News & Analysis
Comment
s@mke10
absolutely true!!!
s@mke10
exactly! you dont only patent software that work like a horse's backside, it ...
A look inside Apple’s kitchen table group
Rick Merritt
7/31/2012 9:23 PM EDT
“We’ve been ripped off”
The industrial design team works with separate product design and manufacturing teams. McElhinny asked Stringer to detail the manufacturing challenges and market risks Apple faced with the designs his team chose.
He listed problems with mating glass and metal elements, using thin metal bezels and drilling holes in the glass. For the iPad 2, “there was a huge effort in the factory getting the gaps or reveals to be as tight as they are” between the glass front and metal backing, said Stringer.
Stringer reflected much of the philosophy of high aesthetics and intuitive usability associated with Apple’s industrial designs, saying it aimed to create cultural icons. “We want to create the simplest, purest manifestation of what [the product] could be—something people could love,” he said.
The descriptions sometimes bordered on self-serving hubris and hyperbole.
“There were legions of phones available and none of them were very satisfying,” Stringer said. “Smartphones existed but they were more like tiny computers--we came up with something breathtaking and the challenges of producing that were enormous,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe what his team did the day the original iPhone was launched.
“The entire design team--or those who could be--were at the Apple store in San Francisco,” he said. “We were excited, we had something new and there was an incredible buzz of people anticipating something,” he said.
“There was an enormous crowd outside, we wanted to feel that enthusiasm and see the first people to get [the iPhone]--it was mayhem, like a carnival,” he recalled. “We were very, very proud; we had worked very, very hard--an enormous amount of people had put out great sacrifices--and it was worth it, it was a beautiful day,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe his feelings about products that look like the iPhone.
“We’ve been ripped off, it’s plain to see—by Samsung in particular--it’s offensive,” he said.
“It’s a big leap of imagination to come up with something entirely new,” he said. “It’s a process by which you have to try to forget everything you know--clearly very difficult, but if you pay attention to the competition you wind up following them--not what we wanted to do,” he said
Under cross-examination, however, Samsung lead attorney Charles Verhoeven showed an email from Stringer to a member of Apple’s product development team requesting an analysis of competing products.
“I need your latest summary of our enemies for an [industrial design] brainstorm on Friday,” the email said.
Verhoeven asked if by “enemies” he meant to include companies such as Samsung.
“In this instance, yes,” said Stringer. The industrial design team “very rarely” makes such requests of the Apple product design team that conducts teardowns of competing products, he added.
Verhoeven also showed a detailed Apple analysis of eight competing tablets including models from Samsung. “We were interested in their feature sets and dimensions,” said Stringer.
“Is there anything wrong with doing that?” asked Verhoeven.
“No,” said Stringer.
“Was that information used to design a new Apple product?” asked McElhinny on re-direct.
“Absolutely not,” said Stringer.
Separately, Verhoeven was able to show Stringer considered crucial several details of Apple’s patents that are not copied in the Samsung products Apple alleges infringe its patents.
Next, Phil Schiller, Apple’s head of marketing, took the stand briefly before the end of the session. When court reconvenes Schiller will give his version of the story behind the design of the iPhone.
The industrial design team works with separate product design and manufacturing teams. McElhinny asked Stringer to detail the manufacturing challenges and market risks Apple faced with the designs his team chose.
He listed problems with mating glass and metal elements, using thin metal bezels and drilling holes in the glass. For the iPad 2, “there was a huge effort in the factory getting the gaps or reveals to be as tight as they are” between the glass front and metal backing, said Stringer.
Stringer reflected much of the philosophy of high aesthetics and intuitive usability associated with Apple’s industrial designs, saying it aimed to create cultural icons. “We want to create the simplest, purest manifestation of what [the product] could be—something people could love,” he said.
The descriptions sometimes bordered on self-serving hubris and hyperbole.
“There were legions of phones available and none of them were very satisfying,” Stringer said. “Smartphones existed but they were more like tiny computers--we came up with something breathtaking and the challenges of producing that were enormous,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe what his team did the day the original iPhone was launched.
“The entire design team--or those who could be--were at the Apple store in San Francisco,” he said. “We were excited, we had something new and there was an incredible buzz of people anticipating something,” he said.
“There was an enormous crowd outside, we wanted to feel that enthusiasm and see the first people to get [the iPhone]--it was mayhem, like a carnival,” he recalled. “We were very, very proud; we had worked very, very hard--an enormous amount of people had put out great sacrifices--and it was worth it, it was a beautiful day,” he said.
McElhinny asked Stringer to describe his feelings about products that look like the iPhone.
“We’ve been ripped off, it’s plain to see—by Samsung in particular--it’s offensive,” he said.
