Phil Schiller relates Apple's struggles to develop iPhone, iPad; shock at Samsung's copies
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.?
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.?
Comments
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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?
Originally Posted by Just_Me
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Tesla uses android. You do know that right?
So what?
He's talking about the hardware design.
Schiller shouldn't be shocked. Samsung is notoriously crooked, especially in their hoe country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
So what?
He's talking about the hardware design.
They are using android because of its openness and customizability. Completely opposite from apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Schiller shouldn't be shocked. Samsung is notoriously crooked, especially in their hoe country.
What do you have against Korean women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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?
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.
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!
Why ouch? Was there a Samsung design patent on a 7-inch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
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?
Originally Posted by Just_Me
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
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
Wow. The arrogance.
He must take Schiller for a fool.
Did Schiller say, "We released that last October, morons," because that'd be spectacular.