Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
I, Cringely - The Survival of the Nerdiest with Robert X. Cringely
Search I,Cringely:

The Pulpit
Pulpit Comments
January 11, 2007 -- What's in a Name?
Status: [CLOSED]

I agree with the idea that it will be Apple Phone and wrote about it here:
http://copyrightings.blogspot.com/2007/01/inside-decision-to-use-iphone-name.html

Kevin | Jan 11, 2007 | 9:40PM

Domination through good UI

Apple shows again that while microsoft tries to dominate through features and tools, usability is the killer aspect from a user point of view.

I have used a number of smart phones from Nokia and Microsoft mobile based and all suffer from plain bad UI. Its the same reason iPod has the lions share of the market, good UI beats features and price any day.

TasIT | Jan 11, 2007 | 9:49PM

Bob, do you know for a fact that Apple changed the name of iTV to Apple TV because of the EyeTV product? As we've seen over the last couple of days, this really isn't Apple's style. I'd love to see some sort of a source backing that theory up, please.

Kody Bryson | Jan 11, 2007 | 9:56PM

Very good piece... The Cisco vs. free ad time angle is very interesting and sounds plausible.

As to the phone itself, one thing that was not mentioned by Steve Jobs in the keynote and is key to the Apple/iPhone's success as a high end super-smartphone, IMHO, is handling non-media data files, the Word, Excel and Powerpoint files Blackberry folks send each other. I don't think the phone can succeed as a highend device without support for these. And, interestingly enough and against most everyone's expectations, not a word was said about iWork during MacWorld. I would bet that when iWork 07 comes out it will be added on the iPhone, able to display word processing, spreadsheets and presentations on that beautiful screen... Lots of free space on that HOME screen.

And to add a bit of speculation: The AppleTV is coming out in 20 to 50 days and has HDTV output but the iTunes store has no HDTV content for sale. On the other hand, as you note, Apple now has a great video device, with a screen that actually does videos justice. I woud bet, again, that a new video iPod, based on the Apple/iPhone hardware and software but without the phone and internet bits, will be launched at the same time as the AppleTV becomes available and HD content is added to the iTunes Store.

Thank for your weekly insight...

Nicolas Dore | Jan 11, 2007 | 9:59PM

I don't know who's worse. Bill Gates who has delayed releases of buggy software aimed at directing every user to Redmond, or Jobs who is constantly trying to check-mate the universe and is willing to voluntarily hobble his own products in order to do so.

How much freakin' money do these guys need to have in order to compensate for whatever must be lacking in their lives.

drewby | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:00PM

While the new Apple iPhone is beautiful, I'm more interested in its ability to function as a business phone.

While all the features suggest that its a multimedia phone, most Smart/PDA phones (and that's what this is...) push/pull necessary business information such as contacts, appointments, and email. That's the allure of Smart/PDA phones, the ability to create a virtual link back to the company while on business. It almost seems that true business functionality was an afterthought (push technology with Yahoo? Are you serious?)

RIM, Palm, and Microsoft have made it very easy to push these services to most Smart/PDA phones on the market.

It becomes very clear that Apple is marketing this as a VERY FANCY IPOD. I just wonder what market they are going after...I can't imagine that they truly believe that the consumer market is going to pony up for the 8GB (cause a 4GB multimedia phone is a joke in terms of storage...)

Don't get me wrong, the iPhone is a remarkable piece of technology. But I am curious to see if Apple/Cingular will target this for the business world.

Robb | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:02PM

The claim that Cisco would sue apple for trademark infringement and have a strong case is somewhat undermined by the fact that another company already sells a product using the iPhone brand: ComWave.

http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/whatisiphone.htm

This being the case, and that they've been in business for 10 years according to their website, it'd be interesting to see if Cisco could in fact press a case against Apple since they failed to defend their trademark against ComWave's use of the name.

Also, technically i don't believe they can sue Apple right now, since Apple is not actually selling a product, and thus not infringing on the trademark. If, in June, they *do* launch the iPhone and the issue hasn't been resolved, *then* i believe a suit would be actionable (but not necessarily winnable).

Shubber | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:02PM

While the new Apple iPhone is beautiful, I'm more interested in its ability to function as a business phone.

While all the features suggest that its a multimedia phone, most Smart/PDA phones (and that's what this is...) push/pull necessary business information such as contacts, appointments, and email. That's the allure of Smart/PDA phones, the ability to create a virtual link back to the company while on business. It almost seems that true business functionality was an afterthought (push technology with Yahoo? Are you serious?)

RIM, Palm, and Microsoft have made it very easy to push these services to most Smart/PDA phones on the market.

It becomes very clear that Apple is marketing this as a VERY FANCY IPOD. I just wonder what market they are going after...I can't imagine that they truly believe that the consumer market is going to pony up for the 8GB (cause a 4GB multimedia phone is a joke in terms of storage...)

Don't get me wrong, the iPhone is a remarkable piece of technology. But I am curious to see if Apple/Cingular will target this for the business world.

Robb | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:02PM


Apple iPhone? Check out the ZunePhone:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WRLRjKCGHek

Cosimoto | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:02PM

So if Cisco really wants to protect their trademark, why aren't they suing these guys?

http://www.orate.co.uk/Voip/iPhone.html
http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13

Robert Yoder | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:12PM


Nice article Bob- could you offer some thoughts on when/if Apple will open the iPhone for 3rd party development? If you like, a simple 'never' will suffice. :)

Josh | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:26PM

Either way Apple wins. They get the name with little or no cost or they change it to AppleiPhone. Big whoop. A rose by any other name still beats every other phone out there. They may have a bit of trouble in the enterprise with exchange server but that will be overcome.

mcloki | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:35PM

I don’t think Apple gives a rat’s tush whether users buy their movies through iTunes or not. iTS operates, intentionally, at just above break-even. It’s purpose is simply to sell iPods.

Besides, if Apple did care, they could still offer 3G without the problem you suggest because they control the iPhone. They could easily force users to download via iTS on the iPhone, and Cingular would still profit by charging users for the large data transmission.

More than likely, the reason for the slower EDGE network is simply to play it safe; take no chances with more problematic higher speed networks until the iPhone is established in the public’s mind as a reliable, desirable product.

I also don’t believe for one minute the anecdote about Jobs calling up this unknown, semi-retired physician fellow. Yeah, like he has nothing better to do with his time.

Rainy Day | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:02PM

the iPhone is really just the next generation iPod with a phone built in. The reason Apple is (for now) calling it iPhone is to promote it's capabilities as a phone. This is a brilliant marketing strategy for a device that is difficult to label, in that it just does so many different things. There is only really one name generic enough to encapsulate all that it does - iPod. (Look for a name change for a new iTunes too)

Sean | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:13PM

What's an iphone and why do I need one in the first place? My black telephone in its wall shrine still works just fine.

ebenezer | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:14PM

Bob,

You are probably right about Cisco, and them winning the lawsuit.

BUT, these folks don't seem to give a whit about any Cisco trademark. Maybe Apple actually has a leg to stand on ?

http://www.orate.co.uk/Voip/iPhone.html
http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13

Jim B. | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:24PM

Apple Inc.'s phone is cool looking and Tiffany-priced to boot to make it even more desirable.
It's going to fail and be revered pretty much like the Power Mac G4 Cube. It will be replaced by something else, a Plan B device that will scare the shit out of RIM, Palm and Microsoft, as well as Nokia and Motorola. It won't be a PDA but it will make PDAs totally irrelevent.
Think GoogleBox.
Watch for it.

Kevin Kunreuther | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:35PM

The iPhone is designed to hop on an available WiFi connection automatically. In a way this is a big plus for the consumer/user. Why pay high data charges when WiFi is available for free? Jobs said he was connected to the 'net over WiFi during the keynote. I think this is how most people will connect to surf and get email.

Bryan | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:42PM

Apple likely decided to go with a GSM phone first because GSM is the dominant platform for cell phones in their next market (Europe).
There are two major GSM carriers in the US, T-mobile and Cingular.
On that note... they couldnt choose T-Mobile, because its actually Deutch-Telecom (from Germany) which would have left Apple with little negotiating room in Europe.
Its unfortunate that they didn't just sell and unlocked phone direct.

They must need some Carrier integration, and I'm NOT talking about getting code for the radio stack on the phone. Ease of use integration for end users.

We shall see how long it takes to get an unlocked iPhone on Ebay...

BeDammit

BeDammit | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:57PM

Wasn't the iPhone in the keynote demo operating on Wi-Fi so what is the relevance of this talk of EDGE cellular protocol being slow?

Richard | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:57PM

Wasn't the iPhone in the keynote demo operating on Wi-Fi so what is the relevance of this talk of EDGE cellular protocol being slow?

Grumps | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:57PM

As Bob mentioned in his article the iPhone is not a PDA, not meant to be a PDA. It's not aimed at the business market but more at increasing the functionality of the existing products in the consumer market. Every kid will want an iPhone... there are heaps more kids than PDA toting businessmen out there. Steve Jobs has nailed it again... and I agree with Bob's 'Free Publicity' angle, actually it was the 1st thing I thought of when I heard about the Cisco suit. Must have been reading this column too long... starting to think like Bob. Even if it never ends up being called an iPhone you can guarantee that it will be talked about until a time as the parties settle or the phone is released. How many people own an iPod that 2 years ago had never even touched a PC, I know quite a few. People will buy iPhones cause it's an Apple. Well done Apple. Good article, as always Bob!

Dan Particle | Jan 11, 2007 | 11:57PM

Great insight Bob. Just some thoughts on the 3G bit. While the business proposition you mentioned does sound very plausible - am not sure a firmware upgrade would make it 3G. Costs also would be a factor and I'm sure there would be another version (more expensive)that would be sold as a 3G phone. 2.5G is definitely more suited for email - and that's what Apple is targeting. For browsing you are better off using wifi.

Kiran | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:00AM

Apple's iPhone is Newton rising out of ashes like the mythical Phoenix, with more mature technology and polished user interface. Steve Jobs is master "illusionist" that creates "reality distortions" regularly and the "technology analysts" falls for it.

Viswakarma | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:01AM

In my 38 years of computer programming and development, I can honestly say that the exceptional iPhone from Apple is the most advanced and extraordinary item of consumer technology that I have ever seen — It Is 3 - 5 Years Ahead of Its Time !

For the first time in my career, I see a product actually beyond my own predictions!

Well Done, Apple !!!

William Donelson | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:06AM

"...why can't an iPhone become an Apple Phone?"

Am I the only one to flashback to the Banana Phone?

unitron | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:18AM

Viswakarma:

There's no need for extraneous "quotes." I can practically see the double-curly-Q fingers in the air as you type about Steve being an "illusionist." Except--as in most cases--there's no need for the quotations. You're not quoting anyone.

It's a more powerful statement if you simply say hey, in your opinion, Steve's a master illusionist who creates reality distortions.

Hopefully, this "makes sense" to you. I think once you "see it," you'll see how "ridiculous" it looks and how it "disempowers" what you have to say. "Technology analysts" might even read your comments without "chuckling!"

Like the mythical Phoenix, your writing will rise from the ashes!

Ed | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:43AM

3G/Edge don't matter. It's all in the WiFi! You'll be using it for free (or very cheap) VoIP calls anywhere in the world, the Cingular plan just as a backup. $499 will be a great deal, actually.

Nir | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:57AM

Re: No 3G

Jobs stated that Apple chose GSM because it is a global standard and would allow them to access the greatest number of markets. That makes sense.

3G GSM == UMTS and if you dig even a little, you will find that UMTS devices are notorious for having abysmal battery life. That is the primary reason there is no 3G iPhone.

I highly doubt that you will be able to upgrade an iPhone to 3G with a firmware upgrade. If only it were that easy...

Colin | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:58AM

Bob, you're a bit off on this one. When AppleTV was previewed last summer, the first thing they said was that it was a codename. Apple never changed the name or bowed to pressure since iTV was never its intended name. iTV is also a British broadcast network. This articles lays out why Apple didn't bother:

" 'We think the Cisco lawsuit is just silly, because a number of other VOIP companies are already using the name iPhone,' Natalie Kerris, Apple's director of music public relations, told eWEEK."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2082537,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

John | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:08AM

Did you notice the suggestion by Eric Schmidt that Apple and Google merge. My theory from last week.

lelandusa | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:20AM

EDGE uses the same 200KHz channels as GSM (which is why it is sometimes called 2.5G cellular). True 3G systems use bandwidths of 1.25 or 5MHz and may have different modulations such as W-CDMA. Unfortunately, the speed required in the radio circuits usually mean that these are dedicated ASICs, not programmable logic or firmware (except in the most flexible of software defined radios). A 3G design will go backwards out of necessity but a 2.5G design won't go to 3G unless that has been factored in from the start.

