Apple doesn't rely on market research, says marketing chief Phil Schiller
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.?
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.
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.?
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.
Comments
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.
So any guesses on the length of this trial?
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
That was years of legal battle, that was not 3 years of a trial.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... "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.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
I think the longest civil trial, against Monsanto, was 3.5 years.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
Post-market research could yield concrete information: do people like this button here? Would they like another button? And so on and on.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
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.
Monsanto, the most evil company in the world. I don't think even Samsung could be that evil. They are stupid not evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Grow up. You sound like a 12 year old.
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech
Grow up. You sound like a 12 year old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4TheLoveOfTech
Grow up. You sound like a 12 year old.
It surely takes one to know one.