What is Trusted Computing

I saw a neat video today about trusted computing. I hope at least one reader learns something new about this scary new technology. I admit the video is short, and as a result, shallow.

In summary,

The long term result will be that it will be impossible to use hardware and software that’s not approved by the TCPA. Presumably there will be high costs to get this certification and that these would be too much for little and mid-range companies. Therefore open-source and freeware would be condemned to die, because without such a certification the software will simply not work. In the long term only the big companies would survive and could control the market as they would like.

There’s a lot more to trusted computing. It makes anonymous web-surfing much more difficult since who you are is directly linked to your computer. People speculate this issue could interfere with free speech. Everything on your computer is essentially married to that PC, making it very difficult to move data between machines (DRM on all data). And of course, if used for “evil,” it could be responsible for some of the most devastating viruses/malware ever written (by abusing the death grip it has on your system). More here.

.htaccess, Notepad, and Windows

When trying to name a file with an “invalid” name, notepad can come to your rescue! Ever try to create a .htaccess file on Windows? You’ll get the following error message:

You must type in a filename

Windows doesn’t like files with only a suffix. However, an .htaccess file is a special, and an often necessary component in many web applications. If you happen to be running a web server on your Windows box, this presents a problem.

You can get around this problem by using notepad. Simply open notepad and save the file. During the save dialog type do the following:

When you hit “Save,” the file will appear and everything will be dandy.

What’s Going to Beat XP? BudgetXP on the Way.

I just saw a funny posting on GetACoder.com. In it, a seller requested:

Hi,

So I’m posting for a rather large project. I need someone to program me a new OS (Operasting System) that looks different than Ms Windows XP etc. but has the same style. It does not need to run on a mac but all the other PCs. It’s supposed to have a stylish look with clear edges etc. And ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE JUST A REDESIGNED WINDOWS as I’m going to sell that operating system later on. It’s going to be called BlueOrb.

These are some important points :

It should have ALL THE FEATURES that Windows Xp Professional has.
ALL the files that run on Windows XP ust also run on the BlueOrb OS.
It must have a very user-friendly interface (like MS WINDOWS XP)
When it gets Installed, the user needs to insert a serial number.
It HAS to be HACKER SAFE!
It must be quick and good looking.

Note that I only accept quality work and do not want any quickly done BS.

greetz,

M.Reinhardt

So, how much would you pay to have the source code of something that is exactly like Windows XP Professional, but “HACKER SAFE” and be more stylish?

Budget: $1000-3000

This guy’s naivete reminds me of many people I’ve met in my life. Sure, he could be ignorant towards programming, but that doesn’t excuse his desperately lacking business research:

  • Lack of marketing research: His awesome product name is already heavily in use. Including the dot com. That’s like giving money away.
  • Lack of competitor research: He is aiming to match, not beat, Microsoft’s old and aging operating system on the eve of Windows Vista. Note: many of Vista’s applications will not be compatible with XP, and, thus, his operating system.
  • Lack of market research: Windows has a monopoly due to OEM tie-ins. Macs sell because of the unique hardware and stability granted from UNIX. Linux “sells” because it is cost effective and proven. What chance does a new player with a shoe string budget and no history have?
  • Lack of cost analysis: $3000 is no less than 1/100th of what it would cost just to emulate Windows XP on a superficial level. And what about support costs?
  • Lack of product understanding: Which features does he mean when he says “all.” Literally all? Because Windows XP comes tied in with many applications including Outlook, an automatic update, Windows Media Player, a remote desktop client/server, a firewall, chat, foreign language support, DirectX, drivers for thousands upon thousands of appliances, and the ability to reskin the look and feel. All of these features too? Then you’d need 20 translators, a data center to host update, cd key validation, and chat services, and 10 graphical and audio designers. Oh, and are we emulating IE6 or IE7? Because IE7 uses a anti-phishing technology that communicates with a central server, and what technology will that server be running on?
  • Lack of consumer trend analysis: Due to declining demand and increasing competition, the industry is moving away from shrink-wrapped software to software as a service (over the web).
  • Poor Budgeting: Even if he recognizes all of the above points and plans to address them by spending a ton of money on marketing, domain acquisition, securing OEM vendors, and hiring support staff, he has horribly misplaced his resources. His primary cost should be the development of the product, and thus should be where he puts all of his eggs. No respectable software company in the world outsources their lifeline to strangers in other countries.

