

zdd

1463 Posts

January 13 2007 06:14 GMT

#114

On January 13 2007 14:58 dredredre wrote:
All of you are mindless consumer sheep. An irreplacable part of the corporate ladder, the bottom rung. The masters offer you a new toy, and you obey. You never disappoint.

This is how you will be remembered.

Capitalism is going to be around for a long time, because it's fueled by greed. Countless utopian schemes have been tried, and nothing has worked, so it's for the best.

Yogurt

United States4258 Posts

January 13 2007 06:16 GMT

#115

when are they coming out with the iwasteofmoney?

decafchicken

United States20074 Posts

January 13 2007 06:30 GMT

#116

On January 13 2007 15:16 Yogurt wrote:
when are they coming out with the iwasteofmoney?

code name is ipod

Ilvy

Germany2445 Posts

January 13 2007 10:29 GMT

#117

On January 13 2007 15:16 Yogurt wrote:
when are they coming out with the iwasteofmoney?

it is not wast of money if did not just buy a new iPod or/and a new cell and if you like style. In the states it will be out arround June in Europe unfortunatly later, arround November.

And
<3 rea :D toooo bad i never see you online ;(

lil.sis

China4650 Posts

January 13 2007 10:41 GMT

#118

hey mensrea

you're wrong

sysco is a bulk food distributor

WOOWOO