Clarity From Cisco
In a much-blogged-about commentary, Cisco’s Mark Chandler explained why his company and Apple failed to reach an agreement on sharing the “iPhone” brand name:
What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen — it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
Whaaat? Wow, does that paragraph drip with irony! Chandler says he wants clarity, but what’s clear about phrases like “an open approach” and “the network provides the basis to make [interoperation] happen?” Or how about “facilitating collaboration?” It’s all a bunch of corporate double-speak masquerading as actual discussion. No wonder Apple couldn’t reach an agreement with these bozos. (And no, the rest of the article didn’t clarify it!)
If I have to speculate on what Chandler really means by, say, an “open approach” — and he sure doesn’t leave me much of an alternative to speculating, does he? — I would guess that it means Cisco thought it could get Apple to give Cisco some sort of special access to the device, of the sort that Real has been hacking, sans approval, with “Harmony.” That kind of access would put Cisco in a unique position to make products that interact with Apple’s in a way that Apple has reserved exclusively for itself with the iPod.
If that’s what he’s euphemistically describing, then it’s pretty obvious why he wants to make it so unclear. Cisco wouldn’t look like the wounded victim if people knew what they were trying to negotiate. It would look a lot better if they had just asked for money, royalties, or an exchange of products and services.
© 2008 Darel Rex Finley | design by