“It’s a big leap of imagination to come up with something entirely new,” he said. “It’s a process by which you have to try to forget everything you know--clearly very difficult, but if you pay attention to the competition you wind up following them--not what we wanted to do,” he said
Under cross-examination, however, Samsung lead attorney Charles Verhoeven showed an email from Stringer to a member of Apple’s product development team requesting an analysis of competing products.
“I need your latest summary of our enemies for an [industrial design] brainstorm on Friday,” the email said.
Verhoeven asked if by “enemies” he meant to include companies such as Samsung.
“In this instance, yes,” said Stringer. The industrial design team “very rarely” makes such requests of the Apple product design team that conducts teardowns of competing products, he added.
Verhoeven also showed a detailed Apple analysis of eight competing tablets including models from Samsung. “We were interested in their feature sets and dimensions,” said Stringer.
“Is there anything wrong with doing that?” asked Verhoeven.
“No,” said Stringer.
“Was that information used to design a new Apple product?” asked McElhinny on re-direct.
“Absolutely not,” said Stringer.
Separately, Verhoeven was able to show Stringer considered crucial several details of Apple’s patents that are not copied in the Samsung products Apple alleges infringe its patents.
Next, Phil Schiller, Apple’s head of marketing, took the stand briefly before the end of the session. When court reconvenes Schiller will give his version of the story behind the design of the iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
rick.merritt
7/31/2012 9:38 PM EDT
Is Apple's design process as original and powerful as they claim, or are they drinking Kool-Aid at that kitchen table?
Sign in to Reply
dylan.mcgrath
8/1/2012 12:44 AM EDT
It's pretty interesting (and surprising) to me that Apple's products are designed by such a small team, and that they've been together for such a long time. Maybe that's not atypical, but it's not what I would have expected.
Sign in to Reply
yalanand
8/1/2012 6:56 AM EDT
@dylan.mcgrath, I totally agree with your observation. Its surprising to know that such a small team designs the apple products. This team clearly knows what the end users like and I eagerly waiting to see the next big product release after iPAD.
Sign in to Reply
t.alex
8/1/2012 2:48 PM EDT
From Steve Jobs biography lots of things at Appple come from small teams. Jobs rather recruit small teams of great players than big teams that cannot deliver.
Sign in to Reply
docdivakar
8/1/2012 7:53 PM EDT
@Dylan: that is only part of the story... engineering at Apple I am sure had many restless nights to make the concepts dreamed up by Apple's intelligentsia into reality. Frames, bezels, rounded corners are all fine but to find components, designing and packaging the entire product is a nightmare. This is not to lessen the credit due to the few in that dream team at Apple.
MP Divakar
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
8/1/2012 1:53 AM EDT
Yeah unlike Samsung that makes a bazillion phones in many styles for many different kinds of users and markets, Apple makes one phone and one tablet a year and may fuss over it for a looong time. Very different approaches.
Also Samsung does lots of user surveys and pours over them. Apple prides itself on doing no user surveys.
Sign in to Reply
junko.yoshida
8/1/2012 6:19 AM EDT
Moreoever, from what I gather, Samsung actually has several different design teams working -- in parallel -- on the same project.
They fierecely compete among themselves.
So, if you are a chip supplier thinking that your chip will be in Samsung's next Phone (because you are making so many trips to Korea to support Samsung's design team), chances of your chip gets actually designed into Samsung's next phone is...well...not guaranteed. That team you have been supporting all this time could lose out in the internal race.
Sign in to Reply
Rob.B
8/1/2012 5:17 PM EDT
Apple's design process isn't particularly original, but it can be very powerful, particularly if you have an active synergy between the team members. My four-man "Skunkworks" team with a former employer was the most productive and innovative group within the company, and quite possibly in the entire industry. You have to have the right team makeup for it to work, and sometimes you need to bring in "new blood" to shake things up a bit and get some fresh ideas. This can re-energize a team that's been together for years and may be starting to lose its edge.
As for not doing user surveys, there are both major advantages and risks. The risks are that you will come up with a product or features that the customers don't want, need, won't pay for, or worse, actively dislike. The advantage is that you aren't constraining yourself to reiterating or re-inventing a product, or playing the "Me too" game. You are open to imagining completely new products or ways of doing things, to fill a need or desire that your customers may not even know that they have. For this, your team has to be closely in-tune with the potential customers, and not just think about what they as individuals will find "cool" or useful. Too many interesting products have failed because the designers lost focus on the end customer, and Apple has had their share of these in the past as well.
Sign in to Reply
junko.yoshida
8/1/2012 6:14 AM EDT
This story gives us a glimpse of what's going on at a design team of otherwise a very closed company -- Apple.
Fascinating stuff.
