Cisco dots the “i” on Apple

That, and a minor point which you didn't note is that Cisco/Linksys, NOT Apple owned the trademark on "iPhone". Apple, even if they had the product, which no one knows for sure, couldn't have called it that without doing a deal with Cisco for it.

But how the hell do you school someone when there's no real product yet? Cisco announced a product with a trade name they owned. Did anyone, in all the blogodumbasssphere bother to see who owned the trademark on the name? Because it's not hard:

Word Mark IPHONE
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134

That's with about ten minutes of work man. Apple couldn't have called it the iPhone without buying it from Cisco, and that would have been a matter of public record. So if they had bought the name, everyone would have known about it.

But in all the screaming and yelling and postulating, who bothered to do that search? Not you at all, not anyone, until AFTER Cisco/Linksys announced the iPhone, and even now, no one's paying attention to that *minor* fact.

Apple being silent or not would have done nothing, because they never owned the trademark.

Exactly what would bloggers have done to help Apple here that they couldn't have done until now?

Not

A

Thing.

And THAT Robert is why I don't take the "blogsphere" seriously. Because they're all so busy fellating each other for technorati rankings that BASIC RESEARCH is "beneath" them.

Bah.

No. People are disappointed that the word 'iPhone' has been misappropriated. (Though, technically, that may not be an accurate description.) In addition, the Linksys phone is quite different from what is expected from Apple. The selling point is Skype. Apple will call its phone something else, or perhaps still use iPhone and have its product become known as the REAL iPhone.

No to Robert, not John.

I agree that this another episode of Robert trying to declare nonexistent significance for the blogosphere.

"It’s amazing that Apple doesn’t have a way to talk to journalists and other influentials through blogs."

Why bother when you have more coverage before you even lift a finger to seek publicity. If you can't see that then you're blind, Roberto.

Just go out and pick ten ordinary (non-geek) folk at random. If more than two at the very best know anything about the Linksys product Cisco announced so 'cleverly' today, I'll eat this post. I dare you.

I expect this kind of drivel from no-name blogs, not you Scoble. Why would Apple battle Cisco in the blogosphere when the product wasn't going to be named iPhone in the first place!

If Apple wanted the name iPhone, then this becomes a trademark battle, not a blog-battle. You act like Apple's secrecy is some flavor of the month. It's not - it's worked for them for decades.

Get a clue.

I'm not sure how Apple helped Cisco and how Cisco used blogs to build massive knowledge about its offerings. Cisco got lucky and got more news mileage from this than they expected and deserved. Basically everyone was expecting, at least hoping, for an Apple iPhone. No one cares that it's Cisco and didn't know it was them until it was announced. Then everyone went, oh it's not Apple. ho-hum. We shrug our shoulders and move on until it eventuates. The only reason they got as much publicity for this product was because they had trademarked "iPhone" years ago, therefore Apple could never use that name anyway. Cisco were lucky. Lucky that the press christened it iPhone. Had it been something else, podPhone, Cisco wouldn't have been a bleep on the blogosphere radar.

I think Apple know how to "wow". Watch when the Apple phone is announced. Unless Kevin Rose is drunk on the net, and not much is leaked, then you'll have the Steve Jobs "Boom!" factor when it suddenly is announced. I don't think it will happen at next year's WWDC though. That's the spotlight for Leopard and a phone would detract too much from that.

Corporate blogging is almost always boring. I'm glad Apple stays quiet, it's Apple and it's exciting and you never know what's going to happen. I'd say that builds much better hype than pushing back dates. I'd be willing to bet more people visited Apple's site over all of this hype than visited Cisco's site. Cisco came out with a product that few people want anyway. So let them get there hype, everyone still wants to know what Apple has up their sleeve.

So Cisco had a patent, it was still Apple's hype and no questions about an Apple phone have been answered yet. Rumors will persist...

"Blogging is corporate warfare."

Those who use deceptive tactics lose credibility. Short-term gain; long-term loss.

