Then you know that Apple did not invent, create or establish the smartphone/tablet market.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Emails Show Phil Schiller's Displeasure with Ad Agency's Efforts for Apple in Early 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then you know that Apple did not invent, create or establish the smartphone/tablet market.
Did not invent or create. However they did push it, they pushed it and this was the smartphone revolution. It worked very differently from other phones of the time with a better UI and I think Apple is a significant reason behind our modern day smartphones.
Wow that lack of proper capitalization clearly shows the lack of professionalism in the agency. Definitely not one Apple should be working with.
I thought this was a patent lawsuit?
We were supposed to be hearing about stolen ideas and prior art for the umpteenth million time, but instead we're just getting a bunch of Apple's dirty laundry. What does Phil Schiller's opinion on the work of his ad agency have to do with the actual case at hand?
We were supposed to be hearing about stolen ideas and prior art for the umpteenth million time, but instead we're just getting a bunch of Apple's dirty laundry. What does Phil Schiller's opinion on the work of his ad agency have to do with the actual case at hand?
And yet they have for decades... Clearly they care less about that then they do about the creative work they agency is doing.
Infringement awards. Apple claims that infringement is worth billions in lost sales.
However, the documents and emails point out that Apple didn't blame patent infringement for lost sales at all.
Instead, they rightfully blamed Samsung's better advertising and product mix.
Here you go. The smartphone market was already set to boom; there are numerous articles from 2005-6 talking about that and the coming switch to capacitive, finger friendly devices.
Which, of course, is EXACTLY why Apple jumped in at that moment. They wanted a piece of the action.
The time was ripe. Other companies had already built the infrastructure and marketplace. 3G was becoming ubiquitous. Big screens and memory were getting cheaper.
So the market was already taking off, even without Apple. Sure, phones might not look exactly like they do now. Heck, they might even look better, with more common sense... like waterproofing... used over fashion choices like glass. Also, probably much cheaper choices. Maybe we'd still have unlimited data plans, too. Maybe not.
I was basing my comments off of Schiller's quote - and no where have I said Apple INVENTED anything....you're the one putting words in my mouth.
Adios.
I wish more people read and committed your posts to memory because this often has to be repeated.
Having worked in the industry in the early to mid 90s I can confirm that at least the company I worked for (and I have to believe others) had several (ok 2-3) full capacitive touch screen phones in the pipeline. Well before Apple made any announcements of the iPhone.
The sudden release of phones "similar" to the iPhone was in part coincidental timing, but (and I give Apple credit here) - Apple's entry gave more proof points to competitors that the market was indeed ready to, perhaps, forgo a keyboard and rely solely on touch.
A black line has been drawn through Media Arts Lab in a lot of corporate marketing departments.
Yep. Qualcomm also was making a touch controller at the time, and talked about having projects with several phone makers. Everyone was showing off or talking about capacitive screens; even multi-touch pinch zoom.
They went on to say that the big move to touch would require the cost to be right, for apps to be rewritten for touch, and for some kind of mass publicity catalyst... which they predicted would happen before the end of 2007.
Yes, but a successful implementation of an OS that works, not by imitating a desktop is not something that is a given, neither is it something that implements itself just because more responsive screens become available. Looking at older phones, the UIs are often quite horrible. It's not so strange when you think about it, that at a time when phones starts to approaching regular computers, a company like Apple that's been involved since the very dawn of personal computers comes in and nails it.
Which, of course, proves nothing about who copies who.
A lot of the arguments I see here reminds me of this Schopenhauer quote, it's exactly the phases that can be observed here. Now, it's of course trivial and "self-evident" to make, and "we know it all along" etc, etc.
I knew Apple was doing badly in Europe, but man you're not kidding about the rest of Europe being a write-off.
And just wait until subsidies disappear in the US.
So we've seen every document/email from Apple and are able to determine that? So far all we've seen is one keynote presentation from a sales guy (that Schiller said on the stand he didn't agree with and it wasn't the official view of Apple) and a couple emails related to marketing. I don think based on what has been made public any of us can equivocally state that Apple didn't view patent infringement as a reason for lost sales. I don't see any smoking gun here.