It is amazing to me that this guy is literally ready to burn money without doing the most basic business research. This may be an extreme case, but plenty of people do this sort of thing (albiet less visibly) every day. If somebody isn’t sure what a particular business may cost, the very first thing they should do is find out what the “hidden” costs are. I put hidden in quotes because these costs aren’t exactly hidden. I’m referring to costs that regular Joe never knew existed, but everybody else in the industry loathes. Every industry has them, especially the ones that look like they have so few.

Oh, and as a closing note, someone replied to his request with this gem:

Hi. I can do this for you next week, when I plan on taking a break from a nonotech based / atomic fission driven search engine thats going to make larry page wet his pants. 6 days to code, 1 to rest. It will be written from scratch and completely original in design, so don’t worry about copyright bs. I plan to write the entire OS in C, and blindfolded, if its all the same to you. 100% secure will not be a problem either…In fact the OS will be designed to leverage jedi mind tricks to kill anyone that even thinks about breaking in. (i was thinking maybe make them chop off their feet and jump up and down until their empty would be fair). Anyways, I’m gonna smoke some more crack, maybe you should do the same. Thanks!

Dating and Job Interviews

This post is short and sweet. Hopefully, this is self explanatory.

Jackson: Hey Michi, if cover letters are that important, why do almost all the ads I’ve seen only ask for resumes?
Michi: It’s like going on a date… You COULD bring flowers and it WOULD make a nice impression… But who does?

(Of course, the answer is: the really motivated people.)

E-Paper Enters Mainstream

Damn it. I was *this close* to mentioning supermarket labels as a potential application for e-paper to displace this year in my New Years prediction post. I thought about its application, and wondered if we’d see a major chain like Walmart take it up, but in the end, I decided that the low cost of plastic labels wouldn’t make it worthwhile as a test-run.

Alas, one of my predictions, although a little off, has come true. It even exceeds my expectations! From the article:

The tags will include price info, along with extra data like place of origin and a sell-by date. Supermarkets will be able to update tags wirelessly from a central computer, and thanks to the battery sipping technology of e-ink, the batteries should last up to five years on each tag

Note, each e-tag has a wholesale cost of $16-19, so I wasn’t that far off when I concluded there was too large of a price gap to justify the switch. Of course, I forgot to factor in savings in wages, which will be huge over the life time of a single battery. Imagine this: prices could reflect a sale instantly across the entire store without a single employee having to lift a finger. Wireless updating… clever.

The future is bright for e-paper. Keep an eye on it.

The Best PHP Book Out There

Advanced PHP Programming I’ve read quite a few PHP books, and most of them suck. Many of them contain the same or very similar material recycled with new examples. Only one stands out in my mind as truly exceptional: Advanced PHP Programming. I am willing to bet this is the best book out there for novice to advanced PHP developers. It is not the best beginner book as it has some advanced topics (as the title suggests), but the material it covers is seldom mentioned in any detail in other books.

The book is an excellent resource for novice programmers hoping to become “experts” in the field. Granted, the coverage in the book is a little superficial in some places, but it serves as an excellent introduction to advanced concepts. These concepts played a major role in my understanding of scaling PHP applications.

After developing PHP for nearly a year by the time I had read the book, I remember thinking how much time the book would have saved me had I read it earlier. Many of the lessons the book mentions are things novice programmers learn from trial and error or from tons of Googling.

The book most notably covers some very common problems a PHP developer unexpectedly faces at some point in their career:

  • Session management, especially when integrated with a database back end
  • Common security misconceptions
  • A real database abstraction layer layer (warning: difficult example for beginners)

It also covers some of the new features of PHP 5, which is still foreign and underused by many:

  • Exception handling
  • Object oriented development (with some best-practices included!)

Personally, and this is strictly personal, I feel very much more confident in a developer’s ability when I see her/she is able to write clean, object oriented code that uses exception handling. This is very common in C++ or Java, but is relatively uncommon in PHP. In general, these are good programming practices.

It’s been a few years since I first picked up that book, and even today, sometimes I skim through it and think, “Oh, I forgot about that!” The book was the single greatest investment I ever made in my PHP skills. I’ve recommended this book to every novice PHP developer I’ve ever met.

If you know PHP, but want to know PHP, buy this book. It’s the gateway drug into an advanced PHP programming high.

I find my analogy funny.

My Single Most Valuable Skill

Recently, I’ve come to realize that my most valuable skill is my writing ability.

