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

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,088member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post


    Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.



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

  • Reply 22 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    It surely takes one to know one.



     


    Point made regarding the average intelligence level of this site.

  • Reply 23 of 38

    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.

  • Reply 24 of 38
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    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. 

  • Reply 25 of 38
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member


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

  • Reply 26 of 38
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech View Post


    Grow up.  You sound like a 12 year old.



     


    I see you're new here.

  • Reply 27 of 38
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,806member


    If they had relied on market research they would have had an iPhone with a much larger screen by now and the S3 would have been a flop. Maybe another year of Samsung more than doubling their global sales will convince Apple that their customers don't give a rat's ass about one hand operation and want a decent sized screen.

  • Reply 28 of 38
    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 !!
  • Reply 29 of 38
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    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.

  • Reply 30 of 38
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    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...

  • Reply 31 of 38

    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.

  • Reply 32 of 38
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    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?

  • Reply 33 of 38
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    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...?!
  • Reply 34 of 38
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    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
  • Reply 35 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    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


     


     


    And your score at the game of failing to understand is unmatched.


     


    I am aware of involuntary liquidation in the context of bankruptcy.   I was speaking of it as a remedy for violation of statutes.  Due to my comment being concerned with a corporate death penalty for misconduct, that much should have been obvious.


     


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

  • Reply 36 of 38

    Apple does employ market research on their shipping products. They're smart to ask consumers their thoughts on how they use their devices
  • Reply 37 of 38


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

  • Reply 38 of 38

    Apple is very costly in compare to Samsung. They should be research their market & industry for user perspective to increase business demand, & we have largest database of industry analysis, market analysis, market reports, market data, market strategy & online databases to corporate.

    Through our industry analysis you can identify opportunities, analyze requirements of the customers and study the competition sector wise.

     

    For more please visit : Bharat Book Bureau

Sign In or Register to comment.