Cisco 'shafted' in Apple iPhone deal

>> "looks like the typical promise that Steve Jobs has no intention of keeping."

I'm sorry, it is typical for jobs to make promises and not keep them? Did I miss something here?

>>"terms of the agreement are confidential"

Funny how he's saying cisco got shafted when the next paragraph says that. Apple could have paid them BIG BUCKS so as to keep the name of the iPhone clean and spiffy.

This dude is just talking out of his ass because clearly he hates apple. What a dink.

If Apple wanted to implement a WiFi feature to iPod or iPod, and that feature required something built into Apple's Airport line, how does a users running a PC who doesn't want to buy an Airport and has an iPod running iTunes get to use that feature? Enter an exclusive deal with Cisco routers. Apple's got a huge music player market right now and they seem to know what their doing. Just a possibility of tapping into that market is a huge opportunity for Cisco. Not likely, OK, how about including VoIP on the Apple iPhone, and some of Apples patented Tech in to Cisco's iPhone offering? What if Cisco becomes the exclusive provider for VoIP on Apple's iPhone? There are a number of deals that could have been reached between the two companies are beneficial to each, to conclude that Cisco got shafted based on relatively no information about the deal, its a bit strong and probably FUD.

should get out of the analysis business. If this guy knew the difference between his ass and a clue...pigs would fly.

again the infamous macnn 'news article' based on well non-sense...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....

Reading articles about nothing is sooooo much fun.

(Instead why not write an article or two about some REAL developements in the MAC field??...)

ACTUALLY WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPEND AND WELL, WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENDED...BUT WE STILL WANT TO SPECUALTE ON WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENDED BECAUSE IT MAKES US LOOK LIKE WE ARE INTELLIGENT GEEKS....BUT IN REALITY JUST PROVES THAT WE CAN WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT NOTHING AND OUR GEEKY SUBSCRIBER BASE WILL ACCEPT IT AS ACTUAL NEWS...

I'm not a fanboy, but Enderle always sounds off anti-Apple, and is consistently wrong (misinformed, misinterprets/misquotes facts, etc).

Cisco said from the start all they wanted was interoperability with Apple (they didn't say on what products or how), so this is what Cisco was hoping for. How is that getting shafted or the short end of the stick?

It's fine not to like Apple, but it's not fine to misrepresent facts to sway people to your opinion.

Rob Enderle independent?!? Of whom? Of what? He hasn't has an independent thought since Microsoft was formed.

"Independent" means "Hates Apple and/or Steve Jobs."

I *believe* Apple owns the iPhone trademark in a lot of countries outside the U.S. So if Cisco wanted to take the product international they would've needed to change the name. This agreement more likely just lets the other license the name in the areas they don't own the trademark.

If Cisco's managed to get out of this without having to hire defense attorneys, they they should count themselves lucky not shafted.

If you're correct, it makes some sense out of the announcement the two companies made. Thanks.