First off, if you compare the 770 to an iPhone, you don't understand the iPhone's purpose. The iPhone isn't meant to be a geek-toy. My Nokia 770 is my geek-toy. It runs Linux.. I can practically do anything I want .. if a developer make the application. See, the problem I have with my Nokia 770 is the developers ... not that I'm complaining! I mean, a lot of the software is free, and it's great. But I want a nice simple calendar app. GPE calendar doesn't play nice with my .ics files, and Dates is tied to Evolution, which I am trying to get working on my Mac.

Anyways, the point is ... the Nokia 770 is made for a niche market. The iPhone isn't. The iPhone cuts features for sake of stability and usability. I think Multi-touch is a great interface for input in mobile devices.

The Nokia 770 was made to be stand-alone. The iPhone is a satallite device; it syncs with a desktop compter for much of it's data.

Now, I know that a lot of people here are geeks, like I am, however, the iPhone is made for people who don't want to use a terminal to gain root and enable SSH so they can sync with rysnc or whatever. People want things to just work. Contacts, Calendar, Music, Video, etc.

So it's not for many people here, but a lot of average consumer are going to love it. Remember when the iPod came out and people criticized it for it's lack of features?The same thing is happening with the iPhone, it has less features, but it does really friggin well, and with a very intuitive interface.

The Nokia 770/N800 is meant for a totally different market than the iPhone.


And as to the Cisco iPhone trademark ... I think that Apple actually has a chance. Cisco didn't use the trademark within 5 years of obtaining the trademark, and the way they did it was very tenuous.

And there's about 3 companies using the iPhone trademark besides Apple, but Apple is the only one being sued.

https://iphone.nuvio.com/html/
http://www.telephonemagic.com/telede...tel-iphone.htm
http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm

So I understand Apple's stance. If Cisco isn't correctly and actively protecting it's trademark, then they don't deserve it.

Well said!