I’ve had the honor of helping a few of my just-graduating friends apply for jobs and polish their (sic due to laziness) resumes. From that experience and also being involved in a hiring process more than once, I’ve had a wide range of exposure to the “best” writings of others.

I say best because I imagine people would spend a significant time trying to write the very best cover letter they can. Unfortunately, much of what I read was riddled with run-on sentences, vague arguments about their ability, and a lack of focus. This doesn’t mean they didn’t get the job, but it certainly didn’t help with their first impression.

Writing is a skill we should all continuously improve. Granted, I probably make typos or grammatical errors all over this blog; I’m not perfect either. But I have always strived to improve my writing skills, which is why I have always kept a blog or journal.

Recently, my company offered to purchase gifts for everybody. One guy got really expensive headphones. One guy got an iPod Nano. One guy asked for an LCD. I asked for a $150 book. The book I received is called Steal This Book!: Million Dollar Sales Letters You Can Legally Steal to Suck in Cash Like a Vacuum on Steroids. Yes, quite possibly the worst title known to man. I wanted this book so I could see what excellent sales writing looks like.

Writing is pervasive. I used it when I wrote cover letters to convince employers to give me a job. I used it to sell my case to a professor a few years back when I realized I had accidentally skipped a midterm (long story short, I passed). And most importantly, it helps me practice expressing arguments in a coherent manner — a skill that comes into play when I start opening my mouth.

In other words:

Writing is like singing: anybody can do it, but most people suck at it.

By the way, I suck at singing.

DRM: the End is Near Thanks to Greed and iPods

I predict that thanks to Apple, DRM on music, and eventually movies, will become far less restricted, possibly even eliminated.

Brief History of Why a Collapse was not Possible Before

People got sued, negative publicity flew around every week, and there were even reports of DRM root kits! Many people loathed DRM, and yet it persisted. Some would argue it is because “average Joe/Jane” doesn’t care enough to make a scene. This is true to an extent, but the real reason DRM has not let up is because the content owners would rather die first. In short, the reasons against DRM were all from the consumer’s view point, not the sellers.

Idealists tend to forget that the RIAA and friends hold all of the cards. All of them.

In Came Apple

So after the rabid freebie era of Napster, Apple signed up to distribute music with DRM. Studios were “happy” that they would finally make money with digital music (no additional production costs!), and Apple got to push iTunes as the first and only.

Years later, Apple pulled a switch-a-roo and somehow, without the content owners realizing, Apple held virtually all of the cards.

DRM Prevents Competition

DRM is one of those technologies that doesn’t bother you until you have to switch products. That means nothing to consumers who love the iPod (pretty much everybody), but is extremely bad news for competitors.

The average consumer doesn’t understand the ramifications of DRM. All they understand is that digital music means iPod. But it’s actually worse than that. Even if I want to buy music from, say, Microsoft, it turns out I can’t play it on my precious iPod! You can see why Apple continues to dominate digital music sales.

This means competitors have a huge uphill battle to fight. They have to make consumers abandon their old legal library each time they want to switch brands. Good luck.

Labels Shoot their Feet

The labels accidentally created a monopoly on digital music, and they aren’t it!

To be specific, the problem is that the monopoly isn’t on the music itself; it’s the music players. This concerns the labels because so long as Apple has a dominant market share, they are stuck dealing with iTunes. They can’t pull support for iTunes because if nobody can sell iPod compatible music, everybody would just revert to piracy.

It doesn’t matter how much greater the iPod’s competitors are: if the consumer owns even one iTunes song, that becomes a huge mental barrier that the consumer must overcome. And competing stores are demanding better rates than iTunes in order to over come this.

DRM is not about Piracy, It is about Control

Have you ever thought about why labels are so adamant about DRM? Is it to fight piracy? No. It’s all about maintaining control.

DRM’s sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights so that they can sell them back to you.

But, in a funny and ironic twist, the labels lost control of digital music thanks to their self-imposed DRM. This is a lose-lose scenario for the labels. No matter what they do, so long as Apple dominates, they have no control. DRM isn’t helping them in any way.

What is Left But to Gut Yourself

The only option remaining is to force Apple to remove the DRM. If Apple refuses, simply offer competing stores a chance to sell without DRM: they will murder iTunes overnight. Proof? The second biggest music seller in the country is not MSN, Rhapsody, or even Real; it is eMusic.

