iPhone - Good idea? [Closes 10/02/07]

[BL!NKEY]

http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6151...tag=ne.gall.pg

Looks like the iPhone has competition :rolleyes: I like the looks of those phones compared to the iPhone. They actually have good names "/

Apple never seem to learn:

Source: http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6151...tag=ne.gall.pg



They never learn that stealing doesn't come free. Yet another Apple product with a law suit.

Most of those phones are concept phones.

The prada one looks nice but it will cost $776.

Apple was in communication with Cisco about the iPhone trademark and it will be resolved soon. Apple does own the trademark in most of Europe.

The looks of those concept phones look good but they are made to look good. They are not real. They are made to have people say woa that looks cool. Engineers have not actually figured out how to put them together or even tried.

And why do you think the other phones have a better name then the iPhone. It is a good name because it is recognizeable (sp?) and people know it is made by the same company that made their iPod.

[GommeInc]

Most of those phones are concept phones.

The prada one looks nice but it will cost $776.

Considering it is a designer name, I am not surprised one bit.

Apple was in communication with Cisco about the iPhone trademark and it will be resolved soon. Apple does own the trademark in most of Europe.

What strikes me is that Apple seem to copy patent technology off other companies and call it their own. They did it with Creative, and now a company who have had the trademark of iPhone since 2000.

The looks of those concept phones look good but they are made to look good. They are not real. They are made to have people say woa that looks cool. Engineers have not actually figured out how to put them together or even tried.

http://news.com.com/1606-12994-6150132.html

They look like they're trying, and they brought the touch sensitive pad on laptops to life...

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/1...phone-concept/

They're planning on making the phone, which looks quite impressive. And on the Nokia website it is in the Development pages, so they're obviously planning on it (note that the above link dates back to October last year).

And why do you think the other phones have a better name then the iPhone. It is a good name because it is recognizeable (sp?) and people know it is made by the same company that made their iPod.

It's just an over-used term now. I have noticed they can't use the name "iTV" because the broadcasting company in the UK, ITV, is already using it. I prefer a name that has had some thought to it, like Aeon, Zen, Vaio. Not something made simple so an idiot can easily remember what it is.

[BL!NKEY]

Considering it is a designer name, I am not surprised one bit.

You were arguing that the iPod is expensive. The iPod can be more expensive because it is made by Apple. Apple like prada can offer a device that is more expensive because people will pay more for it because of the brand name.

What strikes me is that Apple seem to copy patent technology off other companies and call it their own. They did it with Creative, and now a company who have had the trademark of iPhone since 2000.

The name iPhone isnt patent technology. It is a name. Cisco and Apple's iPhone are not that similar besides they are used as some sort of phone.

http://news.com.com/1606-12994-6150132.html

They look like they're trying, and they brought the touch sensitive pad on laptops to life...

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/1...phone-concept/

Those phones are really cool and I would want one just as much as an iPhone. Japan has a lot better phones them the rest of the world.

The debate is, Is the iPhone a good idea. And I think it is because in the future technology like this is going to be everywhere.

They're planning on making the phone, which looks quite impressive. And on the Nokia website it is in the Development pages, so they're obviously planning on it (note that the above link dates back to October last year).


It's just an over-used term now. I have noticed they can't use the name "iTV" because the broadcasting company in the UK, ITV, is already using it. I prefer a name that has had some thought to it, like Aeon, Zen, Vaio. Not something made simple so an idiot can easily remember what it is.

They want the phone name to be simple so an idiot can remember because most of the people who buy iPods, phones and stuff dont know much about technology. They like their iPod and if there is a phone made by the same company they will get it. That is one reason Cisco made their phone called the iPhone. Some people might think it is made by the same company as iPods and get it.

Here is an article from PC Mag about a first hand encounter with an iPhone. They are not Apple bias because it is PC mag. Obviously they know more about this subject because none of us on habbox have actually touched or played around with an iPhone.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2082435,00.asp

[GommeInc]

You were arguing that the iPod is expensive. The iPod can be more expensive because it is made by Apple. Apple like prada can offer a device that is more expensive because people will pay more for it because of the brand name.

