or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple doesn't rely on market research, says marketing chief Phil Schiller
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple doesn't rely on market research, says marketing chief Phil Schiller

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
In his brief time on the stand at Tuesday's Apple v. Samsung court proceedings, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller said the company doesn't rely on "typical" market studies to create its products.

Schiller only had a few minutes before his testimony was cut short, reports CNet, but during that time he managed to give the jury a few nuggets of inside information before the Tuesday's proceedings wrapped up.

"We don't use any customer surveys, focus groups, or typical things of that nature," Schiller said. "That plays no role in the creation of the products."

The statement is somewhat incongruent with an AppleInsider report outlining Apple's "Customer Pulse" campaign designed to "provide input on a variety of subjects and issues concerning Apple." While not a traditional marketing research study, the online group has users fill out up to two short surveys a month regarding owned Apple products.

In a related report, court documents were unearthed by The Wall Street Journal pertaining to an iPhone adoption study labeled ?Apple Market Research & Analysis, May 2011.?

Schiller


Further explaining Apple's stance on market research, Schiller said, "you never ask people 'what features do you want in a new product? You need to accumulate that yourself."

The executive's statements are similar to those made by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs who said, "it's hard for customers to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely like it."

Schiller will continue his testimony when court proceedings resume on Friday.
post #2 of 34

Dear Samsung,

 

Since you're too lazy to make your own phones and too lazy to even research our business model properly, here's legal testimony where we state what we've said publicly for years.

 

Sincerely,

Phil "I can't believe this even got to trial" Schiller.

post #3 of 34
From reading just the title I was going to comment that Apple does research their markets, they just don't use typical market research but I see that was addressed in the article.


So any guesses on the length of this trial?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #4 of 34
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
So any guesses on the length of this trial?

 

Three years. Minimum.

 

If something as effing clearcut as Apple v. Psystar can last a year and a half, something this stupidly clearcut will surely last longer. Unlike Psystar, Samsung has money.

post #5 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Three years. Minimum.

If something as effing clearcut as Apple v. Psystar can last a year and a half, something this stupidly clearcut will surely last longer. Unlike Psystar, Samsung has money.

That was years of legal battle, that was not 3 years of a trial.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #6 of 34

wow, do you guys even read what you write? 

 

 ...customer surveys, focus groups, or typical things of that nature... plays no role in the creation of the products.

the existence of some kind of post-product launch inquiry or survey by *marketing* groups has nothing to do with doing user testing or focus group testing during the design or pre-launch process. apple clearly does NOT do that.

 

i have seen first hand, working in another mobile company's design group, how that can absolutely wreck the product creation process. again, apple clearly does not allow this to happen. i have never met a product designer who does not respect apple's work, and i am sure half of it is jealously in the way apple allows their designer to design. i mean, their chief designer sits at executive level! 

 
post #7 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... "We don't use any customer surveys, focus groups, or typical things of that nature," Schiller said. "That plays no role in the creation of the products."
The statement flies in the face of an AppleInsider report outlining Apple's "Customer Pulse" campaign designed to "provide input on a variety of subjects and issues concerning Apple." ...
 

 

You guys should really get someone in to fix your logic machine as it's completely broken.  

 

The fact that they have on occasion used surveys in no way supports the statement that this "flies in the face of" what Phil Schiller said on the stand.  That phrase is generally used to refer to a complete fallacy, something so obvious that it "flies in your face," and completely disproves everything being claimed.  There is no way that rises to this level at all.  

 

There doesn't seem to even be a conflict unless you can point to a line in the survey that says "what should we put in the next iPod?" or words to that effect. 

 

Edit: rspx beat me to the same comment. 

post #8 of 34
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
That was years of legal battle, that was not 3 years of a trial.

 

Right you are, my mistake. So the legal battle so far has been a year and a half… I still say months for a trial.

post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Right you are, my mistake. So the legal battle so far has been a year and a half… I still say months for a trial.

I think the longest civil trial, against Monsanto, was 3.5 years.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #10 of 34
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
I think the longest civil trial, against Monsanto, was 3.5 years.

 

I really don't want them to go for any records… Then again, the longer Samsung keeps making products of any sort that infringe, the more they'll have to pay when they lose.

post #11 of 34
Samsung must really think the general public is stupid. There's a difference between marketing research on an existing product and product designers using customer surveys and focus groups. That customer survey referenced basically said that Apple's brand and design was the biggest reason people purchased the iPhone. So basically it told the designers to keep up the good work. lol.gif
post #12 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I really don't want them to go for any records… Then again, the longer Samsung keeps making products of any sort that infringe, the more they'll have to pay when they lose.