Market share for online music retailers:

Apple iTunes: 67%
eMusic: 11%
Real Rhapsody: 4%
Napster: 4%
MSN Music: 3%

Why is this amazing? Because they sell only indie music! Their market share is the sum of the next three competitors combined, all three which have huge brand name recognition and sell mainstream music. How is this possible? They don’t use DRM. They are able to compete with iTunes because of this.

Removing the DRM guts Apple’s control of the market and once again gives the labels control over what to price their product. Until they do this, Apple remains the bench mark that every music store will need to beat to compete: $0.99 cents a song or less.

Ah, I love karma.

Note: I do not own an iPod. I prefer to “rent” (stream) and know I don’t own it, than “buy”, and not actually own it.

iPhone: The Death of the Video iPod, the Rise of the Nano

I’ve got another Apple prediction. Judging by how Apple is setting up their prices, I conclude that we will see our first touch screen Video iPod in one year from now, but not in six months. In fact, just analyzing their prices and past history, I can conclude a great deal about how their lineup will change over the next year.

  1. Nanos will start playing video, but will keep their tiny screen.
  2. The shuffle will double in capacity, but only if the market pressure rises.
  3. Video iPods get no capacity upgrades, but will get multi-touch about a year from now.
  4. The iPhone will see its first price drop. No other spec changes.

And over the next three years, I even predict the tumble of hard disk based Video iPod. It will no longer be the top tier iPod – iPhones will become that – and it may even be retired.

I drew these conclusions by looking at Apple’s strategic pricing, which is far more revealing than one might think.

Look at the Prices

Below is a list, current as of today, of the entire iPod lineup. The numbers in parentheses are the price difference from the next lower model.

Shuffle 1Gb: $80
Nano 2Gb: $150 ($70)
Nano 4Gb: $200 ($50)
Nano 8Gb: $250 ($50)
iPod 30Gb: $250 ($0!! Take note of this)
iPod 80Gb: $350 ($100)

Figure A

For those of you who don’t know, this is a different price breakdown than what existed not even six months ago (this list was a pain in the ass to figure out):

Shuffle 512: $70
Shuffle 1Gb: $100 ($30)
Nano 1Gb: $150 ($50)
Nano 2Gb: $200 ($50)
Nano 4Gb: $250 ($50)
iPod 30Gb: $300 ($50)
iPod 60Gb: $400 ($100)

Figure B

Look at Figure B. Notice that the price differences between each model of iPod is very consistent at around $50 until the very top of the line 60Gb iPod ($100 difference). When Apple dropped their prices in September 2006, people widely speculated (although that murmur quickly died) that Apple would probably fill in those gaps made in the pricing. However, instead, Apple simply placed two new products far and above the current top iPod:

iPhone 4Gb: $500
IPhone 8Gb: $600

Why? What about the gap? Well, the price reduction wasn’t about making room for a new product — it’s about replacing one. More on this a little later.

Apple wants its iPhone to succeed, but not at the expense of its iPod line up — not yet. So it widened the price difference to keep a significant buffer between the products. Right now, all Apple wants are the loyal early adopters to build up the hype, and make the product the next iconic status symbol (remember the Razor?) of cell phones. They don’t want mass market. They want 1%. Remember that.

But within two years, I predict Apple will fully embrace iPhone, adding in a whole new tier of products that will widely overlap with its hard drive based Video iPods. As I will demonstrate shortly, Apple is prepared to destroy a portion of their own music player market, but only when iPhone sales are picking up steam, and only when the iPhone is technologically ready to do so. With only 4Gb/8Gb of capacity, that day is still a few years away.

Here is how I see the lineup looking by February 2008:

Shuffle 2Gb: $100
Nano 4Gb: $150 ($50)
Nano 8Gb: $200 ($50)
Nano 16Gb: $250 ($50)
iPod 30Gb: $250 ($0) – Multi-Touch, wide screen
iPod 80Gb: $350 ($100) – Multi-Touch, wide screen
iPhone 4Gb: $400
iPhone 8Gb: $500

Figure C

The Shuffle

The Shuffle will remain a valuable part of their entry level market. It will continue to target people “on the go”. Capacity will be increased and this time next year, I expect a 2Gb model. Unlike its big brothers, it will continue to focus on music. The increase will be due to competitive pressure and may not come if its sales continue to dominate.

The Nano

The Nano lineup will start supporting video playback. This is important to keep it competitive with current generation video playing competitors. Also, the Nano’s capacity will be increased so that it can actually store all this video.