Because truth to be told, none of those people who are now appearing in the court has ever been made available for interviews or for the public to know who they are.
Sign in to Reply
guns
8/1/2012 6:16 AM EDT
What kind of patent absurdity is this? Patenting rectangular side, rounded sides blah blah..This is detrimental to innovation.. I can think of thousand things that could have been patented which would have not made it possible to develop the 'oh so passionately designed phone' in first place.
Sign in to Reply
yalanand
8/1/2012 7:03 AM EDT
@guns so true. Imagine what would have happened if Dennis Ritchies who invented C and Unix patented them? We wouldn't have seen softwares based on C and Unix. I feel Apple is mis-using its muscle/money power.
Sign in to Reply
Gordon.Apple
8/1/2012 4:16 PM EDT
Fortunately, software was not patentable in those days. I was working at Bell Labs at that time and had a number of patents. I remember discussions about how they someday hoped to be able to patent software as an extension of hardware.
Sign in to Reply
MClayton
8/3/2012 4:57 PM EDT
Patenting software has bad mixed results, just like patenting genes. Copyrights for software, and kill the Dole-Bayh act for other patent nonsense!!
Sign in to Reply
eewiz
8/1/2012 9:45 AM EDT
@ guns. Clearly you dont have any background in IP and related stuff. You may want to read my reply to a similar comment in this post.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4391488/Apple-v--Samsung-kicks-off-innovation-debates
Sign in to Reply
s@mke10
8/10/2012 8:39 AM EDT
exactly! you dont only patent software that work like a horse's backside, it takes vision and innovation to come up with slick and fluid design that the end user will like.
Sign in to Reply
guns
8/1/2012 10:42 AM EDT
@eewiz Sure, I dont have any background of IP ( I wish I never have to deal with it ) but what I said is a general disgust against the practice of patenting absurd things (remember Amazon's one click payment). Ornamentally or so, 'the oh so awsome looking phone' can easily resemble an earlier made candy box (just a thought) which probably no one bothered to patent. I observe this is due to ever shrinking margins and competitors just want to use every tact up their sleeve to oust others.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
8/1/2012 12:54 PM EDT
I've always thought that industrial design and user interface design are Apple's greatest advantages. But, really? "patent on the rectangular shape with rounded edges". Pretty much all designs are at least inspired by predecessors. Some are genuinely unique and distinctive enough to deserve patent protection, but a flat rectangle is not. If that's one of the main claims of the patent, it's too obvious which makes it ineligible for a patent.
Sign in to Reply
tpfj
8/1/2012 1:27 PM EDT
All Mac computers (desktop and laptop) have rounded corners and are rectangular. These pre-date the iPhone too, so this "design" cannot be covered by a design patent if indeed it had already been disclosed in the public domain previously. In my mind it has. Never mind the fact that there is nothing novel about a rectangle with rounded corners (a necessary requirement for a patent). RIM's phones have all had rounded corners for years. Not just a rectangle with rounded corners, then no one has yet copied an iPhone (remember iPhones use their own connector, the position of the speaker, earphone, USB (oh that's right, iPhone does not have one) removable cover, SIM (not present on an iPhone), removable battery (oops, not present on the iPhone), SDcard slot (this is getting boring now ...). Yup, you right, it's a knockoff.
Sign in to Reply
selinz
8/1/2012 2:55 PM EDT
Perhaps Apple can sue AutoCAD or Solidworks for having a fillet or chamfer function in their software. They could also sue furniture manufacturers for having rounded corners on tables... After all, Apple first thought of rounding off corners.... Wait, perhaps we should go back to the invention of the wheel...
Sign in to Reply
RGRU
8/1/2012 2:59 PM EDT
Excellent point. If you're CAD software will round the corners with a single click, maybe you didn't invent this "feature". How funny...
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
8/2/2012 5:27 PM EDT
Maybe that CAD software violates both Apple's rounded corner patent and Amazon's one-click patent :)
Sign in to Reply
MikeSmith2011
8/1/2012 3:01 PM EDT
There is no question that Apple revolutionized the phone - the simple button-less touch screen interface was never seen before. Subsequently however most smart-phones are based on touch. I can see why Apple would feel "ripped off" when it took them so long to come up with something so innovative.
But the real question is so what? The first person who invented the round wheel could feel cheated that all automobiles now use it but that is the challenge of coming up with something so innovative isn't it. Otherwise the world would only have one company manufacturing and selling wheels!
Sign in to Reply
Daniel Payne
8/1/2012 3:08 PM EDT
Let's get real here, the design concept of a rectangle with rounded corners has been used for decades. Does anyone remember the Palm Pilot as a PDA? The iPhone UI is preceded by all bank ATM machines which have been using touch screens much earlier than phones. Our patent system is broken when a rectangle can be patented, pure and simple.