It's a moot point 5.5 years after the iPhone has been announced but the longer you wait to defend your once unknown yet brilliant and indispensable technology to a culture the less likely people will be able to see how it was so revolutionary. Today's invention is tomorrow's necessity.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #13 of 34

Post-market research could yield concrete information: do people like this button here? Would they like another button? And so on and on.

post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think the longest civil trial, against Monsanto, was 3.5 years.

Which if I remember right it was Monsanto against some poor guy betting his farm on the lawsuit (and I don't mean poor as in no money). This is two companies that are each worth billions.

Also, if you think Samsung is dirty, how about that case you mentioned. Monsanto snuck onto the guys farm, collected seeds, patented them, and then sued the farmer for using them... Ouch! I suppose that's kind of what Samsung is doing.

...or are you talking about the suit where they sued the farmer because seeds blew in from the neighbors farm even though that farmer didn't want them?

Nope. Just looked it up and it wasn't the one I had read about. It was about toxins.

My point of crazy tactics still stands as does the example.
Edited by Vadania - 7/31/12 at 7:26pm
post #15 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Post-market research could yield concrete information: do people like this button here? Would they like another button? And so on and on.
Based on the WSJ report it seems as though the questions were pretty generic.
post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

From reading just the title I was going to comment that Apple does research their markets, they just don't use typical market research but I see that was addressed in the article.
So any guesses on the length of this trial?


I think the more realistic guess is how long will be before true finality occurs?  I see Samsung dragging this out through the courts via endless appeals, and countersuits, etc. until by the time a final verdict (against Samsung I hope) if finally done, Samsung will have made their billions on iClone knockoffs, will be chump-change (in the big picture) for a fine (if any), and whatever products they were infringing on will be a memory.

That's my 2-cents.

However, to answer your question Solips, I give it...hmmm.... two weeks@10 days.

post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Which if I remember right it was Monsanto against some poor guy betting his farm on the lawsuit (and I don't mean poor as in no money). This is two companies that are each worth billions.
Also, if you think Samsung is dirty, how about that case you mentioned. Monsanto snuck onto the guys farm, collected seeds, patented them, and then sued the farmer for using them... Ouch! I suppose that's kind of what Samsung is doing.
...or are you talking about the suit where they sued the farmer because seeds blew in from the neighbors farm even though that farmer didn't want them?
Nope. Just looked it up and it wasn't the one I had read about. It was about toxins.
My point of crazy tactics still stands as does the example.

We can talk about which tech company is the bigger asshole toward another tech company but it's all pretty vanilla compared to what Monsanto has done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

However, to answer your question Solips, I give it...hmmm.... two weeks@10 days.

I'm thinking it'll be no more than 2 weeks. With these huge corporations they will know if the power is tilting in one direction and when it does it will just pick up speed as it does. There is no waiting game either party can benefit from by dragging it out in the court room.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Which if I remember right it was Monsanto against some poor guy betting his farm on the lawsuit (and I don't mean poor as in no money). This is two companies that are each worth billions.
Also, if you think Samsung is dirty, how about that case you mentioned. Monsanto snuck onto the guys farm, collected seeds, patented them, and then sued the farmer for using them... Ouch! I suppose that's kind of what Samsung is doing.
...or are you talking about the suit where they sued the farmer because seeds blew in from the neighbors farm even though that farmer didn't want them?
Nope. Just looked it up and it wasn't the one I had read about. It was about toxins.
My point of crazy tactics still stands as does the example.

Monsanto, the most evil company in the world. I don't think even Samsung could be that evil. They are stupid not evil.
post #19 of 34
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post
Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.

 

1000

post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.

It surely takes one to know one.

post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.

Right... coming from a 10-year old??

post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


I think the more realistic guess is how long will be before true finality occurs?  I see Samsung dragging this out through the courts via endless appeals, and countersuits, etc. until by the time a final verdict (against Samsung I hope) if finally done, Samsung will have made their billions on iClone knockoffs, will be chump-change (in the big picture) for a fine (if any), and whatever products they were infringing on will be a memory.

That's my 2-cents.

However, to answer your question Solips, I give it...hmmm.... two weeks@10 days.