As to battery life - it is only the quantity of data transmitted that counts. Closing a link generally requires a certain amount of energy per bit - whether it is a short burst at high power or a long transmission at short power. Receiving bits takes pretty much the same power regardless of rate. Unless you are doing a lot of uploading (pictures, video, music, data) from a phone, there shouldn't be a radical difference in battery life going to 3G. The extra power needed to download all that media content is at the cell site.

The only big missing feature in iPhone is GPS. With that linked to Google maps via a good directions widget, who would need Garmin?

Peter H | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:30AM

I concur with Jobs' statement about the confusing and cumbersome UIs on most cell phones and smart phones. I did not find thumb keyboards to my liking either. The "iPhone" has the best UI I've ever seen and it's wonderfully flexible and intuitive. That's what impressed me most. However, there was nothing said about voice dialing, and that is the one thing needed to facilitate handsfree operation in a car.

Walter | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:53AM

I concur with Jobs' statement about the confusing and cumbersome UIs on most cell phones and smart phones. I did not find thumb keyboards to my liking either. The "iPhone" has the best UI I've ever seen and it's wonderfully flexible and intuitive. That's what impressed me most. However, there was nothing said about voice dialing, and that is the one thing needed to facilitate handsfree operation in a car.

Walter | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:04AM

In Europe - 3G is a bust. I worked with Hutch 3G - none of the staff used the 3G, they all had the phones on GPRS - because no matter what anyone says 3G phones are sucking battery life. Switcht to GPRS and the battery lasts longer.

The real problems no one is discussing is the incredible technical mess that repesents the services layer in mobile operators. I recently finished an abortion of a project to bring full track music downloads to a European operator. The project was a bust from the start due to the incredibly convoluted architecture - it took over a year and in the end their partner divested themselves of the shares.

This is why Jobs in the end will have to launch a MVNO - in this fashion he can cut out legacy operator cruft and layer a proper services layer (done once - as opposed to current plans - how long did it take to integrate the phone to voice mail in Cingular? A year I'd wager).

Mobile operators have no real strategy or vision - just a load of marketing dweebs doing meto initiatives usually driven in a siloed vertical fashion based upon what this or that vendor is selling today. The result is a mess of technology with no clean interfaces.

Cruft. Thisi cruft badly affects time to market.

Thus Jobs needs to start builing his backend connections to allow rapid delivery of application that will make the iPhone shine.

All phones need location, presence and context. European operators still do not understand context. They believe that location only works if it locates the customer to the meter.

So iPhone has a rocky road and it needs to build it's own infrastructure to get at the basic backend of mobile networks.

Good luck..

Kevin Brown | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:06AM

ITV is also the name of the biggest commerical broadcaster in the UK. Apple is notoriously US-centric and barely acknowledges the existence of the rest of the world (I can't imagine anybody else even thinking of launching a smartphone without 3G as standard. In the UK 3G phones come free with breakfast cereal).

But I don't think that even they could ignore such a mammoth organisation, and the fact that they just couldn't launch a similarly named product in the UK, which is one of their biggest markets.

I suspect it's ITV (which dwarfs Elgato) that put the kybosh on that name.

arthurascii | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:13AM

Many, many people have been willing to spend on a spiffy cell phone ($200) and a nice iPod ($300). Same money, one gadget, and ten times the cool -- I don't see a problem with the price.

If the prices of used Razrs and Nanos on eBay start to tumble, you'll know why.

As for its being a BlackBerry killer, I don't see corporate buyers handing iPhones to their road warriors. This is a consumer item, not a business tool... but RIM should be getting nervous.

Jim Demers | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:22AM

ITV is also a TV network in the UK. Perhaps this is also a reason for the name change.

David White | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:22AM

I don't know why Apple doesn't just call it the iFone or iFon, with the same amount of letters as the iPod. iPhone with "phone" in the title just LOOKS old fashionedm like we really do expect to see a rotary phone. Or the iTri, iTouch, iPal, iCom, iCenter, iSer or iPim (phone-internet-music) or just plain Apple Phone.

paulg | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:27AM

Bob,

Here's another issue to think about: the decision to introduce the product in the US first. Asia and Europe have far more mature cell services, with 3G widely available. So why would Apple choose to intro the iPhone to a much smaller market, namely just Cingular subscribers?

Apple has traditionally had a US-centric view of its markets, but now with the iPhone this view of the world may hurt the company; I believe it will. We're talking about two regions representing about 800 million people in countries with extensive cell networks and wide availability of 3G, compared to Cingular, which has 15 million people and no 3G service.

I think Apple's plans are going to hurt iPhone sales. There's no similar anomaly in the computer or music player markets like there is with the US/North American cell landscape, and this time I think Apple forgot to look at a major market factor.

Graham Fair | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:48AM

Quote from Jobs today:

“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

This is further proof that somehow he actually does not get it.

There are two divisions on a phone - IP and Switched. The realty is that with many years of GPRS usage over the phone networks we do not seek networks crashing. The IP world is the promising one. People want the Internet on the phone. The internet is open and free.

He is just rehashing wat mobile operators have tried to do - dictate what applications you can have. They are failing. Apple can get some things right I am sure, but I want myself to be able to load whatever applcation I want on my phone and use IP services as I wish.

He somehow believes then that he can succeed where others have failed. The reality is the open Internet world throws up the strange and wonderful applications that feed niches. Mobile operators beleieve we want BIG applications that they decide via market research. market research will never tell them about You Tube or My Space.

He is essentially full of shit when he makes this complaint about phone applications. He has now entered the mobile operators reality distortion field. They have never really had a workable strategy, and a fundemantal part of this lack is the opening up of the phone to be a REAL internet client.

All this money to buy a cobbled platform? Not for me thanks.

By the way I am a Mac user for 17 years and have battled my way through corporate consulting engaments always using my Mac in the face of dissent etc.

I am also a Mobile Portal Architect who has worked with all the major European operators.

iPhone is based upon this quote now just a shiny toy. I will stick with my P900, thanks - which can run applications I download - gasp - all without crashing the network.

Jobs is only human after all and humans often make mistakes in going outside of their areas of comptence.

The real problem today is not really the phones ( yes they are a part of the problem ) - the real problem is the GATEKEEPERS - the mobile operators. They need to be smashed and defeated. The iPhone is not going to fix the mess these operators are in.

Mobile operators are seriously big organization with huge cash flows. Apple is not going to defeat them.

What the mobile world really needs is clever and seamless integration between the back end and the phone - as such the operators mobile portals are in reality ( or should be ) a distributed operating system. They are not. They are hacks and legacy and complication and lack of architecture and etc etc.

They are a swamp. A swamp the iPhone is not going to drain.

A final point which also pissed me off. Why this f***g lag from US launch to Europe? I mean - they had 2.5 years to prepare the European mobile operators, and it is JUST A PHONE.

The hint here is that it is a mess and a bodge to connect the phone and the feature set to each mobile operator. Each launch will ne constrained by technical integration that in essence is a one off which in mobile operator land means minmum of 9 months. All projects in mobile land takes at least 9 months and is delayed at least once.

The reality is the other operators have learned how to easily launch a new phone....or at least design a phone that works with what exists on the back end.

Kevin Brown | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:14AM

Quote from Jobs today:

“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

This is further proof that somehow he actually does not get it.

There are two divisions on a phone - IP and Switched. The realty is that with many years of GPRS usage over the phone networks we do not seek networks crashing. The IP world is the promising one. People want the Internet on the phone. The internet is open and free.

He is just rehashing wat mobile operators have tried to do - dictate what applications you can have. They are failing. Apple can get some things right I am sure, but I want myself to be able to load whatever applcation I want on my phone and use IP services as I wish.

He somehow believes then that he can succeed where others have failed. The reality is the open Internet world throws up the strange and wonderful applications that feed niches. Mobile operators beleieve we want BIG applications that they decide via market research. market research will never tell them about You Tube or My Space.

He is essentially full of shit when he makes this complaint about phone applications. He has now entered the mobile operators reality distortion field. They have never really had a workable strategy, and a fundemantal part of this lack is the opening up of the phone to be a REAL internet client.

All this money to buy a cobbled platform? Not for me thanks.

By the way I am a Mac user for 17 years and have battled my way through corporate consulting engaments always using my Mac in the face of dissent etc.

I am also a Mobile Portal Architect who has worked with all the major European operators.

iPhone is based upon this quote now just a shiny toy. I will stick with my P900, thanks - which can run applications I download - gasp - all without crashing the network.

Jobs is only human after all and humans often make mistakes in going outside of their areas of comptence.

The real problem today is not really the phones ( yes they are a part of the problem ) - the real problem is the GATEKEEPERS - the mobile operators. They need to be smashed and defeated. The iPhone is not going to fix the mess these operators are in.

Mobile operators are seriously big organization with huge cash flows. Apple is not going to defeat them.

What the mobile world really needs is clever and seamless integration between the back end and the phone - as such the operators mobile portals are in reality ( or should be ) a distributed operating system. They are not. They are hacks and legacy and complication and lack of architecture and etc etc.

They are a swamp. A swamp the iPhone is not going to drain.

A final point which also pissed me off. Why this f***g lag from US launch to Europe? I mean - they had 2.5 years to prepare the European mobile operators, and it is JUST A PHONE.

The hint here is that it is a mess and a bodge to connect the phone and the feature set to each mobile operator. Each launch will ne constrained by technical integration that in essence is a one off which in mobile operator land means minmum of 9 months. All projects in mobile land takes at least 9 months and is delayed at least once.

The reality is the other operators have learned how to easily launch a new phone....or at least design a phone that works with what exists on the back end.

Kevin Brown | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:14AM

Graham Fair is correct. Vodafone has 100+ million customers. Orange has 60+ million customers. If I were a shareholder of Apple I would be asking hard questions about the ill thought out roll out strategy.

I am sure the integratio of the voice mail feature would have been much easier with Orange - given that Orange for years now can email you a copy of your voice message. I NEVER dial up to listen to my voice message - I listen to them in the order I choose via my inbox.

Kevin | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:21AM

I think you're absolutely right Apple will rename the iPhone. The word 'iPhone' doesn't even appear on it:

http://www.nickjarman.com/hardware/iphone-wheres-the-branding

Apple Phone sounds like a good bet to me.

Nick Jarman | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:47AM

Subtract the Cingular (now AT&T) access and Apple still has a viable product for those of us that are not addicted to cell phones.

Think of this Apple convergent gizmo as the mising Mac tablet platform shrunk down to PDA size due to the new finger-controlled interface features. It still has Wi-Fi access for communication needs plus it can at least replace our now dated iPod Nano or Mini for entertainment purposes.

Trade a hard drive for cell phone transmitter and the feature mix of this extreme iPod becomes even more attractive.

Roy | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:48AM

You are missing the point if you don't see that the user interface will be driving the sales of this product. Despite the horrible mess the mobile operators are in at the moment, a few years down the road when Cingular's exclusivity is a thing of the past, some will get with the program just to have this phone available to their customers. And it won't be this phone either because if Apple upgrades this product at the same pace they upgrade the iPods and the Macintoshes and OS X then the iPhone (or ApplePhone) of two years hence will be a lot more powerful.

Also as a software developer, noticing that the phone runs a version OS X convinces me that Apple will be quick to adapt the phone as necessary. I might also add that widgets are easy to develop and can be created from almost any web page. Expect the memory of the phone to expand as memory gets denser and cheaper.

And of course expect to see multi-touch technology in other products.

Barry Scott | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:54AM

A couple of comments - new and referring to previous posts:

1. This product is fascinating for the clash of Telco and IT cultures. Note the relaxed presentations from Jobs, Schmidt and Yang - and the wooden verbiage from Stan Sigman.

2. The iPhone (for now) cuts across everything that mobile operators have been trying do over last 7 years since mobile packet data came about - special content portals, ringtones, music downloads (using OMA standards), video etc. But mobile operators efforts to date have been feeble - I actually think that being a Telco. probably rules you out of being a media provider, the two are so far apart. And the ironic thing is that operators tried to do this with mobile devices they didn't even produce!

3. All CDMA (US CDMA and GSM 3G) based radios use far more battery power than TDMA (GSM incl. EDGE), when idle and when sending/receiving. RIM have only released 1 x 3GSM BlackBerry and its battery life is appalling - not sure how they handle US 2G CDMA devices. When Apple do come to a 3G (or 3.5G HSDPA) and pay real attention to detail then they should consider the email using TDMA for 'always on' and only changing to 3G when some application requires sustained data throughput - and the user doesn't need to know.

