Login:
Password:

Cingular Made iPhone Deal with Apple in February 2005: NYTimes

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

January 10, 2007, 10:59 AM

A New York Times report this morning cites high-ranking officials with Cingular and Apple as having confirmed they entered into a deal to produce the iPhone as far back as February 2005.

Apple iPhone

Apple apparently did not shop the phone out to other carriers; instead, the companies had entered into an exclusive relationship early on. That relationship culminated at one point in the iTunes service deal for Motorola's ROKR phones, which may have helped cement relations between the electronics company and the cellular provider, but not between the former and the phone producer.

The Times said the two companies had considered a less extensive relationship where Apple extends more services through Cingular's network, which may have ended up contributing to the feature sets of many brands of phones. But Apple is, at heart, a device company. So Cingular's board of directors signed on as the exclusive carrier behind Apple's iPhone, even though no prototype or drawings or description was provided to the board in advance. It was easier for the board to keep a secret when its members weren't apprised of the details; instead, they kept faith in Apple as a brand.

Last year, Apple filed for a registered trademark for the now-even-more-ridiculous-sounding brand-name "Vingle," which papers described as applying to a communications service based on WiFi standards, the technology behind it, and the store that would sell them. At around the same time, Apple was filing patent papers for a touch-screen device concept that was receptive to different kinds of fingertip input, although the drawings supplied with those applications resembled a much larger device than an iPod or iPhone - more like a medium-sized paperback book.

A vocal minority this morning are disappointed that the iPhone is not that device, claiming it might have been more revolutionary and more in the spirit of Apple. But in retrospect, both the trademark filing and the applications - the latter of which truly do apply to iPhone technology, even if the size is off-scale - may have been part of a very clever smokescreen to help deter attention from the company's deal with Cingular, which began - according to the Times report - at roughly the same time as the filings.

Add a Comment (9 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By chyter

posted Jan 11, 2007 - 11:08 AM

Man why not buy a phone from Apple, I am really tired of these companies suing each other over minor details. The phone will be fine, "people fear what they don't understand, they hate what they can't conquer...."

Score: 0

By tscar12

edited Jan 11, 2007 - 2:17 PM

these are the same lawyers that think backdating options for Jobs and then lying about it is ok.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 9:17 PM

Apple is loosing my respect now. Cisco was gladly licensing it to Apple they should have waited and signed the deal.

I refuse to buy any product thats under litigation, remember the Blackberry scare?

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 6:26 PM

Cisco just sued Apple over the name. I don't understand why Apple didn't license it - their lawyers must think they have a chance of winning a trademark lawsuit.

Score: 0

By davidtb

edited Jan 10, 2007 - 12:17 PM

Lotsa eye-candy on a little box.
If thing does all it's supposed to do, mebbe Apple's in the screen replacement business.
I see lawsuits, public outcry, that sorta thing.

Score: 0

By thumpathumpa

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 12:06 PM

This article is incorrect. Apple does not even own the iPhone name. It is owned by Cisco.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 2:50 PM

Cisco licensed the name to Apple yesterday.

If you can't keep up, take notes. :p

Score: 0

By sn1p34

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 1:35 PM

Obviously you didn't read this.

http://www.betanews.com/...ame_to_Apple/1168373079

Score: 0

By Fickleflame

posted Jan 10, 2007 - 6:24 PM

That article is spurious at best given what was revealed during Job's Keynote speech. Cisco most likely wants a good percentage of the expected profit margins up front. That would be smart on their part and costly to Apple.

Score: 0