Tyler: "I’d be willing to bet more people visited Apple’s site over all of this hype than visited Cisco’s site"

This is true. First thing I did this morning was go to Apple's site. When I realized it was from Cisco I hit the little X on the browser's tab and moved on.

dear robert,

the millions of kids that are going to buy an apple phone are on myspace! not on techcrunch/techmeme...the only thing that they care about is to say that they have a phone from the same company that made the ipod. they want is to be cool.

regarding apple, this is just more free press! you really don't understand that being completely silent just makes apple appear superior to others. look at how all the big players are jumping through hoops, trying to get a bit of apple;s magic. the only thing that apple needs to do is come out with an extremely beautiful and easy to use phone and then you will see how you catch a boomerang...the rest is secondary.

anyway, the iPhone is a cordless phone not a mobile phone...so what's the deal?

Look, DK

*btw - you nerds are living in a bubble...wake up robert, this is not a story from a comic book and you are not spiderman;)

this is yellow journalism! just without a journalist;)

and you expect us to take the bloggers seriously??? come on robert, gimmick time is over and the emperor has no clothes.

zx

Scoble, you seriously don't think Apple didn't know Cisco had the iPhone name, do you? All the tech dweebs just assumed Apple would use the iPhone name IF they were to come out with a phone device. However, Apple never said that and NO ONE either in the fake press, or the real press has any evidence that they would have. So, I'm really confused where the "blogosphere" did anything of significance here. Credit Cisco for falling for Apple's non-story. But, I rather doubt anyone gives a crap about Cisco's iPhone. So, a non-story all around. Way to go, blogosphere!!!

Blogging is indeed corporate warfare, and deception isn't necessary for it to be. Good observation.

So... if I called something an "i" anything, who would sue me faster, Apple or Cisco?

Apple DOES blog: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/

Brilliant stuff too. ;)


--chuck (who is buying John a Jack & Coke from Tony the stiff-drink bartender at the MM Party at Expo for the "fellating each other for technorati rankings" nugget)

"Cisco totally schooled Apple’s PR"

Yeah, I don't see that.

What is funny about this is
a) people's WILL to believe there will be an apple iPhone and the ginormous amount of rumours mongered
b) The amount of photoshopping creativity: http://images.google.com/images?q=iphone
c) people's persistent idea that a hybrid phone/PDA/mp3 player will be a great thing

A phone is made to make calls. Nokia (not the E series) phones did this right. An mp3 player is made to play mp3s. The iPod did this right. And PDAs should offer mail, contact and calendar functions. Um, I think the last one that got this right was Palm in the Palm V era.

Combine all three and you end up with a frankenstein device that looks like a brick and has lousy battery time.

A little more detail that I should have given above.

I heard a news report on KGO Radio during Ronn Owens show this morning that Apple was rumored to be coming out with an iPhone today.

So, SOMEONE believed all these blog rumors.

It wasn't the only place I heard that rumor either.

If you think it's good that people are talking about Apple without Apple being involved, then that's great. I don't think that helps Apple's image. But, obviously you all do.

"If you think it’s good that people are talking about Apple without Apple being involved, then that’s great. I don’t think that helps Apple’s image"

So you think Apple should control it? Like MSFT tries to?

The point is, IF you offer compelling products the marketplace takes care of itself, like Steve Jobs says it at every keynote. Unlike, say, MSFT trying to peddle its yawn-inducing products like the clunky Zune by any means including astroturf. Manipulating blogs is not the same as offering great products.

Apple DOES control everything said about by employees. Quite unlike Microsoft.

You're right, though. Building great products do take care of a lot of stuff.

I'm not advocating manipulating blogs. I'm advocating just being involved in the conversation before stories get to mainstream media stage.

Anona: also, do you have any proof that Microsoft is astroturfing Zune?

"Apple DOES control everything said about by employees. Quite unlike Microsoft."

You were talking about blogging specifically. Apple doesn't even attempt to control it, 'cause it doesn't play that game. Its products speak for themselves.

"I’m advocating just being involved in the conversation before stories get to mainstream media stage."

Why? Apple will introduce (or not) its phone product when they feel it's the right time for it. They will do what's necessary to market and promote it, as they always do, quite successfully. It isn't as if Apple's message gets lost often, do you?

