or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Phil Schiller relates Apple's struggles to develop iPhone, iPad; shock at Samsung's copies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phil Schiller relates Apple's struggles to develop iPhone, iPad; shock at Samsung's copies

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Apple's senior VP of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller took the stand today, describing Apple's development of the iPhone and iPad at a time when few believed the company could shake up the mobile industry.

Revolutionary, iconic products

Schiller noted that the iPod had "really changed everybody?s view of Apple both inside and outside the company," adding that it prompted the people to discuss what industry the company could shake up next, "make a camera, make a car, crazy stuff," Schiller related.

As noted earlier in comments by Steve Jobs, Schiller said Apple had been working to develop a tablet but realized it could use much of the work already done to develop a revolutionary mobile phone.

?At the time, cellphones weren?t any good as entertainment devices,? Schiller said. Apple's attorneys, arguing the case that Samsung "slavishly copied" Apple's unique designs, had Schiller recite reviews touting the iPhone and later the iPad as "revolutionary" and "iconic" new devices.

Established competitors in the smartphone market, including top executives from Palm and Microsoft, predicted the iPhone would fail. When asked why, Schiller answered, ?probably the biggest reason was that Apple had never had a phone before. They expected we would fall on our faces."

When Apple brought the iPad to market, it was also a big risk. "People had tried to make tablets before and failed miserably," Schiller stated.

He revealed that Apple spent $97.5 million advertising the iPhone in fiscal 2008, $149.6 million in 2009 and $173.3 million in fiscal 2010, with the iPad getting ad additional $149.5 million ad budget in 2010.

?The advertisement has to give you a sense of how it might work, and what it might do for you before you have a chance to head to the store and try it yourself,? Schiller said. The ads ?create a reason that you might want a tablet in your life."

The problem with copies

When Apple attorney Harold McElhinny asked Schiller about the effects of others copying the designs Apple created, the marketing chief answered that it "creates a huge problem in marketing on many levels. We market our product as the hero and how distinctive it is, how consistent we?ve kept it over time."

Schiller added, ?now when someone comes up with a product that copies that design and copies that marketing, then customers can get confused on whose product is whose. [?] If you steal [the iPhone's design] you?re stealing all the value we?ve created.?

Schiller noted that in billboard or TV advertising, "customers only get a glimpse of the product.? He also
At first sight of Samsung's Galaxy S, Schiller said ?I was pretty shocked at the appearance of the Galaxy S phone and the extent to which it appeared to copy Apple products and the problems that would create for us.?

When he saw Samsung's Galaxy Tab, Schiller said, ?I thought, ?they are just going to steal our whole product line.'"

?I absolutely believe it has had an impact on our sales,? Schiller said.

Samsung's cross examination

Samsung lawyer Bill Price, cross examining Schiller, tried to establish that the move toward a virtual on-screen keyboard simply necessitated the adoption of the basic overall design of the iPhone, and that various features of the iPhone were not unprecedented. The company introduced emails noting that the LG Prada phone had a large touchscreen and that by 2005, Palm's Treo smartphones had a library of third party apps reaching 10,000 titles.

The cross examination also included efforts to designate the iPhone's design as largely functional rather than aesthetic, as Apple's strongest case is its design patents, which are limited to ornamental features rather than purely embodiments of function. For example, Samsung's attorney tried to establish that design elements such as its rounded corners were actually functional because they made it easier to put in one's pocket.

Samsung was also working to use Apple's sales surveys to establish that people bought the iPhone for its ease of use more than for its design or appearance, an effort to undermine the value of Apple's design patents. The attorney also asked about what Apple would be changing in the design of iPhone 5, a question that Schiller answered simply with, "I?d prefer not to tell confidential information about future products."

Presented with Samsung's Continuum smartphone, Schiller said, ?I looked at this phone and it was my opinion that Samsung has ripped off a number of our design elements and in doing that may be causing confusion.?

Schiller added that Apple's iPhone was developed to incite a ?lust factor,? to which the cross examining attorney asked if Samsung's multiple buttons inspired the same "lust."

Schiller answered that while Samsung may be trying to be beautiful, ?I don?t think they are as beautiful as iPhone.?
post #2 of 38

You want to see the car that Apple would make, look no further than Tesla.

 

Apple's car would look completely different, but the spirit embodied in what Tesla is doing is exactly what Apple would have done, plus some surprises that we can't even imagine.

 

I say 'we'. I can think of a few things, but no one likes it if anyone else on the face of the planet thinks they have any actual ideas that might be what Apple would do, so I'll refrain.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #3 of 38

I'm surprised AI isn't having live streaming coverage (using CoverItLive, or at least Twitter) of the trial. I'm watching 3 different Twitter feeds right now, about lawyers arguing over what Scott Forstall can and cannot testify over.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You want to see the car that Apple would make, look no further than Tesla.

