Apple vs Samsung just keeps bringing us insights into a company known for its secrecy. Here’s more testimony of Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller today where he revealed advertising costs for the iPhone and iPad, and what his reaction was when he saw Samsung’s “slavish copies.”
The Loop, quoting Schiller:
“[Copying] 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,” said Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, as he was questioned by Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny. “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 way the iPhone looks] you’re stealing all the value we’ve created.”
During Schiller’s testimony today, he revealed some interesting stats on just how much Apple spends on iPhone and iPad advertising.
In fiscal 2008, the company spent $97.5 million on iPhone ads in just the U.S. That figure jumped to $149.6 million in 2009 and went up to $173.3 million for all of 2010. On the iPad, the company spent $149.5 million in 2010.
Apple is charging that Samsung “slavishly copied” the iPhone and iPad, and is seeking over $2.5 billion on damages. Samsung argues the the Apple patents should be declared invalid.
During his testimony, Schiller was asked what his first reaction was upon seeing Samsung’s Galaxy S phone.
“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,” Schiller said.
Schiller was even more shocked when he saw the Galaxy Tab. He said his first though was, “They are just going to copy our whole product line.”
In one odd line of questioning, Samsung’s lawyer asked Schiller if he has heard the iPhone home button referred to as the “belly button.” The lawyer remarks that the “kids” refer to it as the bellybutton, finishing with, “it’s an innie.”
Schiller replied that he hadn’t heard that before.
Samsung’s lawyers then asked if Apple had plans to change its design with the iPhone 5.
Apple objected, but the objection was overruled. You can imagine all the press on the edge of their seats waiting to get details on the upcoming new model.
Schiller merely said he would rather not give out confidential information, and Samsung’s counsel didn’t push for the info.