4. 3G (GSM only) frequencies are still evolving and it is not yet clear which ones you would need to have one 3G phone for the world. Quad band GSM obviously works for 2G and 3G is heading the same way. The first 3G frequencies are all high band (2100/1900MHZ) but the distance propogation is not enough so lower frequencies are being developed. It is a sensible decision to wait and see how this pans out - but EDGE web browsing is the achilles heal of this device. In the US you seem to have free WiFi everywhere but that simply isn't the case elsewhere. Trying to use public WiFi as any kind of data service is untenable - especially for Apple - would've thought they would also do a partnership with some large WiFi aggregator.

5. When you think of all the Nokia/Motorola/Sony Ericsson phones out there, hardly any could be considered 'iconic' - there is simply a deluge of them. BlackBerry have nearly achieved iconic status in the business market and the field is wide open in consumer land.

6. As for RIM/BlackBerry, they really should focus back on their business market. They were just starting to venture into the consumer market (with the Pearl) but it took them 3 years of development to simply add a track-ball and a camera! Their core strength is robust mission critical data transport and robust devices - stick to it. It is surprising that they don't have any truly ruggedised devices for field work - I have customers who would jump at them.

The iPhone is simply breathtaking - I'll buy one in a heartbeat!

Timmy H | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:57AM

".....The iPhone (for now) cuts across everything that mobile operators have been trying do over last 7 years since mobile packet data came about - special content portals, ringtones, music downloads (using OMA standards), video etc. But mobile operators efforts to date have been feeble....."

The sad thing is that this phone is also feeble relative to the potential that a revolutionary device could have had.

This phone might cut across these areas but to nail these areas remains to be seen.

The only way in my opinion is to remove the mobile operator from the equation. A mobile phone is LIKE an IP device but it still needs mobile stuff. All the operators can do is provide the radio network and call control. Jobs should ( with his love of control and perfection ) taken responsibilty for the end to end Service/Application experience.

You cannot have a good experience with a mobile operator in tandem with you.

MVNO was the way forward. In my opinion of course.

Kevin | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:14AM

The reason why they didn't use iTV had nothing to do with Elgato but has a lot to do with the U.K. television station called ITV. Please do a little more research.

Joe | Jan 12, 2007 | 5:06AM

Just a quick note on Timmy H's comment #4: As far as I know WiFi is at least as power-hungry as 3G CDMA connectivity, so it isn't really a solution to the power consumption issue even in areas with complete WiFi coverage.

Rofa | Jan 12, 2007 | 5:45AM

Mmmm, I completely agree on the iPhone thing.

Let's see.. the iTV becoming Apple TV.. the iPhone may become an Apple Phone.. the Beatles featuring prominently in Steve Jobs demo.. rumours of Beatles downloads from iTMS... Apple Corps losing against Apple Computer in 2006.. Apple Computer Inc becoming Apple Inc..

There is a deal lurking in the wings here that will mean Jobs gets to be on stage with Macca and Ringo, the Beatles being bigger than Jesus again (in iTunes downloads) and the Apple brand finally getting to be bigger than the Mac or iPod brands.

And a Mac is just another Intel PC now. In the future you might still buy a Mac but your mother, your brother and your lover will be buying Apple PCs.

gazzer | Jan 12, 2007 | 6:45AM

There's another possibility behind the names:

People have already started calling it the iPhone. And even if Cisco forces Jobs to rebrand it an 'ApplePhone', we, the public, will keep calling it an iPhone.

Could take years to get through the courts. I used Cisco's iPhone on a contract last year. Big, ugly, clunky things no one used and no one could be bothered figuring how to use (which in an IT dept says something :-). We used the PBX instead. You wouldn't confuse Cisco's iPhone with Apples. Apple's lawyers would argue they're completely different products. But ultimately it doesn't matter. To the public, it's an iPhone.

Beeje | Jan 12, 2007 | 6:45AM

The camera is on the back of the phone. If the camera were on the front of the phone, it seems to me it would take very little to let it do iChat video conferencing over 802.11. That would have made a fabulous demo at MacWorld. The impact on Apple's stock price might have been fabulous. Steve seems to love to demo this kind of thing...

I am very bothered by the closed system; am a physician and the killer apps for my PalmOS devices have all been the type of thing Apple won't do: A drug reference that syncs but doesn't require wireless access at the bedside (where its typically forbidden) or in the office where its unavailable. Medical calculators like medcalc, medmath and medrules, all of which seem to have been written by users using free software tools out of love. The killer app for me is certainly not an iPod that might be big enough to hold 30% of my music collection.

john Raines | Jan 12, 2007 | 6:52AM

One other publicity advantage for Apple with a planned namechange från iPhone to Apple Phone is the fact that the real introduction of iPhone is several months in the future.

With this second coming of iPhone, a name change makes sure it get's even more attention around the Interweb.

I've already put together the new logo for Apple Phone (a phone). Please feel free to use it with this article (link).

Keep up the good work Bob...

John Sandström | Jan 12, 2007 | 6:57AM

One other publicity advantage for Apple with a planned namechange från iPhone to Apple Phone is the fact that the real introduction of iPhone is several months in the future.

With this second coming of iPhone, a name change makes sure it get's even more attention around the Interweb.

I've already put together the new logo for Apple Phone (a phone). Please feel free to use it with this article (link).

Keep up the good work Bob...

John Sandström | Jan 12, 2007 | 6:58AM

I doubt that it is a firmware upgrade from GPRS/EDGE to 3G as the former is based on GSM TDMA access and the latter on (W)CDMA. I do however expect a 3G apple phone or two (one for CDMA2000 and one for UMTS) and I would expect the global operators such as T-mobile, vodafone and orange to be covertly bidding for exclusive rights to such a thing so that they get some ROI on their 3G networks.

Francis | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:08AM

here is a quote from somebody at Cisco:
"This is not about money. We were seeking to work closely with Apple to make our devices more interoperable," Noh said Thursday. "Cell phones, work phones, home phones, personal computers — they're all converging. The value of that convergence is limitless, and the key to that is industrywide interoperability. It's a core tenets to our business."

Would it be technically feasible for the iPhone, with some licensing of technology from cisco, to be able to seamlessly switch from not just Edge to WiFi, but also from cell phone to VOiP phone?

if that is already in the works than this whole iPhone trademark noise is just wonderful free publicity, with more to come when Cisco and Apple kiss and make up and the iPhone continues with the Cisco VOiP technology embedded.

John D | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:18AM

Cisco is on the record now for what they where asking from Apple- to be included.


Which is interesting on a few levels.

First, it shows that Cisco sees this as an opening to sell more of their home market (Linksys) goods.


Second, it shows that Cisco sees this as another homerun from Apple in the consumer market, and wanted to hitch a ride on that train.


It's interesting to see where the self interest of companies leads us.

HRieke | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:56AM


You hit the nail on the head -- that was my first thought, too -- publicity. Makes even more sense with the change of the company name to simply Apple, Inc. I believe we will see an ApplePhone and it will take all of three seconds for everyone to get used to it. Nothing magical about the "i" and it has been overused by so many non-related companies that I expect we will see the Apple name grow in prominence on products.

healthinsurance.org | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:57AM

It is interesting to see why Jobs has decided to make the iPhone announcement in Macworld before APPL has reached such a trake mark licensing deal with CSCO.

The whole thing to me is a very chaotic rather than a well planned move:

1) why force users to lock up by Cingular?

2) what's the urgency to use the brandname 'iPhone' if that has not been arranged with CSCO? Jobs can just use any name until that was settled. In fact he has done so with the APPLE TV. [it was not called "APPLE TV" when it was first announced]

3) seems like it's a GSM phone (Cingular is a GSM operator), why the roll out plan is first in US (more accurately Cingular only), Europe 2nd and then Asia instead of a worldwide launch? Don't forget GSM has a much higher user base internationally than within US.

The only possible reason I can think of is that the $499 is a future price. Meaning that currenlty the cost is in fact higher than 499, and probably only Cingular is willing to sell it at 499 and it will absorb the delta as subscriber acquisition cost with a 2 years lock up. [and hence APPL allows Cingular to do such lock up]

the REAL cost will go down to 499 street price in 12-24 months and only when that happens iPhone can be marketed to other regions without the need having service providers to subsidize the differential.

happyman3388 | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:59AM

Actually, a firmware upgrade COULD be all that is necessary. But only if the phone already has a 3G radio included, and it is software that is keeping the phone on the 2G network at this time. It would probably require someone to open the phone up and look at the components. (My 3G Cingular phone works on the 2G network when no 3G is available, and can also be set in settings to be 2G only).

Kevin | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:04AM

Doesn't also serve a dual purpose. Getting Apple on everyone's mind, but secondly, putting negative mind share on Cisco if they don't give up the Trademark.

According to the rumor pages, Apple has the Trademark everywhere but the USA. Cisco wouldn't be able to take the product global anyway.

Mike | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:08AM

Apple is exposing Cisco for doing the equivalent of domain parking. The iMac has been around for 10 years now, why would anyone make an iAnything? It's a small 3rd party move.

I would expect Apple to say the right things to Cingular now, and when the phone is released users will find out how to put Skype on it themselves. It will appear to technical people that the small obstacle is almost an invitation to do these things, but Apple can claim the phone was hacked to Cingular.

Anyway for such a rich screen who wants to download many videos directly to the phone, when iTunes does a great job providing free video podcasts and not free TV shows and movies. Broadband at home is still faster and makes more sense.

I only hope a non-phone version of this next generation video iPod become available. Some people still want 80GB.

Erik | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:13AM

To those quoting Job's interview in today's NYT: read the whole thing. He says later that third-party apps will be available, but hints at some kind of certification or testing program.

Jobs' position on third-party apps reeks of short-term accomodation of the cell phone carriers. Carriers are nervous as pregnant nuns about smartphone apps. They're constantly disabling features and spending huge amounts of cash on crap like Vcast. Who wants Vcast when you can just d/l video and music using third party apps?

mistermix | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:15AM

metaPhone....

tonton libre | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:34AM

I wonder about VoIP on the iPhone. This would make the iPhone much more popular with consumers and the exact opposite with carriers... Would Apple be able to keep Skype off of the iPhone citing stability issues? I predict more lawsuits.


About the 3G: I don't think this is as trivial to support as you seem to think, Bob. Since even in our little, flat and densely populated country (the Netherlands) UMTS/3G coverage is problematic outside the cities, having just 3G isn't good enough. Having to support even more frequency bands and more advanced electronics to support the higher data rates would be bad enough, but having both GSM and UMTS certified would probably increase the time to market even more.


I don't believe the video has anything to do with it: synced video from the iTunes store blows away anything you can stream over 3G, I'm sure Apple wouldn't worry about this kind of competition.

Iljitsch van Beijnum | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:43AM

I was so looking for your Google story… Now I have to wait another week.

On a different note, you once mentioned about possible cooperation between Apple and Blockbuster. I recently analyzed Blockbuster’s financial reports for my finance project and realized that Blockbuster is renting all their stores. So why not just wait for them to go bust and took over the lese?

Piotr | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:49AM

People complaining about a lack of open architecture on the iPhone are missing the fact that it's already there: it runs Safari.



Even without a direct OS X API, you have a standards-compliant web-enabled AJAX platform that will by definition interoperate with PC's, Macs, Linux and every other standards-complianct device in the world.



Apple is just positioning itself:


(1) to comfort Cingular that nobody will be writing iPhone viruses,


(2) establish itself in the revenue streams of licensing/signing certified applications,

(3) being the portal through which they are bought and

(4) protecting itself from liability by not (yet) officially supporting an open API, which they can then open up "regretfully" once someone hacks a way into the API anyway (which is inevitable).

Brian Gallagher | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:13AM

I believe that the next big oppurtunity for so called iPhone would come from porn. Men would be oohhed by the hand gestures to fast forward/ rewind etc and why shouldn't some people earn money out of it?

Abhishek | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:21AM

I think there's another part to the 3G mystery (why it's not supported), which is that maybe Apple thinks they have a niche: making it a great phone for regular calls, and a great PDA-like device when Wifi is available where you are. Wifi gives them better QOS, speed, without compromises. I still don't hear the same said about 3G. Their bet may be that people really just want to use the "internet" features of the phone when they are near 802.11 nets and not really when they're just travelling around the country and in 3G range. Patrick

Patrick Wright | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:28AM

I am curious about the video application. The phone runs OSX. It should support iChat. If QuickTime or H.264 were supported on the network, it should be able to support a live videoconference on the phone. But isn't the camera on the back of the phone?

Also, does anyone see a way it will support Outlook? This is the key reason there are so many Blackberrys out there.

kent | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:32AM

How much freakin' money do these guys need to have in order to compensate for whatever must be lacking in their lives.

drewby | Jan 11, 2007 | 10:00PM

If it was just about money, there would've been a retreat to the yacht or mansion years ago. I think the $ is a by-product of the power trip.