 

Apple's car would look completely different, but the spirit embodied in what Tesla is doing is exactly what Apple would have done, plus some surprises that we can't even imagine.

 

I say 'we'. I can think of a few things, but no one likes it if anyone else on the face of the planet thinks they have any actual ideas that might be what Apple would do, so I'll refrain.

Tesla uses android. You do know that right?

post #5 of 38
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
Tesla uses android. You do know that right?

 

Is this in some way a rebuttal to what I've said? It's simply a consequence of iOS not being used in embedded devices.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Is this in some way a rebuttal to what I've said? It's simply a consequence of iOS not being used in embedded devices.

Absolutely it is

post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Tesla uses android. You do know that right?

So what?

 

He's talking about the hardware design.

post #8 of 38

Schiller shouldn't be shocked. Samsung is notoriously crooked, especially in their hoe country. 

post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

So what?

 

He's talking about the hardware design.

They are using android because of its openness and customizability. Completely opposite from apple.


Edited by Just_Me - 8/3/12 at 1:49pm
post #10 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Schiller shouldn't be shocked. Samsung is notoriously crooked, especially in their hoe country. 

What do you have against Korean women?

post #11 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

They are using android because of its openness and customizability. Completely opposite from apple.

 

Great. Your point? He was clearly talking about physical design, a point which you're pretending not to understand. 

post #12 of 38
Yeah! Android for your Tesla car so your car will need virus and malware protection too. I'll take the walled garden for 200 please. Lol! Terrorists hack your car and crash you because it uses android. Lol. Can you imagine?

2010 15" MBP, iPhone 5 64GB, New iPad 64GB LTE, (2) ATV 2nd Gen

Reply

2010 15" MBP, iPhone 5 64GB, New iPad 64GB LTE, (2) ATV 2nd Gen

Reply
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
The attorney also asked about what Apple would be changing in the design of iPhone 5....

Wow. The arrogance.

 

He must take Schiller for a fool.

post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

They are using android because of its openness and customizability. Completely opposite from apple.

Look, Tesla is cool and all. But it wouldn't exist if it weren't for a massive US taxpayer subsidy. 

 

Not dissimilar to how Android (and its acolytes like Samsung) wouldn't exist if it weren't for its R&D being subsidized by Apple. lol.gif

post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I'm surprised AI isn't having live streaming coverage (using CoverItLive, or at least Twitter) of the trial. I'm watching 3 different Twitter feeds right now, about lawyers arguing over what Scott Forstall can and cannot testify over.

where are the twitter feeds?

post #16 of 38
Gotta say I don't think Forstall's testimony went that well. Not that he said anything damaging. But the Samsung lawyer did produce an email from Eddy Cue about the 7" Galaxy Tab saying [Cue] thought Apple needed to do one, talked to Steve about it and Steve was receptive. Here's what the Verge writes:

2:00 PM Wow. Forstall is shown a 2011 email from Eddy Cue, in which Cue forwarded an article that a journalist wrote about dumping the iPad after using a Galaxy Tab. Cue writes "Having used a Samsung Galaxy [Tab], i tend to agree with many of the comments below... I believe there will be a 7-inch market and we should do one. I expressed this to Steve several times since Thanksgiving and he seemed very receptive the last time."

Ouch.
post #17 of 38

My favorite quote:

Quote:

Schiller is now being asked about the frequency of iPhone design changes. He says that Apple changes its design.

 

Samsung has now asked if there will be design changes in the iPhone 5 (couple of objections on that one). Schiller says he prefers not to talk about confidential future products. Apple lawyer says the iPhone 5 is not a public product and that there has been no discussion/disclosure about future products.

 

I bet they did ask, priceless!

post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Ouch.

Why ouch? Was there a Samsung design patent on a 7-inch?
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Gotta say I don't think Forstall's testimony went that well. Not that he said anything damaging. But the Samsung lawyer did produce an email from Eddy Cue about the 7" Galaxy Tab saying [Cue] thought Apple needed to do one, talked to Steve about it and Steve was receptive. Here's what the Verge writes:
2:00 PM Wow. Forstall is shown a 2011 email from Eddy Cue, in which Cue forwarded an article that a journalist wrote about dumping the iPad after using a Galaxy Tab. Cue writes "Having used a Samsung Galaxy [Tab], i tend to agree with many of the comments below... I believe there will be a 7-inch market and we should do one. I expressed this to Steve several times since Thanksgiving and he seemed very receptive the last time."
Ouch.

What's wrong with that!? He praised their product, and expressed an opinion that Apple should enter the 7-inch market. The fact that he had to mention it "several" times before Steve finally "seemed receptive" says nothing at all.

 

Indeed, I don't even understand the point of this line of questioning. What point is Samsung trying to make here? That Apple copied Samsung? Over a nonexistent product?

post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Why ouch? Was there a Samsung design patent on a 7-inch?
No but the jury could be swayed by the argument that companies take ideas or get inspired by other companies and that shouldn't be considered copying.
post #21 of 38
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
Absolutely it is

 

In what way, then, because I'm not catching it. As if my reply wasn't proof enough that you haven't made any sort of point whatsoever.


Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

They are using android because of its openness and customizability. Completely opposite from apple.

 

You're so, so completely lost… I'm not even sorry for you.


Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
Wow. The arrogance.

 

He must take Schiller for a fool.

 

Did Schiller say, "We released that last October, morons," because that'd be spectacular. lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What's wrong with that!? He praised their product, and expressed an opinion that Apple should enter the 7-inch market. The fact that he had to mention it "several" times before Steve finally "seemed receptive" says nothing at all.

Indeed, I don't even understand the point of this line of questioning. What point is Samsung trying to make here? That Apple copied Samsung? Over a nonexistent product?
I'm assuming he's trying to prove that Apple does competitive research and gets ideas from other companies like Samsung. At the end of th day Samsung will argue that all companies get inspiration from other companies and it's not copying. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can see them making that case, and I can see a jury buying it.
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

No but the jury could be swayed by the argument that companies take ideas or get inspired by other companies and that shouldn't be considered copying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that Apple has a design patent is absolutely basic to the suit to begin with. No design patent, no suit. Isn't it about violating a patent?
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You want to see the car that Apple would make, look no further than Tesla.



 



Apple's car would look completely different, but the spirit embodied in what Tesla is doing is exactly what Apple would have done, plus some surprises that we can't even imagine.



 



I say 'we'. I can think of a few things, but no one likes it if anyone else on the face of the planet thinks they have any actual ideas that might be what Apple would do, so I'll refrain.


The thing about Tesla, despite having a 15 or 18 inch touchscreen is that it has a very poor fit and finish on the interior. I would think Apple would do much better than that.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #25 of 38
From reading the live blog if anything this trial will show how obsessed Samsung was/is with Apple. To the point of hiring consulting groups to come in and tell them why they should care/be worried about Apple.
post #26 of 38

At least Samsung hasn’t tried to slavishly copy the Mac.

 

Oh, wait...

 

http://www.cultofmac.com/170727/samsung-is-now-shamelessly-ripping-off-the-design-of-the-mac-mini/

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

What do you have against Korean women?

He got dumped by one?

 

That explains why his mind is always in the gutter.

 

And him easily referencing the "hoe" part, that usually tells me that he has some experience with or is familiar with that part of the worlds oldest business.

 

Hmm...

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

where are the twitter feeds?

 

Here are the best right now:  @sdlawsonmedia  @hmintz  @tim  @inafried

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #29 of 38

Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #30 of 38
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post
…Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.

 

Yeah, that's obviously not completely wrong.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

He got dumped by one?

That explains why his mind is always in the gutter.

And him easily referencing the "hoe" part, that usually tells me that he has some experience with or is familiar with that part of the worlds oldest business.

Hmm...

If anyone has their mind in the gutter, it's surely you.

Here, let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


If anyone has their mind in the gutter, it's surely you.
Here, let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoe

Help yourself, anantksundrama.

post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.

 

No but I bet they use WebKit, and I suspect Apple's contribution is acknowledged in the Open Source license agreements that accompany every Android device.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #34 of 38

Apple seems to be taking the right approach.

 

Experimentally, we know from records and articles from that time that iPhone and iPad were original, contrarian designs that Apple alone introduced and popularized.  We know it because key players all ridiculed the design and told Apple it was stupid.  This proves their self development story is a fraud, crafted to justify an illegal pirating of Apple's design.  By mocking the design at intro time, Apple peers effectively self testified that it was not their design, and they had no intention of designing a similar product.  

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Embedded systems dont use iOS or other Apple software because Apple wants to be a ball hog and not license it out to others.

They earn more money by keeping the ball to themselves. It's business. I bet if Google had the resources to build their own proprietary phone, they wouldn't bother with open source.

post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
The attorney also asked about what Apple would be changing in the design of iPhone 5....

Wow. The arrogance.

 

He must take Schiller for a fool.

 

 

I had the same reaction. Why didn't Apple object to that question based on lack of relevance?

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch View Post

 

 

I had the same reaction. Why didn't Apple object to that question based on lack of relevance?


They couldn't resist letting Schiller make his smart remarks

post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Tesla uses android. You do know that right?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Is this in some way a rebuttal to what I've said? It's simply a consequence of iOS not being used in embedded devices.

 

They use Android so they can embed it and control it.  The Apple way is, you step into the car and bluetooth takes over communicating with the car.  Tesla can't take the risk of an infected Android phone entering the car and controlling it.  Thus, Android is used since they can't embed iOS..../s until the details are worked out with Apple of course.....  lol.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Phil Schiller relates Apple's struggles to develop iPhone, iPad; shock at Samsung's copies
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Phil Schiller relates Apple's struggles to develop iPhone, iPad; shock at Samsung's copies