If this trial ends in the jury finding that Samsung copied Apple, then Samsung could be blocked from importing product into the USA until they settle the judgement. Then, if they want to play cat and mouse in the court system, they will have to do it under those terms. They cannot continue to harm Apple while they carry this on in court.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


I think the more realistic guess is how long will be before true finality occurs?  I see Samsung dragging this out through the courts via endless appeals, and countersuits, etc. until by the time a final verdict (against Samsung I hope) if finally done, Samsung will have made their billions on iClone knockoffs, will be chump-change (in the big picture) for a fine (if any), and whatever products they were infringing on will be a memory.

That's my 2-cents.

However, to answer your question Solips, I give it...hmmm.... two weeks@10 days.

 

Probably true, but this is more than just about Samsung. Apple wants to show that they will vigorously defend their IP. 

post #24 of 34

They do use ordinary market research - for iTunes at least. I've filled out a couple of those carefully calibrates, deadly boring, iTunes surveys.

post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post

Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.

 

I see you're new here.

post #26 of 34
Most apple customers dont want a big ass screen...
I am more then satisfied with the 3.5" screen... And yes, one hand operation is far more importened since i usually use my iphone with 1 hand !!
post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I really don't want them to go for any records… Then again, the longer Samsung keeps making products of any sort that infringe, the more they'll have to pay when they lose.


This isn't going to end quickly. There will be appeals. They blanketed Samsung's line with claims. Note that they go all the way back to the F700. It had a keyboard. It came out around the time of the iphone. Overall it was a different product that they argue was ancestral to the rest of their line. Apple originally included it, but dropped it as there was no way that would have gone anywhere. The SIII is apparently still included. I'm wondering if it's included on the trade dress thing. If it has a large display, expect it on the trade dress claim where Apple requested far greater damages relative to the utility patents.

post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


Which if I remember right it was Monsanto against some poor guy betting his farm on the lawsuit (and I don't mean poor as in no money). This is two companies that are each worth billions.
Also, if you think Samsung is dirty, how about that case you mentioned. Monsanto snuck onto the guys farm, collected seeds, patented them, and then sued the farmer for using them... Ouch! I suppose that's kind of what Samsung is doing.
...or are you talking about the suit where they sued the farmer because seeds blew in from the neighbors farm even though that farmer didn't want them?
Nope. Just looked it up and it wasn't the one I had read about. It was about toxins.
My point of crazy tactics still stands as does the example.


The fact that Monsanto still is alive, and has had the opportunity to have those THREE trials, shows that "Contempt of Court" is pretty much a healthy attitude...

 

Now again, that's just my opinion, but if the Court was useful, it would have shutdown the operations of a company having proven several times its absolute contempt for public safety, basic humanity and any kind of respect for the Law...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

Now again, that's just my opinion, but if the Court was useful, it would have shutdown the operations of a company having proven several times its absolute contempt for public safety, basic humanity and any kind of respect for the Law...

 

 

Hence the saying:  I'll believe that corporations are people when the courts start handing out the death penalty to them.

 

Involuntary liquidation seems to be a fate that is reserved for flesh and blood people, but not corporations.

post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Further explaining Apple's stance on market research, Schiller said, "you never ask people 'what features do you want in a new product? You need to accumulate that yourself."
The executive's statements are similar to those made by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs who said, "it's hard for customers to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything remotely like it."
Schiller will continue his testimony when court proceedings resume on Friday.

 

Is this an admission that Apple's feedback links are useless?  So the next time people suggest sending feedback to Apple at http://www.apple.com/feedback, are they just wasting our time?

 

And do customers specifically ask for desktop and laptop computers that are so unserviceable that they prevent people from doing even basic maintenance, such as cleaning the fans?  Does Apple think this is what people really want?

post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Hence the saying:  I'll believe that corporations are people when the courts start handing out the death penalty to them.

Involuntary liquidation seems to be a fate that is reserved for flesh and blood people, but not corporations.

...you forgot College Football teams... uh... BTW.... your screen-name doesn't have anything to do with that I hope...?!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Hence the saying:  I'll believe that corporations are people when the courts start handing out the death penalty to them.

Involuntary liquidation seems to be a fate that is reserved for flesh and blood people, but not corporations.

Congratulations. You've kept your string intact - we're still waiting for you to get something right.

Involuntary liquidation does occur for companies at times.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7832006_business-liquidation-process.html
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 34
Apple does employ market research on their shipping products. They're smart to ask consumers their thoughts on how they use their devices
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #34 of 34

Funny how far Apple has come from when this thread was… Oh. Apparently he was lying then, too. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple doesn't rely on market research, says marketing chief Phil Schiller