Will it have full screen? No. That won’t come for another year or two. Apple will release Mutli-touch from the top and move its way down. This is to give consumers additional reasons to up-sell to the next better iPod.

Notice how the price points will remain exactly the same. This is because I speculate the bottom tier of the prices are the most sensitive to price changes. In other words, budget consumers will weigh price in much more heavily that consumers ready to drop half a grand on a music player. Apple realizes this.

The iPod

This is the most critical aspect of my prediction: iPods will gain the touch screen, but only *AFTER* the iPhone’s price drops. Here’s why:

The Video iPod lineup does not compete with the iPhone. The iPhone has — most critical to a video carrying device — far less storage capacity than what you’d want in a movie playing device. Apple is happy with this because it will keep the “store everything” consumers buying the top-end iPods. Consumers uninterested in storing everything would have bought the much cheaper and smaller Nano anyway. And obviously such a consumer is not interested in the iPhone’s storage capacity either.

Because the iPhone will not cannibalize this particular model, Apple will release their new Multi-touch wide screen interface into the Video iPod lineup. This will give the Video iPod a huge image boost, effectively stamping out all of the video playing competition. But they won’t integrate multi-touch into regular iPods when the iPhone is released because Apple wants to maximize iPhone sales that come from people who want the touch screen. In short, I see the iPod with a touch screen cannibalizing sales of the iPhone, but the iPhone doesn’t threaten sales of iPods – at least not at its current price. Expect this feature released just months before Christmas.

And why does the capacity remain the same? Apple needs to offset the cost of putting in the touch screen while keeping the price the same. The easiest way of doing this is keeping the capacity the same.

The iPhone

The iPhone’s price must drop. However, that price drop can’t happen until the Nano lineup gets a storage space upgrade. When the price of flash drives drops again (to Apple wholesale), Apple will use this margin to upgrade their Nano lineup. Then, rather than apply that margin on the capacity of the iPhone, Apple will use it to drop its price instead. This will happen at the same time or a few months after the Nano drop.

This is, again, brilliant because the iPhone, while $100 cheaper, will not compete with the Nano, due to the fact that the Nano will now have more capacity (double) than the iPhone. This allows the Nano to stay focused as a media device while the iPhone becomes more affordable. And, of course, the iPhone will have that cool full screen view while people that skimp on the Nano are still suck with small screens.

That $0 Price Difference

Remember how I pointed out the $0 price difference in Figure A (current)? And did you notice it appears in my prediction as well (Figure C)? Apple is noticing that the capacity of flash drives is nearing what a consumer would need on a video device, which is part of why I believe the next generation Nano will play video. But why did the iPod sink to the same price point as the Nano? Competition? No.

Within another year or two, the touch screen will become the uniform interface for the entire iPod lineup (sans Shuffle). By the time this happens (less than 2 years), the Nano’s top end model will likely have around 30 Gbs and a wide screen for video viewing. This is inevitable by the fact that Apple’s flash-based player competitors will put pressure on Apple to continue increasing their Nano’s capacity — at the expense of the Video iPod. Sure, a Video iPod by then could have 200Gb of capacity, but there’s another problem. Flash players have far better battery life and are much more immune to physical shock. Not to mention they are just getting ridiculously small.

So Apple is going to phase out their hard disk based players. They aren’t phasing them out because they want to, but, rather, because they have to. And as the Nano gains popularity (perhaps even renamed to “iPod” some day), the disk based player will drop in price until it matches up dollar for dollar with the Nano line up. And some day, perhaps, Apple will simply retire them.

What About the iPhone’s Price?

But what about the iPhone? What happens to its price while all this is happening? Well, while the Nano can play video and will likely have twice the capacity of the iPhone, the iPhone will continue to distinguish itself with the simple fact that it is a phone and is the Internet in your pocket. As the technology matures and the market comes to embrace broadband Internet on mobile devices (as it is in Asia), the iPhone will be a strong player on its own. It will replace the current Video iPod in terms of pricing. But it will always lag behind its flash based Nano counterpart in terms of capacity to keep the Nano in a separate (media player) market.

Remember how I said I can make predictions based on past pricing? Well I’m going to assume for a moment that the old lineup was the way Apple liked it. The following is a chart directly based off of Figure B with only the product names changed. The iPods are all flash based and contain touch screens.

