Apple's Manifesto

Apple’s new ‘Designed By Apple’[1] and ‘Our Signature’ ads are garnering a lot of attention — in both positive and negative[2] lights. But what I think people have largely overlooked since John Moltz pointed out that Samsung is/was a client of Ace Metrix (The source often cited when deriding Apple’s latest ads), is that these new spots harken back to Apple’s ‘Here’s To The Crazy Ones’ ad from the late 90s.

Lee Clow, the big dog at Apple’s advertising agency, recently said — rather off-handedly — that “Crazy Ones” was made to ‘buy time’ between Jobs’ re-arrival and the iMac[3], but I sincerely doubt that’s the whole story.

I believe the entire ‘Think Different’ campaign was a manifesto; an anthem; a rallying cry. Apple had rediscovered itself. It had dusted off its original identity and it wanted to let everyone know. It wasn’t just for Apple as so many have claimed — it was also for it’s customers. Apple wanted to let people know that they shouldn’t listen to all the negativity, that good things were coming, and that those things would be decidedly different[4].

I believe these new ads serve the same function. With every two-bit “analyst” crawling out of the woodwork to talk about how Apple is losing it’s cool, or waining in public support, or that innovation at Apple is dead since the death of founder and resurrector, Steve Jobs, it has become time once again to rally the troops.

This is Tim Cook’s Apple. And while it may not have some of Jobs’ alleged design tendencies, it still believes those things it clung to in the late 90s when death was knocking at the door. Apple doesn’t ship a product just for the sake of shipping it[5] — each product has a purpose, it fills a need. And Apple will not be rushed to market before it’s ready. And Apple’s string of successes seem to indicate that they know what they’re doing.

I, for one, love the ads and am excited for the fall.

---

1. Apple seems to be drawing a lot of heat about their claim that these products are “Designed by Apple in California” — as though they are trying to draw attention away from their place of manufacture. And while I’ve no doubt that Apple would be pleased if these ads reminded people that much of what they do does not take advantage of China’s manufacturing prowess, I think the emphasis is all wrong. Jason Zimdars put it very well in a piece he wrote back in 2010 (emphasis his):

   [I]t wasn’t “Made by Apple in California,” it was Designed. I can’t think of another company that holds design in higher esteem or even one that touts every product as designed, not made. This might be the best expression of the company’s mission available. ↩

2. A lot of people are basing their conclusion that these ads are a ‘flop’ on a report by Ace Metrix, a company that numbers Samsung among their clients. ↩
3. And OS X. ↩
4. And not just different for different’s sake. Apple took a radical approach to make computers into functionally integrated, simple, and beautiful appliances — in terms of hardware and software. ↩
5. iPod Socks not withstanding. ↩

Generic... Eventually

Jonathan Stempel:

"We no longer see a need to pursue our case," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. "With more than 900,000 apps and 50 billion downloads, customers know where they can purchase their favorite apps."

The way Apple abandoned this case is basically a slap across the face of Amazon. Their 'appstore' is so inconsequential that Apple need not waste it's resources any further trying to stop them from piggybacking on Apple's branding success.

Nonetheless, the original defence for the usage of 'appstore' was that the term had become so generic that customers would not be mislead. I find this line of thinking to be laughable! One company can steal another's ideas and implementations (Samsung, I'm looking at you) and then simply wait until trial, at which point the IP in question has become so diluted that it is, in fact, generic. Does no one else see how crazy this is?

I know I find that infuriating as an on-looker. I cannot imagine how it would feel as the inventor of the idea.

EDIT: Repaired the article.

Samsung/Apple UK judgment

This whole thing is so stupid I can't even handle it. The UK court wants Apple to apologize to Samsung on the Apple UK homepage for giving Samsung months and months of free adverts and fodder for ads with additional space on Apple's site. I understand why Apple was upset with what Samsung had done (and continues to do), but they gave the South Korean electronics manufacturer a metric tonne of publicity (I was going to say "free publicity", but it wasn't). None-the-less Samsung's Galaxy Tab line went from 'just another tablet' to front-and-centre. They should be thanking Apple, especially since Californian tech giant lost it's case in Europe, leaving that territory rife for the selling.