Meh, suppose so. Apple might aswell reap the rewards with their name from idiots wanting to buy anything with i or apple on. Like people who buy clothes that specifically have to have Prada or Calvin Klein.

The name iPhone isnt patent technology. It is a name. Cisco and Apple's iPhone are not that similar besides they are used as some sort of phone.

I never said the name 'iPhone' is patent technology? The other comapyn that has had the name iPhone has had it since 2000? The patent technology they stole is the touch screen? Like the scrolling action they stole from Creative. Perhaps I could of made myself more clear.

Fact remains, Cisco created the iPhone, but Apple want to over-look this with their trademark "i" infront of anything. Apparently, Nortel has joined Cisco is sueing Apple for stealing ideas from their iPhone.

Those phones are really cool and I would want one just as much as an iPhone. Japan has a lot better phones them the rest of the world.

It makes me sick with jealousy too They have such amazing stuff over there!

The debate is, Is the iPhone a good idea. And I think it is because in the future technology like this is going to be everywhere.

Apple will, of course, go the same way with other companies. Their iPod was just an Apple branded MP3 player, they were just 10 years late in developing into the music industry and creating one.

The iPhone isn't going to revolutionise the Phone Industry, it is just going to be another phone that is following other phone ideas. A touch screen, no more buttons, internet, MP3 player and a camera.

Nothing new there "/ They've already been proved that they're not the first company to think up the touch-screen idea, Cisco thought it up by the looks of it. I bet one of the idea makers at Apple said

"I had an amazing dream last night! (I was actually on the net looking for ideas."
"We should create a phone that has a touchscreen (the idea came from Cisco, actually.)"

They want the phone name to be simple so an idiot can remember because most of the people who buy iPods, phones and stuff dont know much about technology. They like their iPod and if there is a phone made by the same company they will get it. That is one reason Cisco made their phone called the iPhone. Some people might think it is made by the same company as iPods and get it.

Remebering a name and knowing about technology are different to each other, but I can see your point. Simple people need simple names. I guess that topic just got leaked into and an argument was caused.

Cisco probably didn't make the name iPhone because of Apple. I don't even think the iPod was around then "/ There are companies and other things that have 'i' infront of their brand. Like the MP3 player iRiver?

Here is an article from PC Mag about a first hand encounter with an iPhone. They are not Apple bias because it is PC mag. Obviously they know more about this subject because none of us on habbox have actually touched or played around with an iPhone.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2082435,00.asp

Of course they would get excited about it. Anyone would get excited about new technology, even though Cisco founded it. The technology hasn't got much to do with Apple Hardware either, like a Mac does, it's a phone "/

[HUGECOOL]

Just some clarifications on these points..

Fact remains, Cisco created the iPhone, but Apple want to over-look this with their trademark "i" infront of anything. Apparently, Nortel has joined Cisco is sueing Apple for stealing ideas from their iPhone.

Nothing new there "/ They've already been proved that they're not the first company to think up the touch-screen idea, Cisco thought it up by the looks of it. I bet one of the idea makers at Apple said

"I had an amazing dream last night! (I was actually on the net looking for ideas."
"We should create a phone that has a touchscreen (the idea came from Cisco, actually.)"

Cisco probably didn't make the name iPhone because of Apple. I don't even think the iPod was around then "/ There are companies and other things that have 'i' infront of their brand. Like the MP3 player iRiver?

Of course they would get excited about it. Anyone would get excited about new technology, even though Cisco founded it. The technology hasn't got much to do with Apple Hardware either, like a Mac does, it's a phone

The iPhone trademark did not originally belong to Cisco. InfoGear was the original owner of the trademark and the product back in 1997. However, because Cisco bought InfoGear in 2000, it also acquired the iPhone trademark. Support for the original InfoGear iPhone was discontinued in 2001. Later on, Cisco also acquired Linksys in 2003 and which then re branded one of their phone models to the iPhone name in order to keep using the trademark under the Declaration of Use requirements. (The phone used was originally just referred to as the CIT400). So Cisco did not actually make the iPhone. They just bought companies and acquired trademarks.