As the Oracle stated in the second Matrix movie, "What do all men with power want? More power." Power is hijacking Apples' gadgets and selling them as your own. Power is stealing double-digit market growth from the largest software company in the world. Power is getting your products included in the OED, or Merriams' dictionary. The arrival of the iPod could be likened to the arrival of the microwave oven or the telephone - it will eventually change forever the way humans listen to portable music or speech. So why stop there?

-GFO

GuyFromOhio | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:34AM

As someone who dragged crates of vinyl records around for years, I am still totally amazed that every bit of music I own fits in my shirt pocket.

I think the magic of the a/iPhone will be having the entire internet in your pocket. Sure, there are other 'phones' that do internet, but it is too small and clunky to be useful.

Also, I think it has an ipod dock on it, so think of all the nifty plug-ins Belkin and Griffin can make for it.

SirRobert | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:18AM

Kent:

You could get access via OWA, but so far nothing else seems likely. Want to bet that the v2.0 release includes something for you, though?

Brian | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:22AM

Pogue says in the New York Times that it will only take a software upgrade to turn the 3G capability on in the iPhone.

Paul Guinnessy | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:07AM

There's no way that Apple build a separate HSPDA radio into these phones and simply have chosen not to turn it on. To say that all it would take is a firmware upgrade to enable 3G is on par with saying a CD-ROM drive could be turned into a DVD-ROM with only software tweaks.

Pork Rind | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:18AM

"The arrival of the iPod could be likened to the arrival of the microwave oven or the telephone - it will eventually change forever the way humans listen to portable music or speech."
GuyFromOhio...

LOL... care to enlighten us in regards to how the MICROWAVE OVEN changed how we listen to music? :D

VaughnSC | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:32AM

"The arrival of the iPod could be likened to the arrival of the microwave oven or the telephone - it will eventually change forever the way humans listen to portable music or speech."
GuyFromOhio...

LOL... care to enlighten us in regards to how the MICROWAVE OVEN changed how we listen to music? :D

VaughnSC | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:32AM

Apple had better have a good idea who its market is. The iPod is a device for personal/recreational use. Anyone doing, say, medical dictations into some microphone plugged into their iPod, or using the iPod contacts list to make sales calls is going way against the grain. But a multifunctional handheld, i.e. smartphone? Look at who uses them: business people, physicians, lawyers, and the like. They're for work, primarily. Although it would be nice to watch "The Office" in widescreen while riding the bus to work or trotting on the treadmill at the gym, iPhone is overkill. Make a widescreen iPod, then.

By the way, MY slideshow of my beautiful hipster friends building sand castles and getting in getting snowball fights is so better than YOUR slideshow of the mountain biking and high-fiving the fake centurions at the colosseum, dude. Totally.

Ahem. Especially considering the price and power of this thing, the larger market is professional users. In addition to concerns that the battery may not be changable for the road warriors out there, I am concerned about the openness of this device. If one can not load 3rd party software onto it, many potential users are going to be disapplointed, myself included. Me, i'm a palm-using physician who also carries a cell phone (and sometimes an iPod), and I pretty much need a small clutch of third-party Palm apps (especially ePocrates) to get through my week. Apple doing medical software? No. ePocrates makes pocket PC, palm and web versions of their little suite, and it's really useful and actually quite simple.

Now, everyone says all this stuff is moving to "the cloud", and from the internet we'll be able draw ad infinitum. epocrates has already written a desktop, web-based package for this. Why not just be happy with a thin-client, web-based experience? Two problems: first, those page loads were a little slow during that keynote. I'd much rather store my drug database locally. Second, if everything is moving to the cloud, that access had better be cheap. It had better have that all-you-can-eat feel to it, like terrestrial broadband does. This would need a paradigm shift. At this point, carriers price data plans like they're afraid you're gonna use them. They need to jump into the next century, drop the rates, and engender a dependence people can actually afford! They need to price this stuff the way iTunes priced music: to move, and thereby to sell hardware. If they do that, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, live life in the cloud with Safari: Spreadsheet? Safari. Crossword puzzle? Safari. Quicken? safari for that, too.

Apple: either open the platform so people can install software they use, or negotiate with cingular to make "the cloud" a place you can afford to visit frequently. Otherwise, enjoy your 3-5 year lead, because J allard and microsoft are coming, and they're pissed; They'll do something with 70% of the quality, but it'll be open, and before long, the iPhone will inherit the market share of the Mac. There may be a computer in every house NOW, but the Microsoft hegemony took root years ago, and that battle was lost in the business market.

Ben | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:48AM

"To say that all it would take is a firmware upgrade to enable 3G is on par with saying a CD-ROM drive could be turned into a DVD-ROM with only software tweaks. -Pork Rind"



Unless the "CD-ROM" drive is actually a DVD-ROM drive with firmware preventing it from reading DVDs. I admit I don't know the first thing about cell phone hardware, but is it possible this is a 3G device locked by firmware to access 2G only?

Pootle | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:53AM

If you haven't seen the movie "The Presidents Analyst", go see it. The gist of the movie is there is a new superpower -- the phone company.

I don't know the whole story behind the original AT&T breakup, but one of the baby bells SBC took it very personal. They were mad at AT&T and were not content with their situation after the breakup. They went on mission to take over the world, and they are doing it. SBC has bought many of the USA telcos, then recently AT&T. They then changed their company name to AT&T. Today in the news is a story that Cingular is going to become AT&T too.

Could we have another monopoly in the making?

SBC has been very active in Washington DC. Their finger prints are all over the communications reform laws in the past 10+ years. They have carefully crafted a business where much of their revenue is not under government regulation.

AT&T has another high profile partnership -- with Yahoo. It was a good move for both companies. However I suspect AT&T would rather not share the limelight and profits with Yahoo. Eventually I can see AT&T either buying Yahoo or separating from them.

The deal with Apple will probably be very good for AT&T. However I can't see it being a long term thing. There is too much greed and ego behind this deal. Eventually the parties will split.

AT&T scares me. I've been an SBC customer for decades and my phone bill is, well, frightening, and I don't have all the extra cost tech options. They are not committed to cutting costs and reducing my phone bill. They are very good at giving my state's utility commission a snow job.

I see the AT&T and iPhone (soon to be the Apple Phone) deal to be the next opportunity for AT&T to get more of our money. It won't be just the cost of the music downloads, there will be numerous other fees attached to the process of getting the content into the phone.

The Presidents Analyst | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:01PM

GuyFromOhio wrote: "If it was just about money, there would've been a retreat to the yacht or mansion years ago. I think the $ is a by-product of the power trip."

Touche. You are quite right it is about the power. Call me naive but I like to think that as Dave Winer stated in Season 1 of Nerd TV that someday maybe Bill will become a mensch and do the same thing for the computer industry as he is doing through the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. I have hopes of Jobs being grabbed by that same spirit of altruism.

Just imagine how much better computers and software would be if there had been real competition over the past 25 years. If you can't imagine that, just look at the amazing evolution of the cell phone industry over the past ten years. If Bob is right and Jobs has purposely disabled features that would make their phone even better in favor of some "business maneuver" we all lose because the competition bar hasn't been raised as high as it could have been.

Sorry for the sermon. I tend to rant while I'm impatiently waiting for Season 2 of Nerd TV.

drewby | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:05PM

a keen observation about creating buzz with purposeful use of 'iPhone' name. it will be interesting to see the 'carriers vs. apple' battle over 'Apple Phone' or 'iPhone'. i am sure the Apple Phone will eventually permeate across the globe eventually. it remains to be seen how Apple will be able to control the content distribution channel (like iTune)...

kaeah | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:07PM

The "Apple Phone" idea sure answers a question I had when I saw it at MacWorld this week. I'm looking at it as it's rotating and on the back is just an Apple logo. Huh? The 3G iPod on my desk has the Apple logo and the word "iPod" on its back, as does my brand new nano. I was wondering why the "iPhone" just had the Apple logo but no "iPhone" on it. A silly observation, sure, and probably just a case of making something out of nothing but, then again, maybe not.

MTS | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:32PM

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.
But let's look at the slightly larger, and distinctly NON-MAC Version.

I've had a pocket PC phone for years now. I've enjoyed video, MP3, and yes, even live TV long before Jobs et all. Oh, and wait, I can write my own apps for it.
I don't really see anything new here, especially after the revelations of this column.

Bob, despite the years, you are still thinking "apple-centric." Come back from the dark side.....
Windows still, and always has, rules!

Eric J. White | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:41PM

I think this CISCO Apple thing has to do with much more than the IPhone. Remember, Apple just introduced Apple TV, and CISCO wants to get into the living room also. I see Apple giving up IPhone in return for CISCO staying out of the consumer living room. Call me crazy, but it just dawned on me as to why Aplle would want to tangle with CISCO at this time.

Albert Leccese | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:53PM

I still think Apple should call their new phone the iCall.

San Nostra-dimas | Jan 12, 2007 | 12:56PM

My thoughts are along the same lines...the phone when released will be called an iPod (something). the iPod brand is simply too strong and valuable. i see no way that Apple could drop it in favor of iPhone or Apple Phone. However if they had introduced it on Tuesday as the iPod (something) then the Technology sections of newspapers around the country would have said "Apple announces a new iPod." instead they call it an iPhone and it's on the FRONT PAGE of nearly every newspaper around the tech savvy world. Brilliant move... Cisco bit is a non issue...

Edmond | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:23PM

I expect (hope) that the Cingular-exclusive deal won't last much past v1.0 of the iPhone (everyone will still call it that, even if Apple renames it.) Now that unlocking phones is 'legal' what is to stop people from using this phone with other services? It's obviously not all that tied in with Cingular-specific services (their video deal) - and isn't Apple about selling hardware anyway? It's in their best interest to allow as many people to buy this phone as possible. I'm sure that Apple isn't pleased with lots of what Cingular wants, and will be happy to break their deal ASAP.

I really hope that they open it to other technologies. Currently, I have Sprint. (I've been happy with them. But of course they suck. All cell phone companies suck.) I don't know if they will bother to make a CDMA version (CDMA > GSM. Just cause more people use GSM doesn't mean its better. CDMA packs far more into the same channels) but it does do WiMAX. Will this open up the iPhone to Sprint/Nextel when they launch WiMAX phone service? And iTunes on the phone could also use WiMAX for direct downloads.

Andy Armagost | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:23PM

One addendum... I wonder if the Cingular deal is solely for the "iPhone". What happens if Apple is "forced" to change the phone's name? Will this affect the contract with Cingular now that the phone may no longer be able to be sold under that name?

Andy Armagost | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:27PM

Um, when Jobs disclosed the iTV, he said that that would not be its name when it was sold. There was no name change AFAWK because no name was ever announced. "iTV" was just a code name or placeholder name.

Gary D Shapiro | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:33PM

Never understood why Apple didn't use aMac, aPod, aPhone, aTV etc.

Perhaps they will.

Geoff Lane | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:35PM

The inclusion of 802.11b/g on the iPhone will mitigate surfing (and video) slowness, at least when in an area where that is available. Based on my experience, it is getting easier and easier to find hotspots; just walk through any suburban neighborhood and see how many of your neighbors didn't bother to set any kind of security on the home wireless networks...

Paul Haight | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:40PM

As regards my earlier post, I should clarify that Apple may give up the name "iPhone" , not the phone itself, in return for CISCO staying out of the livingroom. Faced with massive protracted legal procedures and bills, it might be a compromise that both will be able to live with.

Albert Leccese | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:41PM

> LOL... care to enlighten us in regards to how the MICROWAVE OVEN changed how we listen to music? :D
----
sure! :)
the microwave makes me turn the radio off, because the radio interference is horrible. Although it does make me wonder sometimes if that is where the makers of the Contact! movie got their inspiration for what intelligent signals from space might sound like :grin:

matt | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:53PM

When Apple first came out with the iPod years ago, it was strongly criticized by the pundits and analysts for not being innovative, for being too expensive, yada yada yada.

Here we are today, with the iPod dominating the music player industry.

The same thing will happen in the high end cellphone business.

Few people use their phones to play MP3s. It is just not easy to load and synchronize your music on today's cell phones. People instead use their iPods when they want to listen to music.

Few people use smartphones. They are too complex. They are prone to crashing. Would you give a smartphone to your tech-unsaavy grandmother?

People don't realize the demographic of who uses Apple products. About half of people using Macs and iPods are nearly 50 and above. They choose Macs and iPods because they are so easy to use to do the things they want.

The iPhone will be the same. It addresses a much larger demographic than those covered by smartphones.

Every kid will wants an iPod for Christmas. Since the iPhone is also the best video iPod - plus a cell phone, every kid will now want an iPhone for Christmas.

The iPhone is not only perfect for kids, it is perfect for grandparents and anyone in between.

This cell phone is going to be huge!

