Apple doesn't rely on market research, says marketing chief Phil SchillerIn 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.
On Topic: patents
- Apple Watch invention enables True Tone display tech by measuring ambient light through a user's skin
- Apple patents laser mapping system, hybrid mechanical-capacitive keyboard, invisible I/O connectors
- Apple investigating 'active fluids' for wearable displays, connectors, sensors and more
- Apple patents Apple Watch Series 2 water expulsion tech, smart straps
- Patent holder Acacia wins $22.1M judgement against Apple