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/1/2012 3:23 PM EDT
I am going to file a patent on a rounded triangle tomorrow...and if I get going I will follow with a rounded hexagon! Kris
Sign in to Reply
John.Hartman
8/1/2012 3:56 PM EDT
There are utility patents (your new engine that runs on goose poop), and there are design patents, like the shape of the iconic Coke bottle.
I presume that the "rounded rectangle" patent is a design patent. Lower bar to get such a patent, lower level of protection.
Sign in to Reply
tpfj
8/1/2012 3:52 PM EDT
@MikeSmith2011 Palm had a touch screen even before the iPod let alone any phone from Apple, so no, sorry you are wrong. Sure the iPhone's is better (it is a decade newer design, so you'd expect that), but that is not due to Apple, they simply buy their displays from someone else.
Sign in to Reply
MikeSmith2011
8/1/2012 5:03 PM EDT
Yes - I had a palm pilot and pre and loved it. What I meant was that the iPhone was the first one to eliminate all buttons and replace them with touch.
Sign in to Reply
Dr DSP
8/1/2012 4:45 PM EDT
Apple has found that the look of their products can command a very high margin. (As long as they look cool). They will do everything they can to protect this money generator. I hope Apple has a small team of very good lawyers too...
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/1/2012 4:47 PM EDT
I thought it was software/hardware integration and the resulting smooth/reliable operation that was the key to Apple's success not the look
Sign in to Reply
SPLatMan
8/1/2012 6:11 PM EDT
This is absurd!
I am just glad Ug didn't patent the wheel or we'd all have very bumpy rides to work.
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/1/2012 6:16 PM EDT
The caveman must had patented the wheel but fortunately the patent expired ;-)
Sign in to Reply
Googles
8/1/2012 8:21 PM EDT
“we decided the [iPad] deserved its own identity, we couldn’t copy ourselves...”
This made me laugh so hard. When it was first released, the iPad was simply a big iPhone... hardly its own identity.
I would have liked to see/hear the questioning, but, it sounds like Stringers testimony was hardly what the Apple team had hoped for.
Sign in to Reply
Neo1
8/1/2012 10:24 PM EDT
Chill out guys, the staff from Apple are just repeating the rehearsal they did with their attorneys.
To be fair Apple devices' major pull factor has been it's simplistic and elegant design and beautiful marriage of form and function. It's their DNA so to speak but this cannot be captured in language and once this is described in a patent it starts looking silly and absurd. This is their problem.
But it's pointless for A to be arguing over the physical description of their design because that is not actually the case here and that's not novel at all.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
8/2/2012 5:30 PM EDT
You hit the nail on the head. People can laugh at things like rounded corners being patentable, but the truth is that Apple's industrial designs are innovative and unique, and that is precisely what Apple was attempting to cover in some of these patents.
How can you put into words the look and feel, the simplicity and elegence, without the words sounding silly?
Sign in to Reply
s@mke10
8/10/2012 8:58 AM EDT
absolutely true!!!
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
8/2/2012 10:24 AM EDT
Stay tuned. Friday Apple's marketing VP Phil Schiller will describe how the iPhone came into being and he will be followed at some point by Scott Forstall who oversees iOS development.
No doubt some wonderful Samsung execs and designers will make an appearance as well.
Many shoes yet to fall.
And I am open to questions I should explore while sitting there for you, so fire away!
Sign in to Reply
SiliconAsia
8/2/2012 12:36 PM EDT
We all give Steve Jobs credits creating a phone he wants to use - revolutionizing the usage paradigm. But iPhone was not born out of Apple's own technologies. All the components were there for Apple to use which in fact means technologies were existed way before Apple thought about creating iPhone. Using lego blocks, our kids can create some shapes you never imagined. I give credits to this kid to create something no one ever imagined but also give credits to lego who enable this kid to be creative using their technology.
Sign in to Reply
hm
8/2/2012 9:29 PM EDT
It will be challenging decision for judiciary and very nice to observe for design community and innovative organization like Apple.
Sign in to Reply
MClayton
8/3/2012 4:48 PM EDT
To many trivial patents, too few screeners.
Look and feel patents came with spreadsheet vendors and may end with phones..but they should end. Copyrights are better tool for designs.
Sign in to Reply
chanj
8/5/2012 10:54 PM EDT
The most interesting part of the story is Apple actually comes up idea of iPad first. The rest of the product, iPod Touch, iPhone are just part of the roadmap to the ultimate goal. If nothing comes out good from the allegation, this part of story tells us more of how Apple foresaw the consumer demands. What's the next goal that Apple is trying to achieve?
Sign in to Reply