JamesKatt | Jan 12, 2007 | 1:58PM

Bob - You are right on with the switch to Apple Phone. I noticed yesterday when taking a look at the iPhone homepage on the Apple site (http://www.apple.com/iphone/) the word "iPhone" is proceeded by the Apple logo. A true indication of your prediction manifesting as I have never seen this done before by Jobs. Anyone else?

JP | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:35PM

The iPhone is not only perfect for kids, it is perfect for grandparents and anyone in between.


Not for $600 a pop.

Some of us simply require a phone, caller ID and a contact list. No silly camera (a no-no if you happen to work in a "secure" environment), no MP3 player, just decent battery life. Yes, I know, I'm not cutting-edge. But then again, if I drop my simple phone in the toilet, I won't be in the proveribal shit.

I R A Darth Aggie | Jan 12, 2007 | 2:55PM

Bob, great Cisco/Apple angle. I'm fully on board with Apple's marketing, or pre-marketing, strategies to gain free publicity, but didn't see the lawsuit angle until you brought it up.

In regards to the comments here, I'm surprised at how few are speaking out about the fact that the iPhone is a carrier-locked handset.

As a shareholder I'm livid. I see the short-term benefits, learning from Cingular might prove to be as valuable a situation as Pixar learning film distribution from Disney, but but locking the phone to one carrier severely limits its sales potential.

As an Apple customer since 1986 I'm livid. This is the FIRST Apple product that no matter how much money I have, and no matter how much I want to buy it, the iPhone is useless to me as announced because Cingular's network doesn't cover my home/office.

Locked handsets are so 1984.

Long-term I'm fine with it all. All of us who want an iPhone will eventually be able to buy and use one, but that's looking like it's going to be two years from now. And, no, while tempting, I'm probably not going to be buying my unlocked black market iPhone off ebay for $1200-1800 just so I don't have to switch from TMob.

Finally, I was hoping against hope that Apple would quietly sell unlocked iPhones in Apple Retail Stores, explaining to those who asked that some of the features, such as Cingular's visual voicemail, were in fact exclusive and would not work on other GSM networks.

Matthew Wanderer | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:32PM

Bob Cringley, you did some excellent research here and I agree wholeheartedly with your "Conspiracy Theory".

You know that Apple trademarked "Mobile Me" but for some reason "Knowledge Navigator" was not.

David Biedney discussed the Knowledge Navigator on the Tech Night Owl LIVE podcast last night (Thursday, 01-11-2007) at http://www.techboradcasting.com and I found two videos that show the "Knowledge Navigator" concept in action from 1987 and 1988 with "The Power to Be Your Best!".

I think we are almost there...

http://www.billzarchy.com/clips/clips_apple_nav.htm

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/movies/knowledge-navigator.html

Robert Pritchett | Jan 12, 2007 | 3:51PM

Hmmm.... one of the concerns I heard from my co-workers was the absence of business-oriented features, compared to a Blackberry.

It just struck me that Cisco (with their IP phones) already have voicemail email integration, web configuration, and other advanced phone features, that could easily be accessed over WiFi by the Apple product. Could the trademark negotiations between Cisco and Apple merely be part of a bigger cooperative effort?

Milan | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:02PM

Bob,

The iPhone is technically much more expensive than your Nokia N.93, because you can buy an N.93 for well less than a kilobuck, but you can't buy an iPhone at any price. That makes it the most expensive.

And why not just call it the iPodPhone, or iPhonePod, which covers all three of its functions and shouldn't have trademark problems? Basically because Steve Jobs is a stubborn as.....

Of course the other product should be called iTV. Idiot [Box] Television is a long, and well-regarded, term.

David | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:17PM

Bob,

You know, this Apple Phone -- I am Phone, not a PDA -- product could be the greatest new thing for Google on the horizon. Why? Google is already in-bed with Apple (Eric Schmidt on the Apple board). Since this thing is not a PDA, it's totally ripe for web-enabled, PDA-like, functionality. And that's where Google can totally score!

David | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:25PM

This is comment and question to the laywers here -- if Apple started the FCC approval calling the device 'iPhone' under the assumption that they would settle with Cisco before the launch, then doesn't Apple have to stick to that until the FCC approval goes through? Would it throw a wrench into the FCC process if they relabeled the device now?

If so, they are playing a game that Linksys (owned by Cisco) has played already. The WiFi/broadband router WRT54GL is sold as such because they can ride the Linux wave -- that's what the L stands for in the name. But it's really a WRT54G v4 (no L) as far as the FCC is concerned. The label Linksys uses allows them to charge more for a device and is different from the FCC name.

If Apple gets the FCC approval as iPhone and then launches the ApplePhone, then they are just messing with Cisco for now. Fun.

Tom V. | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:32PM

lol @ "Yeah, right: I'm 100 percent convinced that all it would take to turn an EDGE iPhone into a 3G iPhone is a firmware upgrade, if that."

and Teledex, Nuvio, Comwave and a few others work with Cisco.

name | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:35PM

Keep in mind the WRT54GL nomeclature is also a bone cisco threw at us who like running non-standard firmware but didn't want to keep exchanging the VxWorks half ram new WRT54G's. They get to up-sell an old product and sell the new cheaper product at the same time, it's a win-win for Cisco.

Darin H. | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:50PM

WiFi+2G combo is so much stronger than 3G, and it is bound to win. Either Apple is in the business of supporting phone network overcharging(which only benefits the networks bottom line) by focusing on a closed platform, or they let people in by the back door through WiFi allowing free and paid for content(future Apple protocol/format?)

3G has been out in Europe for a long time and people still dont make video calls. All 3G is ever going to be is 2G with properly configured internet connection.

Henrik | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:50PM

Dominating a market that is noted for demanding free hardware and the resultant bankruptcies hardly seems like a smart move for Apple to me. As to the name, the iBook became the MacBook, so this could become the MacPhone, unless of course McDonalds starts giving those out in Happy Meals first.

Michael | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:52PM

I have a (single) source who says the processor in the iphone is a PPC (from IBM via Samsung). If so.. your MacTel theories, which I have previously discarded as rather nutty
( http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=755 ), about a possible Apple/Ms deal on PCs start to look
more credible.

Any hope you have a confirming source? - one you'd like to share....

Paul Murphy | Jan 12, 2007 | 4:58PM

Personally, I think that the biggest reason for the drop in speed is what you eluded to last week, the lack of bandwidth. The users who initially snag the iPhone will want to not only stream iTunes, but also their Slingbox video, etc - and for the number of users Apple is initially intending to sell to, this could equate to proving how under-provided the Cingular network really is.

By forcing Edge speeds, you can show off the technical capability while Cingular continues to grow their 3G network to support the users. They also get the bonus of seeing how much (and how many) users will actually use the device on the network, adjusting as necessary. Once sales (and usage) stabilize, then I think we'll see the floodgates open up.

Tim Adams | Jan 12, 2007 | 5:20PM

I think the cell phone providers will ultimately become secondary for the iPhone (Apple Phone). I think companies like Google are going to roll out nationwide WiMax and it will be well received, because it will circumvent concerns about net neutrality, which AT&T is certainly against (regardless of their latest agreement). As WiMax becomes available, the iPhone will utilize VOIP, which will probably be offered by Google or Apple (or both). The cell network will end up being a backup resource for when you're out of range. That is the future for the iPhone, and cell providers will be fighting tooth and nail just to hold on to that small part of the business, similar to how Netscape and NetZero struggle to capture the remaining market for dialup.

Jon Henshaw | Jan 12, 2007 | 5:25PM

I don't think that the iPhone will ever sell for $499/599. Being as they have several months until release, Jobs took this oppertunity to annonce an expensive phone with limited storage capacity. Then in May he will announce a price decrease and a storage increase.

If he woudl have annonced a $400 20Gb phone everyone still would complain of an expensive phone that could not hold as much as an iPod, but if he now annonces it in May, it amazingly seems like a great deal, when compared to the origional iPhone specs. I'm not sure how much flash memory they will beable to pack into the iPhone by then, but I bet it will be more than 8Gb.

Steve Bowers | Jan 12, 2007 | 5:52PM

Its not so simple.

UMTS is a bit of a mess technically. For packet switched data, it takes a long time to ramp up to speed, so that for bursty data, Edge usually outperforms UMTS. HSDPA extensions to UMTS are supposed to fix that, but its still very immature technology. UMTS Battery life is also problematic, and coverage is poor. So the phone would still be operating on Edge much of the time. Now add cost - and not just the cost of the chips, but also the percentage per unit royalty that has to be paid for 3G, as ther are many more patent holders for 3G. So adding 3G to an already expesive phone would be even more expensive.

Put all this together, and apple would be silly to make the iPhone 3G. Its enough of a challenge already without adding that risk factors of 3G to it.

Matt | Jan 12, 2007 | 7:53PM

Giving an exclusive to one cell carrier doesn't sound like the way to dominate the market…especially a heavily regulated market like telecommunications. And note the little "cingular" connection indicator in the upper left of the iPhone screen.

http://images.apple.com/iphone/images/indexhero20070109.jpg

I'd say the way to sell phones would be to make a phone that could connect over as many networks as possible, including VoIP-ing through 802.11b/g/n networks.

Heck, maybe Apple (or someone) sets up a "virtual" phone company that buys minutes from ALL the carriers and resells them to you as you use them.

Samuel Greinke | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:09PM

I could be wrong but didn't the iTV issue have more todo with the British broadcasting company, iTV, than with the Elgato device, eyeTV?

I agree with Steve Bowers, and hope that there will be a price reduction and/or storage increase when the iPhone ships.

Unfortunately, if it doesn't have 3G data access and doesn't allow my MacBook to use that 3G data access, I won't be buying one. :-(

Above all I hope the make more use of that new Multi-Touch technology. How about a universal remote that works with Front Row and is programable? (the real kicker would be to bundle it into the iPhone!)

Keith Shaw | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:10PM

Interesting perspective. I agree with some of your points but have a different view on two of them.


First, the benefit of publicity is primarily going to Cisco. Apple was going to get all the articles anyway but now Cisco gets the benefit of being mentioned in almost everyone of them...a huge boost to the very minimal awareness of Cisco's phones. Image what it would have cost them to buy this kind of coverage. Maybe this the payment Apple agreed to...tons of free press worth millions in exchange for the naming rights in June...


Second, Maybe we don't really disagree but I doubt Apple is limiting the 3G protocol to lock in revenue for video downloads. We all know they don't make much from iTunes purchases directly. I guess there is some resistence to enabling the option to use Cingular downloads instead of iTunes but they must believe that anyone who buys this phone is going to be very biased towards iTunes. Seems a smaller issue than the negative press about the missing capability. But I agree that 3G (and other missing features like iTunes, etc) can all be added pretty easily even before the launch. Perhaps Apple is using the published spec to gain free market research and determine what is really important and not.

longboarder | Jan 12, 2007 | 8:45PM

One more comment...


Why is everyone so fixated on Cingular, 3G, etc. As we see with Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, LG, etc they introduce many similar phones (sometime the exact same phone) in many varieties (GSM, CDMA, etc) depending on geography, network, etc. How many versions of the RAZR are there now? Why so much focus on something that really isn't a limitation or technical barrier, particularly this far out in front of its availability...


Who knows, the "exclusivity" with Cingular may only have to do with GSM in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon is already negotiating for a CDMA version...

longboarder | Jan 12, 2007 | 9:10PM

Uh ... you do realize that Apple bought El Gato last year, right?

gino | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:26PM

Uh ... you do realize that Apple bought El Gato last year, right? They also made some even higher profile purchases in the last couple years, so if you want to make any comments about, say, Apple not introducing widescreen tv's and such in the future, you might want to do a little research first ...

santa | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:28PM

So how's this for a theory. Apple courts Cisco, leading them to believe that Apple legal's decision to sign a licensing arrangement for the term "iPhone" is imminent. On the day of the hypothetical signing of this agreement, incidentally the day that the actual device is introduced, the day that Apple wants the most possible exposure, Apple declines the agreement, hence forcing Cisco's hand. Cisco sues, taking Apple's bait.

Why bait, you ask? Apple counters, after it is introduced, that Cisco's suit is "silly." After all, the term "iPhone" has been in the public lexicon for a number of years--Cisco's claim has no merit. And here's where it gets interesting. Why would Apple offer a defense that would admit "iPhone" into the public lexicon, and thereby, offer other vendors the ability to brand their product as an "iPhone?" The answer. Because that's exactly what Apple wants.

Think about the Keynote. Three Things. First, Steve introduces the new product as a "new class of device," presumably a class for which no nomenclature exists. Second, Steve makes a point of dissing the entire Smartphone crowd by contrasting it with the new "iPhone." Three, Steve makes a point of delineating the "wall" of patents that have accompanied the invention of this device and that no one would be able to touch it for five years.