So, the point you're missing here is that for a company like Apple that is actually capable of offerring great products, the blog-feeding game is NOT necessary, as it may be for a company that *has to* try to manage its sullied reputation like MSFT.

As to astroturfing, I was talking in general about MSFT products, not specifically about Zune. Although nobody, including me, wouldn't be surprised in the least if they did astroturf it. Waggener's unrivaled rep in this area speaks for itself.

Anona: >>the blog-feeding game is NOT necessary, as it may be for a company that *has to* try to manage its sullied reputation like MSFT.

I think it'll be proven long term to be necessary. Why? Because people are now forming opinions about companies from blogs they read. And, even if they don't read blogs, mainstream journalists are reporting news that they read on blogs. KGO isn't the first I've seen do that.

Let me ask you this: why is it important for Apple to deal with mainstream press?

"I think it’ll be proven long term to be necessary."

Not necessarily for companies like Apple.

"Because people are now forming opinions about companies from blogs they read."

Again, Apple has been cultivating its unique relationship with its userbase for nearly two decades now. This is nothing new. Why do you think there are millions of extremely loyal fans?

"why is it important for Apple to deal with mainstream press?"

The obvious answer is that it gets Apple's message to its intended audience in the most efficient, bang/buck manner. There's really nothing comparably enabling in the blogosphere to substitute for Apple's appearances on CNBC or cover of Newsweek, etc.

Apple doesn't have to do much, if anything, to reach the geek population, to which you preach. That specific market takes care of itself through current channels. Specific niche populations like business, finance, education, science, etc., can still be more efficiently served by the mainstream media.

Now, would this change appreciably at some moment in the future? Inevitably. Would Apple then realign its efforts? Duh! Is that moment now? Don't kid yourself. Is this true for other companies? Of course not. Companies like MSFT, Cisco, Dell, HP, etc that are so poor in finesse, marketing savvy, taste, creativity, innovative spirit *have to* resort to any means to get their message out. Desperately. To the point of astroturfing. Trying to control messengers by tapping reporters' phones. Trying gimmicks like the Cisco iPhone absurdity. And so on.

>There’s really nothing comparably enabling in the blogosphere to substitute for Apple’s appearances on CNBC or cover of Newsweek, etc.

Yeah, covers are nice, but in my experience being on Digg gets more traffic than being in Newsweek or BusinessWeek or in USA Today. I've been comparing with CEOs (I've interviewed more than 50 lately) and others. But, yeah, a good cover story still is a big bang. Truth is, Steve Jobs could get that kind of bang no matter what he does.

So, maybe it keeps working for Apple. But, some things will need to happen for it to keep working.

1) Apple needs to stay the darling of the press. History shows us that companies don't always do that. Already cracks are showing in Apple with battery problems, with rebooting problems. They didn't become huge deals, but they could have.
2) Apple has a limited number of products. That makes the cover story strategy quite good. But if Apple increases the number of products, it'll find that some products won't get talked about. Not everything can get on the cover -- Newsweek has limited space.
3) The word-of-mouth network is becoming more and more efficient (and a great audience aggregator, which are building new powerstructures of its own). StumbleUpon got to 1.5 million users just through word of mouth. I know many entrepreneurs who have been in, say, USA Today, with great reviews that didn't get bubkis.
4) Steve Jobs needs to stay at Apple. Let's be honest, the reason Steven Levy at Newsweek gets Apple on the cover is cause of Steve Jobs. If Steve Jobs goes, look for Apple's PR to struggle.

The trick is to have a relationship with the market BEFORE you get positioned by your competition. I think your most astute comment is that Apple won't change until it has to. Ahh, the innovator's dilemma.

If you have to change, it already is too late.

The best argument I have for Apple to change now is that they need to prepare for a life without Steve Jobs.

They also have to prepare for a life when online media is more powerful than it is today (an inevitability in my view).

"Yeah, covers are nice, but in my experience being on Digg gets more traffic than being in Newsweek or BusinessWeek or in USA Today."