Maybe they'll make back what they lost in the US...

Google Now

Paul Sawers:

Google Now is its “intelligent personal assistant” for Android, an app that uses a natural-language UI to answer questions, make recommendations, and perform other key actions.

Oh, come on!

"Copying Doesn't Stop Innovation"

James Allworth:

Apple didn't stop innovating at all. Instead: they came out with the iMac. Then OS X ("Redmond, start your photocopiers"). Then the iPod. Then the iPhone. And now, most recently, the iPad. Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it's hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn't Apple stop innovating last time they were copied?

Is this guy for real!?

Apple didn't stop innovating; Microsoft did! Microsoft rode a poorly worded gravy train to over-priced glory then tossed the tech landscape into a monopolistic dark age. Samsung was on track to accomplish the same thing. This doesn't stop the innovators from doing their thing. That's in their DNA. It stops their competitors from innovating, and that destroys the work of the people who are "pushing the human race forward".

Samsung Better At Hardware Than Apple?

Nigam Arora on the forthcoming Samsung "P10" tablet that was disclosed during the Apple v. Samsung trial:

There is no doubt that Samsung will do a better job than Apple at the electronics hardware.

Uh-huh.

Samsung Smoke And Misdirection

Bryan Bishop on Samsung's latest trial tactics:

[A lawyer for Samsung showed] a video that he said proved the Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't use the ["bounce-back"] feature either. Unfortunately for Johnson, Balakrishnan had to point out that in the video the user wasn't actually scrolling to the end of the web page in question — a requirement to trigger the feature in the first place.

It's like Samsung is trying to look bad.

IDC's Samsung Sales Claims

Philip Elmer-DeWitt provides an update on his article which notes that 98.5% of Samsung's tablets (according to IDC) are sold overseas (read the article to see why that is unlikely):

UPDATE: An IDC spokesman points out that the court document submitted by Samsung only lists unit sales of "accused" tablets, i.e. the Galaxy Tab line. Samsung also sells tablets -- like the Windows-based Series 7 Slate -- that haven't been accused of infringing Apple's patents. IDC hasn't done a breakdown of the two categories.

Oh, well then. It all makes sense now. (Picture an eye-roll there).

Stupid Things Market Watch Says

Quentin Fottrell saying things:

All that initial excitement over the first iPhone or iPad has quickly given way to what analysts are dubbing “upgrade fatigue”—with even Apple’s most loyal customers upset about the steady stream of newer models.

That was the first sentence. Samsung has released 32 Android phones since 2009... and there are dozens of other Android manufacturers. Apple has released 5 iPhones since 2007. So... yeah.

Samsung Product Evolution

John Paczkowski:

In a trio of product timelines submitted into evidence and released to the public on Friday as part of the company’s case against Samsung, Apple tracks the evolution of Samsung’s smartphone and tablet designs against those of the iPhone and iPad...

It's fun to watch the "evolution" of Samsung's products. It took them almost 3 years to fully copy Apple's iPhone... and then Samsung's sales took off. Well done, Apple!

Galaxy Note 10.1

Sean Buckley:

Negri Electronics, the apparent one stop shop for hard-to-find tablets, is now offering pre-orders for Samsung's upcoming Galaxy Note 10.1.

I can't wait to see someone hold this thing up to their ear.

Samsung's Wishful Thinking

Nilay Patel on Samsung releasing rejected trial evidence to the media:

That woud have been the end of it — except Samsung immediately emailed its rejected slides regarding F700 development and the "Sony-style" prototype to the press with a statement saying "The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design."

Samsung resorting to end-arounds aside, It's certainly wishful thinking that this evidence would have established anything "beyond a reasonable doubt".

"Market Share"

Eric Slivka:

According to IDC, Samsung remains the number two tablet manufacturer behind Apple, but despite strong 117.6% year-over-year shipment growth still saw its tablets outsold by the iPad by a margin of 7-to-1.

Say it with me now, "Shipments mean nothing". I could not possibly care less how many Galaxy Tabs Best Buy purchased last quarter. How many of those ever made it off the shelf and out of the box? Apple is selling all those iPads... can the same be said for whatever else is being made? When I go to Best Buy there must be 25 tablets on display. No one ever uses them. But the iPad display is crowded every time I go there. I'd like, just once, to see "Market Share" numbers that reflect actual in-the-hands-of-end-users market share. Just once.