So, Apple essentially invites its competitors to a competition where it will have the advantage for five years. Not only invites them, but tempts them, through the Cisco suit, to follow Apple's lead and name this new generation of devices, generically, "iPhones" the way that "iPods" have become generic terms (and dictionary admitted terms) in the public vocabulary. And these competitors, ever unaware of Steve's wile, take the bait, name their products "iPhone," in a space they can't possibly compete realistically in for three years, maybe even Steve's hyperbolic five.

A marketing strategy out of a suit to create a vocabulary for a new class of device where Apple can't lose and the stakes with Cisco are incidental. Not bad for your everyday conspiracy, huh? And everyone now knows what an "iPhone" is and who makes the best one. Not bad for a week's work!

hexagenia | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:35PM

So how's this for a theory. Apple courts Cisco, leading them to believe that Apple legal's decision to sign a licensing arrangement for the term "iPhone" is imminent. On the day of the hypothetical signing of this agreement, incidentally the day that the actual device is introduced, the day that Apple wants the most possible exposure, Apple declines the agreement, hence forcing Cisco's hand. Cisco sues, taking Apple's bait.

Why bait, you ask? Apple counters, after it is introduced, that Cisco's suit is "silly." After all, the term "iPhone" has been in the public lexicon for a number of years--Cisco's claim has no merit. And here's where it gets interesting. Why would Apple offer a defense that would admit "iPhone" into the public lexicon, and thereby, offer other vendors the ability to brand their product as an "iPhone?" The answer. Because that's exactly what Apple wants.

Think about the Keynote. Three Things. First, Steve introduces the new product as a "new class of device," presumably a class for which no nomenclature exists. Second, Steve makes a point of dissing the entire Smartphone crowd by contrasting it with the new "iPhone." Three, Steve makes a point of delineating the "wall" of patents that have accompanied the invention of this device and that no one would be able to touch it for five years.

So, Apple essentially invites its competitors to a competition where it will have the advantage for five years. Not only invites them, but tempts them, through the Cisco suit, to follow Apple's lead and name this new generation of devices, generically, "iPhones" the way that "iPods" have become generic terms (and dictionary admitted terms) in the public vocabulary. And these competitors, ever unaware of Steve's wile, take the bait, name their products "iPhone," in a space they can't possibly compete realistically in for three years, maybe even Steve's hyperbolic five.

A marketing strategy out of a suit to create a vocabulary for a new class of device where Apple can't lose and the stakes with Cisco are incidental. Not bad for your everyday conspiracy, huh? And everyone now knows what an "iPhone" is and who makes the best one. Not bad for a week's work!

hexagenia | Jan 12, 2007 | 10:35PM





I'd like to know what Wozniac thinks of crippling third party applications on a computer.




Bog | Jan 12, 2007 | 11:13PM

First, Apple cannot use iTV because eyeTV was 1) around first, 2) eyeTV and "iTV" sound exactly alike, 3) eyeTV is not an obvious rip off of Apple's "i" naming convention, 4) eyeTV never abandoned its Trademark, and 5) Apple never challenged eyeTv's use of the trademark in the required period. Moreover, eyeTv makes cool Mac products, whereas Cisco does not.

Second, I do not necessarily disagree that this could be a publicity thing for Apple. I, however, think Apple has nothing to lose by calling its product "iPhone." In six months, the trademark office and courts will decide a few important issues. There is a chance things could get decided in Apple's favor.

The first is that Cisco's trademark was asked to be declared abandoned for non-use before Apple came out with the iPhone, and before Cisco came out with an iPhone product. It is a no no in trademark land to sit around for years without putting a trademark to use. Cisco did just that. Sure, it is now using the name, but if it abandoned the trademark first, and Apple applied to use the Trademark before Cisco's product shipped (which Apple did), Apple could walk away with the mark.

The Trademark Office has not ruled on this request yet. Accordingly, it makes sense for Apple to hold out and see how that goes.

The second is other companies in Cisco's market are using the trademark, so it can be argued Cisco did not defend the Trademark and thus has lost the right to use it.

Three, Apple can argue it owns the right to use "i" in front of related products, as it started the whole naming convention. In my view, Apple has a fair chance here. Courts do not like it when other companies try to infringe on another companies good will. The fact of the matter is, that the name iPhone came about in response to Apple's 'I" naming convention. McDonalds has stopped companies from using Mc in-front of its products. Accordingly, it might work for Apple.

Finally the whole talks with Cisco thing offering to buy the rights should not be read to deeply into. Afterall, it might have been cheaper for Apple to get the rights scott free that way, then have to battle it out in court. It is merely a smart business decision.

Terrin | Jan 13, 2007 | 12:34AM

Has anyone considered whether Apple is going for a Xerox-type effect here? Is that even possible given the circumstances? Everyone was calling Apple's phone an "iPhone" before they were even sure it existed but Apple certainly did nothing to stop people (though I guess correcting people would have confirmed their intentions). Could the trademark become public domain just by everyone using it to describe a particular product that happens to be from a company other than the trademark holder? Just a thought.

George | Jan 13, 2007 | 12:52AM

I AGREE WITH GEORGE. APPLE HAS MADE THE IPHONE MONIKER USELESS FOR CISCO WHICH TRIED TO GARNER PUBLICITY FROM SPECULATION ON THE IPOD/PHONE. CISCO ALSO WANTED INTEROPERABILITY. SUPPOSEDLY THERE'S AN APPLE TRADEMARK TRADEMARK IN AUSTRALIA. WHO CARES? THE PUBLIC IS NOT CONFUSED. " I WANT A REAL (APPLE) IPHONE, NOT THE 'SILLY' (CISCO) IPHONE." A LOT CAN CHANGE IN 6 MONTHS, AND GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SAVING THEIR MONEY NOW?

JOHN | Jan 13, 2007 | 3:39AM

a firmare update is surely not enough to turn a 2G phone into a 3G phone unless it contains all the HW already inside. a 3G is not just a souped up GSM, is a compltely different hardware platform

gianmarco | Jan 13, 2007 | 5:25AM

a firmare update is surely not enough to turn a 2G phone into a 3G phone unless it contains all the HW already inside. a 3G is not just a souped up GSM, is a compltely different hardware platform

gianmarco | Jan 13, 2007 | 5:33AM

"I'm 100 percent convinced that all it would take to turn an EDGE iPhone into a 3G iPhone is a firmware upgrade"

Why do you say t his? The are (AFAIK) significant technical differences between EDGE and 3G. Are you saying that Apple's using a chipset capable of both? That'd be somewhat expensive, though certainly not impossible.

There's a precident for this: Apple just announced that they they have apparently been shipping 802.11n capable hardware in most of their computers, but only supporting 802.11b/g in software, but will be upgrading their drivers to support n when their new base station ships.

So there's hope!

Laird Popkin | Jan 13, 2007 | 6:16AM

"I'm 100 percent convinced that all it would take to turn an EDGE iPhone into a 3G iPhone is a firmware upgrade"

Why do you say t his? The are (AFAIK) significant technical differences between EDGE and 3G. Are you saying that Apple's using a chipset capable of both? That'd be somewhat expensive, though certainly not impossible.

There's a precident for this: Apple just announced that they they have apparently been shipping 802.11n capable hardware in most of their computers, but only supporting 802.11b/g in software, but will be upgrading their drivers to support n when their new base station ships.

So there's hope!

Laird Popkin | Jan 13, 2007 | 6:17AM

I am very interested in the rate plan that will be offered with the iPhone. Cingular's data plans are expensive compared to carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint. After paying $500+ for a phone I would be put off having to pay another $50-$60 a month to use it properly.

Since this device is being offered as a connected always on the net type of device I would doubt Jobs would want it sold without an "all you can eat" data plan.

roderick | Jan 13, 2007 | 9:25AM

AT&T is a terrible company to partner with. Look at what they did to the cable industry. It is just now getting back on track. I used to work for AT&T Broadband in the late 90s. We tried to do a marketing deal with the wireless division when Verizon went out on strike (cell phone for talkin', cable internet for surfin'), and it got approved 6 months after the strike was over, and we still couldn't set up a booth or run any ads that featured both products. This was just for a marketing deal, not a "one bill" solution, or discounts.

Apple had better be very careful to keep the phone in the Apple store and don't dare let the marketeers at AT&T anywhere near it. I wouldn't even let it have a Cingular logo on it.

As for turning the phone into an EDGE or EVDO or whatever phone, many phones today have software defined radios (SDR). It is very much a simple firmware upgrade to change the phone to a different mode.

Eric | Jan 13, 2007 | 9:37AM

The buzz on the blindness oriented lists and blog-sphere is significant. The Telecommunications Act (§ 255 1193.41) requires that that cell phones be “Operable without Vision” but there has not been much progress there because only a “readily achievable” level of effort is require. With the iPhone being more a computer than PDA, and with OS X already incorporating a serviceable screen reader, Apple will have a hard time claiming undue burden!

http://macvisionaries.com/pipermail/discuss_macvisionaries.com/2007-January/thread.html

http://blindconfidential.blogspot.com/2007/01/ces-macworld.html

Beetle | Jan 13, 2007 | 10:24AM

Beetle: Video-phone for blind ? Sure - this will not sell ;-)

TAG | Jan 13, 2007 | 12:04PM

Links to Cisco's Trademark picture which shows a nonexistent (at the time) product with an iPhone sticker stuck on the box.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

cisconada | Jan 13, 2007 | 12:31PM

Interesting comments, especially in regards to Cingular. For this past Christmas, my wife bought me a Samsung Blackjack from Cingular...I can do the internet, email, pictures (it has a 1.2 megapixel camera) as well as video, and even make cellphone calls. Not having owned a cell phone previously, and not being a big fan of them in general, I enjoy the web-enabled functions of my Blackjack more. It runs on Windows Mobile 5, a smartphone for all purposes, and even has a QWERTY keyboard. Although Blackberry has complained about the naming, I see no big issues with the name Blackjack. And yes, it has 3G, and also EDGE, WAP, even dialup if I decide to purchase that plan, which for now I'm not using.
So, my comment would be that this looks like a good move on Cingular's part...they now have a foothold in both operating systems "camps"...the "Mac" crowd as well as the "Windows" masses!
FTR---no, I still think it is "bad-manners" to interrupt a personal, one-to-one in-person conversation with a darned cellphone call...especially when in line at the checkout of the supermarket, so I do not use the phone there, or when driving down the road! Sheesh...hehe!
C U L8R!
Wiz

Glenn Gilbreath Jr. | Jan 13, 2007 | 2:02PM

OK, suppose I love the iPhone, but won't pay for AT&T's weak network support?

Can I just buy the iPhone and use it as a video iPod? $600 for a video iPod that has some wifi functionality even without a cellular contract sounds like a good deal to me.

Or is all the wifi connectivity absent without a contract from AT&T(Cingular)?

Dave Lentz | Jan 13, 2007 | 2:14PM

For the most part, both the hype and the drawbacks of the iPhone are dead on...at this point in time. Per the difference in expectations between Apple and Microsoft, everybody expects the iPhone to be everything to everyone *now*, foregoing the pass that MS habitually gets: 'They'll get it right in version 2-3.'


Personally, I'll stay in the sweet spot of the adoption curve--it's finally time for me to pick up a Mac Mini, now that it's been through a couple of iterations, and the bugs are finally worked out. I'll start thinking about an iPhone in a year or so...

D.Witt | Jan 13, 2007 | 2:30PM

I don't get it. Why the hell would you want to use up valuable airtime to surf the Internet??? I'd rather use the built-in WiFi and surf at a nearby hotspot. I don't care about 3G. I want this phone!!!

Richard Eng | Jan 13, 2007 | 2:48PM

Cingular=AT&T=No customer service!

Plus AT&T is killing the Cingular brand name, it is going to be AT&T

No iphone for me.

Rene

Music N More Store | Jan 13, 2007 | 2:53PM

"You know it isn't even close to being the most expensive mobile phone on the market, for all the grousing I've read about the price."

Bob, it's $499 and $599 with a TWO YEAR contract from a carrier - you're talking about $800 for a phone with no carrier subsidy. The Cingular 8525, a real PDA phone, is only $399 with a two year contract. No matter how you slice it, the iPhone is an expensive piece of hardware. But that's the way Apple likes to position their products - expensive, elitist, not the mainstream.

Jason Dunn | Jan 13, 2007 | 3:05PM

Great article and some very interesting points.

I don't live in the US nor do I use a mobile phone or device but I can see the Apple iPhone succeeded and over time.

If the article is correct in its predictions and observations Apple may indeed become a major player. Thankfully they are still innovative and forward thinking. If Apple has their way, we may begin to see devices delivering content more quickly and with increased quality.