I don't quite know how to parse the absurdity of this. Digg is geek population. As I said, this is NOT what Apple is after when it targets CNBC or Newsweek cover. Undifferentiated traffic is not the same as targeted, meaningful, purchase-power and purchase-intent enabled traffic. If Apple wants to send a message to Wall Street or to middle America Digg is NOT the place for it. I can't believe you overlook this. Traffic for its own sake is so '90s.

"Already cracks are showing in Apple with battery problems, with rebooting problems."

By any measure, Apple currently has the #1 or #2 customer satisfaction rating in the industry. It isn't as if only Apple batteries had problems. Get real.

"Not everything can get on the cover — Newsweek has limited space."

Apple is *extremely* good in monetizing each and every product it sells. Apple has *not* subsidized to the tune of $5 BILLION a money loser like XBox over the years. Apple is also very good in *not* crowding its product matrix. In fact, it's religious about it. It killed the most popular MP3 player on the planet at the height of its popularity to make room for the iPod nano, for God's sake. Apple would never do half a dozen versions of its next OS, for example. So I am not worried at all about a crowded product line.

"The word-of-mouth network is becoming more and more efficient..."

So what? To the extent that a company offers great products, the power of word-of-mouth can only work to its advantage. Witness Apple.

"The trick is to have a relationship with the market BEFORE you get positioned by your competition."

That's laughable. Do you *really* think Cisco somehow "positioned" Apple? I challenged you to do the man-in-the-street test with the Cisco iPod. Like I said, I'll eat this post if >.20% of non-geeks even heard of it.

"I think your most astute comment is that Apple won’t change until it has to."

No, Apple will change when it sees a meaningful trend. Not when it's simply fashionable.

Mainstream media isn't really mainstream if it gets its news from secondary sources, now is it? Well, this goes against everything I've ever learned in any media course in college (which only included traditional/mainstream media outlets).

"do you have any proof that Microsoft is astroturfing Zune?"

Oh robbie, robbie, in what innocent world you live in?

Robert, I find it interesting how you can categorically state what it is Apple must do to survive and publicize their products.

Tell me again how successful you've been? How you became such an authority?

Microsoft released how many OSs during your time there? Their stock price did what? Oh, and what kind of profits and products does your current employer make?

This isn't meant to snipe at you personally, Robert. Just some honest concern over how you can speak with such authority over these things.

Peace.

Robert,

To bring this back on topic, once again, you show the essential weakness in Blogging as News:

It's the biggest, fastest game of "Telephone" ever, but that's not the same as being CORRECT. Even worse, YOU KNOW how stupid this can get, you used to whine about it all the goddamned time when you worked at Microsoft.

But whhhhhhy won't people callllll meeeee when something like this is said about Microsoft? I'll find out the straaaaaaight answerrrrrr

You'd get all worked up, but you never learned a damned.thing from it.

"...He'd whine, and he'd whine, lord he'd whine all the time. Some say the Scoble whined because his shoes weren't on right. Others said he wore his pants just too tight. But I think I know the reason for it all. Deep down the Scoble's brain was two sizes too small".

Dude, the only thing the entire "blogodorks" have done in this is repeat the same damned rumors. I thought about posting the fact that Apple didn't own the iPhone name on my blog, but quite honestly, I realized it was more fun to wait and see who bothered to check on it, and when it would happen.

Congratulations "Blogosphere", on fact-checking 101, you fail.

You guys are really missing the larger point of how important bloggers are. If you don't believe me, then go ask one. They will tell how important they are.

LMAO...true. Bloggers spend most of their time telling you how important they are. Not much else though.

This isn't a celebration of brands using the blogosphere - this is a celebration of blogs behaving badly. Gizmodo misled its readers deliberately in order ot hype traffic. The rest of the web followed it. If Cisco had a hand in it, then this is even worse than we think.

"Apple was RUMORED too....."

And there you have it. From that we get the bloggers having created a story that may or may not have been there. Maybe Apple was going to come out with a phone, or maybe it wasn't. However, there is no evidence (other than rumors and bloggers making some leap) that device was going to be called the "iPhone".

"SOMEONE believed those blog rumors...."???

And for THIS Time awarded bloggers the "Person of the Year"??? If this is what passes as fact checking, the MSM has nothing to worry about.