"Nearly 40 iPhone and iPad prototypes..."

Dieter Bohn:

Today at the Apple vs. Samsung trial, Apple designer Christopher Stringer took to the stand as Apple's first witness. In the course of his testimony about Apple's design process, he showed dozens of rejected iPhone and iPad designs — including some he actually showed in person.

Samsung's Industrial Design team must be rubbing their hands together and licking their chops.

Apple vs. Samsung: The Legend Continues

John Paczkowski for some site:

Apple is seeking $2.5 billion from its Korean rival, which it argues illegally chose to compete by copying Apple. “Samsung once sold a range of phones and a tablet of its own design,” Apple wrote in its filing. “Now Samsung’s mobile 13 devices not only look like Apple’s iPhone and iPad, they use Apple’s patented software features to interact with the user.”

Popcorn, anyone?

Galaxy Note II: the BIGinning

Jonathan S. Geller:

The display is said to be thinner and taller, allowing Samsung to stuff a 5.5-inch screen into a phone

A stupid phone just got stupider.

Galaxy SIII's Monster Launch Numbers

Trevor Mogg on Samsung's Galaxy SIII selling 10 million units in the two months since it's launch:

With the S3 having quickly established itself as a handset to be reckoned with, the attention is now turning to Samsung’s main rival, Apple, to see if it can dazzle consumers with the next iteration of its iPhone, expected to be unveiled in September or October. Sure, Apple sold a colossal 35.1 million iPhones in the first three months of this year, but with more high-end, feature-rich Android phones coming to market, it’ll have to pull out all the stops to maintain those kinds of figures.

For real? Apple's now 9-month-old iPhone 4S sold a healthy 26 million (Samsung's model is only 10 million shy (generously adjusting for other iPhone models sold), I'm sure they'll catch up) units this quarter in spite of the fact that many would-be iPhone owners are holding off until the fall launch of the next-gen iPhone. How about we wait and see how the new handset does before we start declaring the latest iPhone-killer, mmmkay?

Innovation vs Copying

Drew Olanoff on Apple's ban of the Galaxy Nexus:

If the Nexus did catch on with some people, it would most definitely cause some disruption in Apple’s plans, which is what competition is all about. Instead, sending this all to a court for litigation limits everyone else’s opportunity to truly innovate.

And later:

If Apple wants to protect its IP, that’s fine, and that’s America. If Apple wants to be the best, it should just focus on making the best, and let the consumers decide.

The problem is that other OEMs (Samsung is especially shamless in this regard) are just stealing Apple's design ideas and UI ideas, and even names. Innovation is not the problem, copying is.

Patent Absurdity

John Naughton, writing about Apple case against Googorola getting thrown out:

This is a landmark judgment, one of those moments when someone – in this case an eminent judge rather than a small child – points out that the emperor is indeed stark naked. Patent wrangling between technology companies has become both pathological and pointless. It is also a gross abuse of intellectual property law that uses the courts as tools for gaining competitive advantage. The people who should be deciding whether Apple's phones are better – more functional, reliable, easier to use – than Motorola's are consumers, not judges. By striking a blow for common sense in what had become a madhouse, Posner has set a really encouraging precedent.

I agree with the specific example and, furthermore, believe the entire patent system to be horribly flawed. That said, there needs to be a way to stop people (Samsung, I'm looking at you) from blatantly stealing everything Apple does. Like phones, tablets, Siri, and "ultrabooks"(read: MacBook Air Clones). I don't know for sure what that is, but something needs to change.

Samsung Copies Apple

Matt Brian:

Samsung will open own branded stores later this year, also rolling out smaller Samsung ‘Experience Zones’ and store-within-a-store kiosks in larger retail outlets (much like Apple does with Best Buy)

Apple store-within-a-stores pale in comparison to the shopping experience at an actual Apple Store. Matt continues...

It draws parallels with Apple’s own retail experience, but Samsung isn’t going to operate its own stores, instead it will outsource it to third-party companies.

I suspect that's the same problem with Apple's store-within-a-stores. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.