I think the mobile arena is going to open up in very big ways if Apple gets their way. The next few years should be interesting.

Alex santos | Jan 13, 2007 | 3:46PM

I agree with Dr. John Raines about the closed system. Software such as ePocrates - a program that helps doctors quickly look up medications and their side effects, are extremely helpful on the Palm, but will they be unavailable for the iphone?

wai | Jan 13, 2007 | 4:01PM

The tradmark for iPhone was registered 11/16/1999 (Reg. No. 2293011). Trademark law requires a product to be released within 5 years of that date. Cisco didn't start using the name until the put a sticker with the iPhone name on an existing product in December 2006. Therefore Cisco abandoned the name and Apple has a very strong case.

See this article for more info:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

Jason | Jan 13, 2007 | 8:00PM

Come on, a firmware upgrade? If so, then Motorolla would have 3G versions of their RAZR and KRZR phones available today. There's a 3G RAZR
out, but it is thicker and clumsier.


In this area, Apple doesn't place its innovations in the hardware - that's why FIC and LG both have similar devices "coming soon" - with similar specs.


In the phone business, size and battery determine all. That's why this device is limited to EDGE - the UMTS chipset technology just isn't there to support a device of this size.


Jason Pollock

Jason Pollock | Jan 13, 2007 | 9:24PM

Where does Apple's new phone have the name iPhone on it. I didn't see that. Perhaps on the back?

Juan | Jan 13, 2007 | 10:55PM

Robert got a couple of things wrong here. Cisco sued because in trademark law, if you don't act to protect your trademark, you lose it. Apple's official public announcement of a product that infringed Cisco's trademark meant that Cisco needed to act immediately to protect it by filing suit against Apple, ongoing negotiations notwithstanding. In fact, I bet the negotiations are still ongoing and haven't been affected much, if at all. Cisco couldn't file suit based on the negotiations as it would be in violation of the nondisclosure agreement they no doubt had to sign when they entered into the negotiations; and, you can't file a lawsuit for patent infringement and then state as your complaint "we think Apple may be planning to infringe upon our patent, but can offer only scant evidence that they are."

Finally, in late breaking news, it appears that Cisco trademarked the iPhone name several years ago, but has not used it up until now. Unfortunately, you can't hold onto a registered trademark forever without using it, and it may be that Cisco abandoned their iPhone trademark due to the excessive lag between filing for the trademark and actively using it.

segfault | Jan 13, 2007 | 11:56PM

Sounds like Steve is getting his marketing ideas out of a Cap 'n Crunch box. At least, in his position, he doesn't get called 'eccentric' for being always on the attack. (Ok, I just read an article on John Draper at wsj.com.)

By the way, Elgato may be small, but ITV is big.

From www.itv.com :

ITV is the biggest commercial television network in the UK...

ITV1 is the most popular commercial television channel in Britain, watched on average by 45 million people every week. It has the largest programme budget of any commercial channel in Europe, currently at around £1 billion...

ITV2 launched on 7 December 1998 and is ITV’s younger entertainment channel. It is available on Freeview (digital terrestrial), Sky Digital and Cable (analogue and digital) throughout the UK...

Chris Kerlin | Jan 14, 2007 | 12:44PM

They should have called it the iPAD (Personal Access Device).

jon | Jan 14, 2007 | 3:11PM

I agree with the iPhone name shake up... I think Apple called it the "iPhone" just to get a crazy amount of buzz in the press.... When Cisco complains about this Apple can just say oops... you know you're right Cisco, and change the name to maybe "Apple Phone"
or "Bob Phone" It doesn't really matter what they call it the keynote and hoppla is there, Apple's got a new phone and millions want one! Maybe they'll just start calling everything the "Apple this and that"....
I think it was clever and deliberate move.

Now there's rumors that say that iWork may come on the phone as well this would fix the problem of not being able to open MS Word docs...

It's fun to watch!!! And they've got almost 6 months to finish the device. We'll see!!!

Steve | Jan 14, 2007 | 3:51PM

Hi! I have several thoughts I'd like to share.

First, I enjoyed reading the web article about Apple's iPhone announcement on NPR's website, but a comment in the article included an attribute from Bob Cringely that stated:

"The fact that they can't deliver the iPhone until June suggests that there might be production problems."

If Mr. Cringely had followed Steve Jobs' entire keynote speech, he would have noted Mr. Jobs' comments that it takes two months for FCC approval.

That said, let's keep in mind that Apple kept the iPhone under tight wraps until its announcement at MacWorld Expo. Had the iPhone been submitted to the FCC for approval, then federal requirements would have dictated that such filings be made public. Such public filings, therefore, would have tipped Apple's hand and, therefore, I think the announced ship date has less to do with production problems, and more to do with the realities of marketing the iPhone.

Second - Cingular has an exclusive deal for the iPhone as it was announced, but let's remember that this was the GSM-capable phone. What happens if a second model - a CDMA-capable one - is also made available? There might be more than one carrier offering it in the U.S.

Third (and last point) is that Apple could well have gone with the 'iPhone' moniker because it is consistent with it's other brands (e.g., iMac, iPod, etc.) and because there a very strong argument that Cisco relinquished the brand due to non-use. I refer interested readers to this article by ZD.Net's Ed Burnette, posted on January 12th here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

If these facts can be confirmed, then it means that Cisco has no case.

Thanks for reading, everyone.

Best,
Tom

Tom Beardmore | Jan 14, 2007 | 6:20PM

Even if Apple change the name to anything else, the announcement virtually ensures that everyone will from now on call it the iPhone regardless of what its called.

They get the name, but don't need to own the trademark. I would not be surprised if in a couple of weeks (of press reports :) Apple release a statement about it "all being a mistake, breakdown in communications, etc..". But the name will stick, and 99% of people that hear the name iPhone will not be thinking about Cisco.

There are some other potential benefits from this. Cisco's CEO released a statement about what they wanted from Apple to share the trademark. What Apple have done has significantly reduced the potential value of that mark to Cisco, potentially putting Apple in a better negotiating position.

Matthew | Jan 14, 2007 | 10:27PM

May be ITV (www.itv.com) also have some claim the iTV brand.

Reg Whitton | Jan 15, 2007 | 7:35AM

This product doesn't need to be everything to everyone. Who cares if it is 2G or 3G, Cingular or open? Selling 1 million units the first year will probably earn Apple $100 million. Not bad for a brand new product. Every time ms introduces a new hardware product they lose $100 million.

Brian | Jan 15, 2007 | 9:10AM

Tom,
Interesting responses, however, Cingular's deal is for any phone-related device, not just a GSM device.

Bob, great piece, but a couple of corrections. Going to 3G means using different radios, not just upgrading the firmware. I think there may be an issue with power consumption and size of the circuitry that's at play here, rather than the stuff being pre-packaged to turn on at a later date (though you raise an interesting argument about why there's no 3G).

Second, you mention how this could take Cingular to the top of the mobile market. I'm not sure what you mean since Cingular is the largest wireless provider in the US right now. Do you mean sales of mobile devices?

Lastly, and this is minor, you mention that the iPhone is quad-mode. It's quad-band, and only single mode. Mode refers to wireless technologies on board. A dual-mode phone is typically one capable of digital (e.g. CDMA or GSM) and analog (e.g. AMPS). Tri-Mode is the most you'd see, and they're pretty much defunct now. Cingular sold a tri-mode phone with TDMA, GSM and AMPs. Samsung and Moto made dual-mode phones that were GSM and CDMA for global roaming. The 'band' in quad-bad refers to the spectrum or frequency that the phone works on. The iPhone is quad-band, working in GSM 850/900/1800/1900. This means it will work on any GSM network in the world, though it's been locked to Cingular, which creates a bit of a pickle. If it were unlocked, you could pop in any SIM and use it wherever, but you'll have to use Cingular's service overseas, and pay a hefty fee to do so, plus you won't get a local number. This was a huge mistake if you ask me.

Anyway, great article, as always.

Bryan | Jan 15, 2007 | 9:22AM

The 8GB iPhone is now showing up on amazon.de for about US$1200 - presumably unlocked, obviously unsubsidized.

As European posters have noted on other forums, plenty of countries there require cellphones to be sold unlocked & unrestricted as to the carrier.

Maybe Cingular will unlock your U.S. purchased iPhone if you tell them you will be traveling to Europe.

But you'd better find out before you sign that 2 year contract.

Bill | Jan 15, 2007 | 1:51PM

There is much speculation in this article that is wide of the mark. Thanks to Bryan for pointing out the technical inaccuracies - including that 2G to 3G is not just a firmware update (a spread spectrum radio interface is required, as Bryan points out).

I think there's a very simple reason the device is 2G - it is initially aimed at the US market and there is no 3G GSM service available nationally in the US today. Simple. Cingular (and T-Mobile) will get there, but not in time for the iPhone launch. A GSM partner makes the most sense, as the phone can later be launched in multiple countries and bought unlocked from a third party (neither are an option for CDMA). A launch partner is necessary so that the carrier subsidizes the device cost- rather than Apple going it alone and selling the device unlocked through its stores for more than $1000. There's no conspiracy here, just a simple technical limitation.

I don't think that any online Cinglar products will ever be integrated with iTunes either. Apple wants to keep the experience slick and entirely under their control. Why risk compromising the user experience for the small amount of content downloaded from Cingular's walled garden? Once the exclusive deal is up, Apple will launch versions for all the other carriers - and the connection and carrier will become a commodity. All the value is in the phone and the iTunes experience and Apple will keep it that way.

The point you make about the trademark is also wrong-headed. Why would you generate free publicity for a name that you intend to ditch? Or is the process of ditching and changing the name also free publicity? This seems like a rather convoluted process of re-direction to me. Any advantage of free publicity would be wiped out many times over by the confusion of a name change. And who follows news on law suits between tech companies anyway? Bloggers, pundits and geeks - exactly the kind of folks who are acutely aware of the iPhone anyway. For the rest of the world, a renaming would be very confusing and simply wipe out the marketing Apple has already done. Trademarks are not blanket arrangements. Cisco has prior use in one area and I'm sure will come to an arrangement with Apple to use iPhone in the cellular space. Again, there's no conspiracy. A world without conspiracy makes for a much less interesting place to blog about doesnt it?

Matt D | Jan 15, 2007 | 2:50PM

I think Matt and Brian are infinitely more on the mark on this "story" than Bob was, and I say this with great trepidation since I respect Bob's word HIGHLY.

But the real question is...why? I already have a phone that does all this, albeit without the fancy Mac gee-whizardy; it's called the CINGULAR 8125. I play all my mp3s (not DRM crippled iTunes mind you) with it, it syncs reliably (a first for a Windows Mobile unit!!) with my Outlook contacts and calendars, does email and even WIFI. As far as storage, I'm only limited to whatever MINISD card I can afford to put into it.

Could this be the one time Steve *doesn't* make something insanely great simply by putting an "i" in front of it and telling us all how cool it is and how cool we would be if we "got it"??

I hope not, but only because a few years ago I talked my Father into buying a considerable amount of Apple stock - and I'm counting on it to keep my Parents comfortable...

Robert Anthony Pitera | Jan 15, 2007 | 4:37PM

1. For sure this is not the high tech device it is plugged to be. Pretty much ZERO innovation and with the added problem of very little available software for it. Want to compare to Windows Mobile or Palm or even Symbian? Too little too late.
2. Another major issue that people underestimate is the lack of a keyboard. I would argue that even the iPod is severely hampered in this respect. If you have 80GB of MP3s are you seriously planning on finding the one you want with a click wheel?
3. The whole phone market is splitting in the ultra low end, low price and the laptop replacement phones. This phone is inbetween, so lost really.
4. In the US you overestimate the iPod effect. You should come here to Greece. Partly through an incompetent IMC, Apple has 0,00001% market share of anything. It is way too late to reverse this trend. It is just US, UK and France where things are seriously any different.

Alex Chalkidis | Jan 16, 2007 | 1:38AM

All the prior comments are good rundowns on the carrier side, but...

The "iPhone" might better be called a "ACom", for Apple Communicator, as the phone portion of the device is only a small part of the use & usability of the device as it evolves. What has been seen is just the shell of what is to come.

As additional models hit the street, and the actual uses with appropriate software & hardware changes approach that of the lost but not forgotten Newton. The phone use over cellular part will be just another feature amongst the IR, RFID, WiMax, BlueTooth, WiFi, communication features which allow the MacPhone to become a ubiquitous communicator and calculator with many dozens of common uses every day.

As more accessories allow iPod connectors, adaptors for charging on various pieces of equipment (KeyBoards, USB), and a spare "Booster Battery" can plug into the MCom, the easier it will become to use it as a true universal accessory, & of course car makers will provide a socket to plug it in on dashboards.

Steve Jobs can see not only the future...but how to get there.