Dude, there a people that believe Elvis is still alive, Osama is dead, and Kerry won the election. Doesn't make it a fact. Like John C. Welsh said, just do some simple fact checking. CALL someone at Apple. Afterall, you are well connected, aren't you? I mean, because of your fact checking and connections with higher ups at Apple, we all know Apple is coming out with a Tablet, right?

"I’ve been comparing with CEOs (I’ve interviewed more than 50 lately)"...

How many of those are in the F100?

Hi Robert - not interested in attacking you or your argument here but wanted to ask you to give some examples of how companies involved in the blog conversation have experienced success with it (gained marketshare, positioned themselves better, etc.). I've read your blog for some time and don't usually join the conversation but this post and the comments it generated got me to think of the question above. Thanks.

"Ahh, it’s interesting that Cisco totally schooled Apple’s PR by doing the iPhone."

Ahh, it's interesting how misinformed and out-of-touch Scoble can be and to what lengths he'll whore himself to get some Apple hits.

Anyone who knows anything knows that the iPhone rumor first ignited more than five years when Apple registered the domain. Anyone worth have their salt also knew that it was already known that Apple did not own the trademark, that it was already used.

Somehow blogging 11 years later would have magically transferred the trademark to Apple's ownership. Scoble is an idiot.

"I heard a news report on KGO Radio during Ronn Owens show this morning that Apple was rumored to be coming out with an iPhone today.

So, SOMEONE believed all these blog rumors."

So because YOU and SOME DUMBASS believed a DUMBASS BLOG, Apple should participate so you don't have to believe the DUMB ones? Instantly, Apple having a blog gives bloggers credibility and no more DUMBASS rumors?! Brilliant!

Why didn't you just read the first ten comments most of which were along the lines of: "Apple releases on Tuesday, he didn't mention Apple, I bet someone else releases a product using the name..."? Maybe because the average blogger has the attention span of a gnat, can't read more than a blurb, and will believe whatever they want to.

I *KNOW* you don't advocate the kind of corporate involvement ala Wal*Mart...

Personally, I think Apple carefully cultures their messaging these days. Heck, you know that better than most (family ties and all).

Nah, I'm putting my shareholder hat on, and will say it's working for Apple right now. When Mr. Jobs is out of the hot seat... it'll maybe be handled a different and maybe better way. Time will tell. It sure is fun trying to anticipate what's coming from Infinite Loop tho.

If you asked that mySpace crowd where "the" iPhone is coming from... they're probably not going to say Cisco. The trademark may belong to someone else... expectation is a bit shaded because of the hands off Apple culturing.

Trust me... they're involved in the blogging world when they don't like it so much (remember their board game from last year... Leaks and Lawsuits)?

"Truth is, Steve Jobs could get that kind of bang no matter what he does."

Were you just confessing that Apple doesn't need blogs but that you are just looking for some form of validation?

Rob: we interviewed 188 companies about what blogging has done for them for our book, Naked Conversations.

Microsoft, for one, saw a real improvement in customer satisfaction (in surveys and focus groups), better recruiting (one blog saw 3,000 resumes submitted), and improvements in products (OneNote's Chris Pratley says he regularly got ideas from his blog's comments).

LayZ: it wasn't blogs I was talking about. Most of those got the story right. Or, like me, ignored the rumors (I'm getting tired of them).

It was a Mainstream Media report on KGO radio (which, last time I checked, is a radio station, not a blog) that reported that Apple is supposed to have an iPhone coming out yesterday.

What you don't get is stories are built on blogs and on Slashdot and Digg and TechMeme and mainstream media takes things they read and report on those without doing too much further digging.

"What you don’t get is stories are built on blogs and on Slashdot and Digg and TechMeme and mainstream media takes things they read and report on those without doing too much further digging."

No, what you don't get is that this is shitty journalism that more capable people ignore as they ignore these silly blogs.

What you are saying is: blogs sucksand will get it wrong, but then they need to be listened to when the mainstream validates their suckiness, so Apple should combat this with their own sucky blog?

Why not ignore the whole idiot loop?

