| I think this says a lot The lawyers claim the agreement wasn't hung up on money or royalties, but a desire for "an open approach" and platform interoperability. One has to wonder why cisco wants platform interoperability. They make network gear that transports open protocols. I don't see where there is a problem. I think there is more to this than we are hearing. I am sure it will all shake out over time. |
|
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC | said by dcaponegro5:The lawyers claim the agreement wasn't hung up on money or royalties, but a desire for "an open approach" and platform interoperability. One has to wonder why cisco wants platform interoperability. They make network gear that transports open protocols. I don't see where there is a problem. I think there is more to this than we are hearing. I am sure it will all shake out over time. Read one of the followup posts on cisco's blog:
By insisting on "interoperability" of the products as your price, Cisco was attempting to use an asset it didn't create (i.e. the name "iPhone") as a means by which to leverage access not only Apple's design and technological advantages but also its obvious marketing savvy.
In short, this is not about "openness" and "transparency" -- it's about promoting your company's products by plugging into Apple's innovation and "buzz".
Again, I have no problem with Cisco calling Apple out on its power play. You have the right to protect your property. But please don't patronize us by trying to sell it as a noble blow for "openness".
|
|
| Even easier - they wanted the 'i' part of the iPhone to be their VoIP stuff. |
|