Having said that, I don't think this trial is worth it, especially with some of the confidential documents being made public. I don't see that there's anything here for Apple to win. Samsung can just play the victim and claim that Apple is this big bully picking on them, when in reality Samsung is no longer the underdog and in many ways is the biggest bully on the block.
We here in the forum have the advantage of being outside observers.
I was talking about what the Samsung lawyers want the jury to think.
It's up to Apple to counter that with any documents they have which express worry about infringement.
Well the company I worked for in the mid-90s didn't have an OS that resembled a desktop OS on their non-keyboard phone that was in the pipeline. It wasn't iOS either.
You speak from ignorance. And I don't mean that as a dig. I mean that literally. Unless you're telling me you worked or have intimate knowledge of what was going behind closed doors at the OEMs.
I (and KDarling) do have insight because we were there (not in the same place - at least I doubt we were). And I know I am just another anonymous poster so you're free to take what I say with a grain of salt. But again - I was there. I saw it. I touched it.
Apple must be a multi-million dollar account (more like, 'the' account) for TBWA--their lack of basic English composition skills is shocking, especially considering that they're writing to the marketing czar of Apple.
Sure, you are right, there is no way for me to know what went on behind the closed doors of the place you worked at.
Translation "Don't compare your products to those of another company in advertising as it cheapens your reputation, unless you are Apple, in which case the previous rule does not apply to you"
----------
I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with every post I have read by kdarling. Always right on the money.
The only "conversation" i've ever seen jrwizzle have is those which highlight the positives of Apple whilst exaggerating the deficiencies of Apple competitors.
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit but aren't advertising guys supposed to be trained in psychology and manipulation? Invoking "1997" is a way to frighten
execs into thinking, "Panic and Spend crazy money on Advertising!".It also seems like a case of "
, you have a serious problem. We are just the guys to fix it." Ironic, when these guys have the primary job of marketing
and keeping the brand visible and valuable.
Translation "Don't compare your products to those of another company in advertising as it cheapens your reputation, unless you are Apple, in which case the previous rule does not apply to you"
Assume what you want - I was actually equating those Mac vs PC ads to the combative ads we see from Amazon and Samsung today. Just noted they were a bit different in that they portrayed OSes in an abstract manner versus honing in on a specific workflow and belittling customers.
But please, don't let me get in the way of your bashing....
----------
The only "conversation" i've ever seen jrwizzle have is those which highlight the positives of Apple whilst exaggerating the deficiencies of Apple competitors.
You obviously don't pay attention friend. I think I just get on the nerves of those who are overly critical of Apple. Which is exactly what I try to do in posts like these.
----------
Heh thanks pal - but I get attacked on here all the time. Used to it at this point. I make it very clear I'm an "Apple fanboy" but in threads like these I feel I add a balance that is severly lacking. It's either "Schiller is an idiot" or "Samesung" comments all the time.....I try to offer a bit more balance.
Notice after he posted that I countered and never heard from him again.
----------
Those quotes came from 2006....you're basing the idea that Apple got into the mobile market right in 2007 when it was ripe for explosion. Truth is the iPhone had been under development for years prior.
Its easy to look back and say, "Well it would've happened anyway" but that revisionist history. Maybe capacitive touchscreens were the way things were moving, but SOMEONE had to step up and create a product utilizing said technology in a way the normal consumer would both understand and want to use.
I'm not sure why it seems to irk people so much that Apple played a massive (perhaps the biggest) role in shaping our current smartphone industry. Did you work for RIM or own Palm stock or something?
----------
This is the way it is with most all technology these days. Features and ways to manipulate icons and data are seen as "obvious" - but why? Because SOMEONE implemented them that way and because of the incredibly easy and well thought out implementation, they've become ubiquitous and necessary.
Apple (and other companies who protect their IP) put a lot of thought into the ways they design hardware and software. Whether the average consumer thinks so or not. They have every right to protect it despite how trivial or "obvious" we clueless consumers think it is.