Here's another example: Forrester releases bad data that sends Apple's price down almost 3% in one day (in blog format but primarily through the report, the mainstream press, and the digital press...). Apple releases a statement saying, "Forrester is incorrect. Our data indicates the opposite is true." Apple's stock regains the losses. (The past few days have seen new losses but for a number of reasons.) Where in that process (of disputing something that actually Apple could and deemed WORTHY of disputing) was a blog required?

Oh, I forgot the step where every blogger secretly fears they are useless and craves validation from Apple the most!

It was a Mainstream Media report on KGO radio (which, last time I checked, is a radio station, not a blog) that reported that Apple is supposed to have an iPhone coming out yesterday.

So because a single radio station had its head up its colon, that meant that "oh, no one needs to check facts. We're right because a radio station said this. Why is it right? Because it listened to blogs. Why are the blogs right? because a radio station said this..."

Circular logic is still crap Robert, even when a single radio station falls for it.

What you don’t get is stories are built on blogs and on Slashdot and Digg and TechMeme and mainstream media takes things they read and report on those without doing too much further digging.

That still doesn't turn it from intellectual laziness to a properly reported story. My god, you're still unable to admit that no one bothered to check a damned critical fact to all this. You're so busy trying to spin this so it's a victory for blogging, no matter how wrong they all were.

Dude, that's just sad.

"You guys are really missing the larger point of how important bloggers are. If you don’t believe me, then go ask one. They will tell how important they are."

Thanks for the laugh! It was even more funny since I was just at crunchnotes.com.

"Schooled"???

I say again, ???

Cisco simply co-opted the Apple hype to get someone - anyone - talking about a phone that will be purchased by approximately zero percent of those talking about it.

The only "power of blogs" was the power of blogs to stoke people for Apple's iPhone.

Thanks for the response. I'll put the book on my wishlist at Amazon.

Anona has SCHOOLED Robert Scoble!

Schooled him so thoroughly that all I can think of to add is that, according to projections, blogging may DECLINE starting in 2007. Contrary to what Robert wants to believe, mainstream media is going to remain mainstream for the foreseeable future. So, it is logical to court it instead of the mainly mediocre blogosphere. That is what Apple does. It profits by having Pogue and Mossberg on speed dial instead of some blogger with more money than brains.

"LayZ: it wasn’t blogs I was talking about. Most of those got the story right. Or, like me, ignored the rumors (I’m getting tired of them)."

Got WHAT story right? There was no story. A bunch of dimwitted bloggers made up a story that Apple was going to release something called an iPhone. Apple never said they were and no one bothered to check with Apple. Then Cisco fell for this non-story and came out and said they in fact own the iPhone name (which most people that no how to do basic research already knew) and they have a device that no one is interested in buying. And you didn't ignore the rumors, as evidenced by this post.

"It was a Mainstream Media report on KGO radio (which, last time I checked, is a radio station, not a blog) that reported that Apple is supposed to have an iPhone coming out yesterday."

Actually you said KGO said "rumored". Now if KGO is worried about getting scooped by some no-talent bloggers who find research to be anathema to their way of thinking, they need to seriously review the talent of their news department. difference, right? (Actually, I think apparently not)

Hmm... Is this post about Apple not doing corporate blogging or about Apple decision on releasing iPhone?

Here's are the facts.

Cisco is not the ONLY manufacturer that makes wireless iPhone that use Skype service.

In fact, I was planning to buy such phone early this year. I have already found a few models work on wireless and Skype around the same price range. After I bought the Sidesick and was concern about the wireless coverage, I decide not to buy it yet. Not every place allow you to access wireless without paying a fee or give you the password to enter their network.

I saw the leaked Apple iPhone prototype drawing. It didn't have the specification on features. Apple is investing in integrating iPod technology with phone features.

Can we talk Apple to Apple? it is hard to judge when you are coparing Apple to Orange.

Exactly. Apple can do its 'iPhone' without the Linksys phone even being a competitor because the concepts are quite different.

All companies should know that Apple should have the rights to all i words since they coined the i phrase. It just companies trying to get the lime light by making you think it is an Apple product when it is really not. Just like ihome a cheap POS that they put i in front of and tried to sell it as being Apple quality.