[GommeInc]

Just some clarifications on these points..

The iPhone trademark did not originally belong to Cisco. InfoGear was the original owner of the trademark and the product back in 1997. However, because Cisco bought InfoGear in 2000, it also acquired the iPhone trademark. Support for the original InfoGear iPhone was discontinued in 2001. Later on, Cisco also acquired Linksys in 2003 and which then re branded one of their phone models to the iPhone name in order to keep using the trademark under the Declaration of Use requirements. (The phone used was originally just referred to as the CIT400). So Cisco did not actually make the iPhone. They just bought companies and acquired trademarks.

Excellent research there, but Cisco are still the owners of it "/

[HUGECOOL]

Excellent research there, but Cisco are still the owners of it "/

I never argued that Cisco Systems wasn't the owner of the iPhone trademark. I'm clarifying your posts, which imply that Cisco were the original creators of the iPhone and its capabilities, which isn't the case.

[Pawf]

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if these have already been said:

To the people saying they should stick to computers and music:
What if Apple had "just stuck to computers" before they made the iPod? The music industry would be very different including how we listen to music.

Companies need to expand and Apple are more than capable of bigger things which brings me to my next point...

To the people saying Apple are taking too much on:
Are you basing this on actual figures denoting a fall in sales? If so I'd like to see them. Apple had 60% of the market share of MP3 players over Christmas and in the previous quarter they had around a 10% increase in sales of Macs. They keep their target audience satisfied by releasing frequent major updates (unlike Microsoft) which brings me on to my next point...

To the people saying that it doesn't attract their target audience:
What do you think the target audience is? It's not young adults as someone said earlier. The iPod factor surely appeals to young people but the phone itself, business-like featuring stock widgets and the like, is aimed at an older audience. I think that the ease of use it offers as well as the entertainment factors make it appealing to the target audience.

In conclusion:
It's a beautiful phone with innovative and revolutionary ideas and I'm definately going to buy it. Also I love Apple

[GommeInc]

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if these have already been said:

To the people saying they should stick to computers and music:
What if Apple had "just stuck to computers" before they made the iPod? The music industry would be very different including how we listen to music.

The music industry will just have one less company. The MP3 play that the Apple is modelled on, like others, would still be in existence. The iPod was just another blocky MP3 player. Creative brought out the first.

To the people saying Apple are taking too much on:
Are you basing this on actual figures denoting a fall in sales? If so I'd like to see them. Apple had 60% of the market share of MP3 players over Christmas and in the previous quarter they had around a 10% increase in sales of Macs. They keep their target audience satisfied by releasing frequent major updates (unlike Microsoft) which brings me on to my next point...

Surely releasing frequent updates strongly hints that Macs are unreliable? Microsoft release a right amount of updates. I'd rather have the amount Microsoft have than an update a day which would become annoying "/

To the people saying that it doesn't attract their target audience:
What do you think the target audience is? It's not young adults as someone said earlier. The iPod factor surely appeals to young people but the phone itself, business-like featuring stock widgets and the like, is aimed at an older audience. I think that the ease of use it offers as well as the entertainment factors make it appealing to the target audience.

It is said somewhere that the iPhone isn't a good phone for business men and women, I'll find the source soon.

In conclusion:
It's a beautiful phone with innovative and revolutionary ideas and I'm definately going to buy it. Also I love Apple

It isn't revolutionary. Phones with an MP3 player, browser and the like have been around for years. The touchscreen is an idea taken from a phone which has been in the making for a while now. Only thing revolutionary is that it is from Apple and it is the revelution that Apple are making a phone...

[BL!NKEY]

Surely releasing frequent updates strongly hints that Macs are unreliable? Microsoft release a right amount of updates. I'd rather have the amount Microsoft have than an update a day which would become annoying "/

The release of frequent updates means that it is harder to make viruses for macs. They patch bug or vulnerabilities. You dont have to download the update which is usualy once every few months. Not every day. But it is free and all you have to do is restart your computer.


But you would rather have a opperating system which doesnt update the OS to fix bugs and vulnerabilities because it is a waste of your time to download them.