BoC | Jan 16, 2007 | 10:10AM

And what's the link with AT&T, that has announced to rebrand Cingular to AT&T?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23308

JeePee | Jan 16, 2007 | 10:34AM

The thing that's getting glossed over is that, the iPhone is basically a mini-tablet PC, with a built-in phone.

Adding a keyboard device shouldn't be a problem since there's built-in BlueTooth support.

Also, the screen dimensions are big enough that one can easily imagine watching videos on the iPhone.

I'd love to see the processor specs on this device, but as far as I know those are still kept under wraps.

Steffen | Jan 16, 2007 | 11:50AM

The iPhone is a steal at $499... in the USA.

In Europe, where smartphones are free, it's Newton 2.0

Paul | Jan 16, 2007 | 2:05PM


Is it just me or is Steve Jobs starting to make Bill Gates seem like a has-been? And how does Sculley get enough courage to show his face in public?

Kyle | Jan 16, 2007 | 7:22PM

As a usability engineer, I am chagrinned. I have heard a dozen glowing reviews of the usability of the iphone by people, mostly developers who should know better, who havent so much as seen one in person. So far this is a triumph of marketing and nothing else.

Ryan | Jan 16, 2007 | 9:46PM

I hate all this exclusivity crap. I should be able to buy the phone from Apple and use it with any mobile operator.

Thornton | Jan 16, 2007 | 9:56PM

Umm, you won't know this, being American, but the other reason for the "Apple TV" would be that Britains second largest broadcast network is called itv (independant television network).

Another guarranteed lawsuit if they called it iTV.

I'm sure they would want to sell these devices to one of the biggest markets in the world and if they do they'll need to provide content from UK broadcasters like . . . itv.

They have no such content available on the UK iTunes yet and they won't be able to negotiate any if they are in a tradmark dispute.

Of course you could just use a PVR to record the programs like virtually the only good one for the Mac - the EyeTV.

I rest my case - the handle is broken.

Limeybloke | Jan 17, 2007 | 5:39AM

I hate to bring up a technical note, but maybe the first version of the iPhone is limited to the slower network, because it does not do well with more bandwidth. I am an embedded systems developer and I can tell you that building a system that handles high quality audio/video while simultaneously handling high through put network traffic is difficult. By essentially forcing users to sync audio and video content to the device, they have separated the problems. Remember that this device likely has a single CPU that is handling the video, network and actual CPU jobs.

Pat O

Pat O'Hara | Jan 17, 2007 | 10:11AM

Here's a prediction that has nothing to do with product names or features. Remember how many complaints have been generated by the various iPods' easily scratched plastic faceplates? Remember last year's class-action lawsuit against Apple over this issue?

Well, think about this: if the iPhone/Apple Phone sells as well as Apple hopes, millions of people will be pressing its plastic faceplate against their ears for extended periods every day...ears festooned with earrings, studs, metal, glass and gems. What do you suppose will happen when rhinestone meets plastic? Yup!

Unless Apple makes the front of this thing out of fused quartz, or supplies a dozen protective covers with each phone, I predict a wave of scratched-faceplate complaints--mostly from women--that will make the previous gripes look like a tempest in a teapot.

The lawyers are probably salivating already.

Andy Baird | Jan 17, 2007 | 1:41PM

But there is something really strange going on here that, in my mind, goes beyond publicity. Try this "what-if..." What if the iPhone is actually not ready for anything?? That is, what if it's basically not done as a product yet, but had to meet the MacWorld deadline? I still don't understand why there was so much secrecy and hands-off security centered around a product that requires touching if it's going to be successful...

So what if the easiest way to kill all the birds with one stone and generate the usual Apple hoo-hah is to deliberately reveal a product that CANNOT be released to market on the projected date because of legal issues that, basically, will create more sympathy for Apple...?

I have been a dedicated Apple user since 1989, and find all of this a little too convenient. Steve Jobs make a MISTAKE that would lead to UNFORESEEN legal issues with CISCO...? Please.

Moloka'i | Jan 17, 2007 | 3:39PM

What I find fascinating is the whole focus on the phone side. Apple already has the ubiquities open-ended name "iPod", why now back away from that ambiguity with "iPhone"? This is a multifunction device; a wireless web browser, a wide(-ish) screen iPod, and a phone, how come the phone gets top billing?

(The whole who-owns-"iPhone" question is pretty much irrelevant. Cisco's ownership isn't 100% certain; this isn't particularly close to the product "iPhone" was trademarked for, others have used the name for other phone-ish products & continue to do so, Cisco's own phone product didn't really ship (taking an older product and renaming it "iPhone", with crack-'n-peel stickers covering the original name on the packaging is hardly credible) and it can be argued to be different enough that there won't be any confusion. In the worst case after a few years of litigation Apple pays off Cisco for trademark violation and it's soon all old trivia.)

As to features, this is a Rev. A device. Apple got it's phone feet wet with the ROKR (and I bet there there is little joy in Motorola's executive suite right now.) Now having learned the basics from their former partner, and fuffed up Motorola again, Apple has brought out it's own phone and is probably, rightly, being somewhat conservative. They've already got something hot, don't over-promise now and under-deliver later, instead get headlines now AND headlines later.

Six months later, Rev. B will come out. A better camera. Longer battery life. More storage. Built-in TV/radio. Remote control of home Macs. IR transmitter making this into the ultimate TV remote. GPS. Electronic billfold capabilities, with the ability to talk to the contactless credit card readers already out. Plus whatever features Apple can get AT&T to wring out of their backend. This is only a beginning.

Finally, my guess is that we'll see the phone open up. Yes, Steve Jobs may personally not be enthused about craplets on his baby but there are too many in Apple who'll be pushing for their personal creations. Bar-code reading with the camera (photograph a CD/CVD UPC code & buy it on iTunes!), local chat, built-in webserver, document editing, photo editing, weird & wonderful things, everyone will have a pet project and the pressure will be too much.

Michael Maggard | Jan 18, 2007 | 1:14AM

Good point on the naming of the device. They HAD to get such a prominent device to market with an "I" prefix; "Apple" + "I" just creates the right level of publicity. Renaming, say to "ApplePhone" will only add some more heat to the water.

And: I've been looking very closely at the pics I can find of this device on the net. It doesn't actually SAY iPhone on it anywhere, does it? (Forgive the photo quality if it does!)

Gary

Gary | Jan 19, 2007 | 5:32AM

Here's hoping Apple's working on an OQO like device. I won't spend 600-800 CDN for an iPhone, but I would spend 3500-4500 CDN for an Ultra Mobile MacBook Pro.

John | Jan 19, 2007 | 11:44AM

Your explantation of the slower EDGE service makes a lot of sense. Based on current business models, no major carrier would give Apple high speed connections to iTunes and watch Apple collect some or most of the revenue. If Apple cannot get high speed access right now, they will bide their time. They will make sure no one downloads iTunes assets over EDGE, which will obviously be a lousy experience. They will find a way to increase their leverage, though.

Right now, most people in the US are not used to high speed internet access on their phones. I just upgraded to a Treo 700p with EVDO and will NEVER go back to the slower connection, but had no idea what I was missing just 3 weeks ago. Considering 80% of my time is spent in or close to WIFI environments (home, office, clients' offices) I would probably be fine most of the time surfing the web on iPhone. EDGE will be just fine for email for most people when you are not paying attention or close to a WIFI signal. I think many iPhone customers will be experiencing their first "smart phone" ever (i.e. non-business users).

Apple will build a very large userbase VERY fast and will be much better equipped to go back to Cingular in a year and demand higher speed access for their NEXT generation of phones. Apple benefits more when you upgrade your hardware regularly and has proven that with their iPod strategy. Why should iPhone be any different?

I hope Apple allows 3rd party development for the iPhone within 6 months of launch. Their MVC coding approach will be a much welcomed improvement over the current world of buggy Treo applications. It will also encourage many business users to switch to iPhone (and Cingular).

This will be a iFun year, that's for sure.

BTW - Cisco's trademark issue should get resolved pretty quickly. Apple has the iPhone trademark in many countries throughout the world. In one day, more people learned about iPhone than in the 9 years Cisco has owned the name.

Just a thought.

Bill Sewell | Jan 19, 2007 | 11:00PM

WiMax. I'm wondering if that is another reason why they've currently opted for the EDGE.

Their partnership with Google, which has been testing WiMax and Sprint's intro of a WiMax retail roll out suggests so.

We'll see. Looks like some fun.

paul | Jan 20, 2007 | 6:37AM

Looking at the iPhone screen, there's clearly an indicator in the upper right that tells you what network you're connected to, which implies that in the future, it'll connect to other providers.

I'm wondering if, in the future, you'll also just be able to VoIP over whatever wifi happens to be near you. How about an Apple-Skype partnership?

Or—maybe—you don't have a traditional contract with a cellular carrier, and instead buy minutes from Apple and the iPhone will hook up to whatever carrier has the best signal wherever you happen to be?

Samuel Greinke | Jan 20, 2007 | 3:02PM

And can anyone actually see the word/s iPhone on that iPhone?
Sure they're on the web site and the PR but that's all replaceable in like a nano second. But on the phone? Steve aint that silly and even if it does become just Apple (logo) phone everyone will still call it iPhone yeh?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/znnet99/366599401/in/photostream/

john b | Jan 23, 2007 | 4:43AM

Two notes:

iTV: While Elgato may own 'EyeTV', another, even bigger company already uses 'iTV'. Monster, the home theater cabling people, have a line of products called 'iTV' (exactly like Apple's code name,) that are for connecting Apple products to televisions. They have S-Video+Audio, mini-DVI-to-Video+Audio, and iPod-to-Video products. And they are already sold at Apple Retail stores, and at Apple's online store.

Apple TV vs. Apple Phone: If you notice on Apple's website, the former 'iTV' actually has two brandings. One is "Apple TV", which is used in text-only areas. The other, as emblazoned on the top of the device itself, is [Apple Logo]tv. Likewise, on the iPhone page, it prominently called [Apple Logo]iPhone. All they have to do is remove the 'i' to achieve the same effect as their branding on Apple TV. "[Apple Logo]phone" for graphical marketing, "Apple Phone" for text marketing. It also makes it easy for them to differentiate from Cisco, even with a licensing deal. They can just go "See! You have 'Cisco iPhone', we have 'Apple iPhone' as the official name!"

Ed Hurtley | Jan 23, 2007 | 11:25PM

iTV: the second major TV broadcaster in the UK is ITV, which is rather similar and very close in the same marketplace.

Actually, I'd like to see how Apple TV compares to the offerings from Elgato - I have an now obslete EyeHome (very similar to Apple TV - without HD); and that Elagto have EyeConnect to use with UPNP devices to stream content from your Mac (or PC).

Personally, I cannot see the benefit of replacing my EyeHome with an AppleTV for some years to come, until a) it can also play back other content b) support for UK standards c) price is reduced. I'm more likely to go the EyeConnect.

iPhone: As a UK person, I'm interested to see who they will sign up with in the UK and the rest of Europe. I guess that it won't be on a 3G network, but stay with the 2.5G technology for this release. But as Cingular overcame Verizon and T-Mobile then in EU will Apple go with T-Mobile or Vodafone (big investors in Verizon). Will they go with Orange or O2 (Part of Telefonica)? I doubt they will go with a MVNO such as Virgin Mobile. There is also a better comparison to be made against the SonyEricsson P990 which does not seem to be very prevelant in the USA. More competition both on functionality and price.

Vince | Jan 24, 2007 | 7:17AM

Isn't "iTV" a registered trademark in Britain? Those old 60's shows had that iTV "tower" logo on them.

Reminds me of the "Yellowpages" trademark dispute between Sun and BT.

Roger Ramjet | Jan 24, 2007 | 1:00PM

>And he may well be correct that Apple's public information department, not Steve, threw Wiley titles out of the Apple Store. But it sure didn't bother Steve enough to reverse that decision, did it?

It may well have bothered him more to not reverse it. It's likely that the public fallout for reversing his own people would be worse in the end than the decision they made. "Oh, by the way, you can buy that book again in the Apple stores. The people in my PR department are such jerks. I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this announcement." Yeah, right.

>And that bit about bloggers PAYING for Apple secrets? I have a hard time buying that unless he means they were paid in liquor.

What difference does it make how or even if they were paid? The commenter has a hard time buying something that is beside the point. The blogs' contributors stole clearly marked proprietary information and publicly exposed it. It doesn't matter whether it's Apple or IBM or Domino's and it certainly doesn't matter what the product was or how many people wanted the info or that Apple is "iconic" and therefore the public interest in its confidential plans outweighs its right to confidentiality -- all of which are among the bogus justifications that have been floated for the incident.

Buzz Dogyear | Jan 25, 2007 | 3:19PM