Shuffle 2Gb: $70
Shuffle 4Gb: $100 ($30)
iPod 16Gb: $150 ($50) – flash based, touch screen, formerly Nano
iPod 30Gb: $200 ($50) – flash based, touch screen, formerly Nano
iPod 60Gb: $250 ($50) – flash based, touch screen, formerly Nano
iPhone 8Gb: $300 ($50)
iPhone 16Gb: $400 ($100)

Figure D

That is how I predict the iPod lineup will look in 2 – 3 years: back to its original breakdown, only adjusted for the market disruption caused by the iPhone. Will there be a huge 200Gb hard disk based iPod? I can’t really say it with any confidence. Perhaps, simply because people may demand it. But its bulky, power hungry nature will be offset with the fact that it will be as cheap as the flash based Nano players.

Hard Drives Are So Last Year

The other reason I think the current hard disk based iPods will pass away is because of the popularity that consumes the Nano. The name “iPod” is Apple’s baby. And yet if their derived product, widely known as “The Nano” is their best seller, it would make a lot of sense to re-brand the Nano as the new iPod and rename the old iPods to something else (or discontinue them). And observing that slimmer players with greater battery life (Nano) are increasingly popular, I can only conclude the 200Gb disk-based iPod will probably never be born.

But if they are, expect it to be right there next to the 30Gb flash based iPod (Nano), and probably costing only $50 more. There is the possibility that HD media becomes the norm before the flash drive technology is far enough along, which would allow the old iPods to stay around, although I would gamble they would be renamed and heavily discounted.

I’d say it’s a coin toss at this point.

What Happens When Bundling Puts the iPhone at $150?

One other point I wanted to discuss was the inevitable iPhone/service bundle that a carrier will provide that will place the iPhone at a price point at or below the $150/$200 Nano. My entire point was that Apple doesn’t want to cannibalize its Nano sales, but most people can see how any sane consumer would skip the Nano if they could get the iPhone for the same price or less.

Apple already sees this coming, and my answer to you is this: Apple is phasing itself out of the media-only device market. Why? Because there is a much brighter future in communication-media hybrid devices.

Apple must believe that people are growing weary of carrying both an iPod and a phone. How much time is there before a smash-hit device comes out that can do media and communications at the same time? Cell phone companies have been taking shots at this concept for some time now and they are starting to see success. In a few years, what market will be left for a device that does only media, especially when it costs the same as its cell phone counterpart? Apple decided to strike preemptively.

Conclusion

The iPhone is a market disrupting product because it has the potential to become a run-away hit as a video player but it is a cell phone first. The iPhone’s true success will come when the price reaches current iPod levels. But until then, Apple has literally sacrificed its first born as an investment in this new market.

Apple is the first successful media-device company to entire the cell phone market. Its new competitors are renown for building horrible phones with even worse software, a fact that places Apple high in the minds of consumers. Until Apple’s old competitors (such as Creative) – companies known for building solid media devices – follow them into the market, the iPhone will only gain momentum as the single most desired media phone.

Four Reasons iPhone is Here to Stay and Cisco is (very very) Stupid

I couldn’t believe it until I clicked. Check out these four very good reasons why Cisco needs a strong backhand across the face:

  1. Internet phone company
  2. VoIP service
  3. VoIP phone
  4. A Skype phone

There are other VoIP products called iPhone. Compare that last one to Cisco’s own “phone lineup.”

Is Cisco stupid? 

It seems others are beginning to converge onto my original prediction about the iPhone trademark (see related posts): Apple plans on arguing that Cisco’s iPhone trademark is invalid. One article quoted an Apple spokeswoman saying:

“There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products,” Kerris said. “We’re the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone.”

They let other companies get away with using iPhone in services directly competing with their VoIP phone. Now they want to sue because Apple made a cell phone that doesn’t even do VoIP?

Note: For those of you who don’t know, a cell phone uses a very different set of technologies from a VOIP handset, a huge factor in why VOIP mobile sets have yet to really catch on. They are not the same thing.

You can’t keep your trademark if you don’t treat it like the last piece of food on earth. Look at band-aids. I think Apple has a real chance at invalidating Cisco’s trademark.

Cisco was sitting on a mile high pile of gold that they just misplaced for no reason other than laziness. Cisco’s lawyers need to be fired.

Expect Apple to be filing for its own iPhone trademark that applies to a mobile cellular device (that plays music and movies). If Cisco’s trademark was stopping Apple from doing exactly that until now, invalidating Cisco’s trademark would be the fastest way for Apple to get their “iPhone” trademark application through.

Seriously, is Cisco stupid?