Having created quite a decent space for itself in the low-cost and budget smartphone markets with the Moto E and Moto G respectively, Motorola now appears to be targeting consumers in the mid-range market. The recent launch of the Moto X at what is seen as an impressive pricing has already tempted many users, but does its performance outweigh its price?
We used the phone for a while and attempt to give you some quick answers.
The recent launch of the Moto X at what is seen as an impressive pricing has already tempted many users, but does its performance outweigh its price?
The first thing that got our attention in the phone was its rear that has a beautiful wavy pattern and features a rubberised finish. This soft-touch pattern gives the rear portion a matte finish that further helps in offering a good grip. Nevertheless, the rubberised coating is prone to damage.
As the rear panel is removable I tried to take it out to see what was underneath, and the cover got scratched and a bit of the coating peeled off.
While the back cover is removable, there is nothing that you can do underneath. Neither you can take out the battery, nor the slots for SIM cards and the memory card are positioned there. It seems that the only purpose of having a removable panel is to replace it with other swappable covers.
The phone, interestingly, has only one slot located at the top to rest all the three cards. The tray inside the slot has frames to house two SIM cards (4G) on one side and the microSD card on the other.
The silver strip running along the camera lens and flash at the back reminds us of the Moto G (3rd generation) as it carries a similar design element at the back.
Adding to the phone's design is a plastic band with a metallic finish running along the phone. While the band doesn't look premium, it does manage to add a dash of additional style to the otherwise handsome phone.
Quite like other Motorola phones, the Moto X Play has a curved back that makes it easy to hold the phone and comfortable to operate. The phone is a tad bulky but not unmanageably so. However, it would have been much better had it been a little on the lighter side.
The phone though has a little different design from other Motos, it looks more or less like its siblings as you switch it on.
The 5.5-inch 1080p display is vibrant and produces true to life colours. The company claims the display to have Corning Gorilla Glass atop to protect the screen from scratches. While we are yet to subject the phone to our daily grind to better ascertain these claims.
One of the key highlights of the new Moto X Play is said to be its 21 megapixel camera at the rear. While the camera performs excellent in bright light conditions, it falls a little short - in terms of details - in low light environments. I have never been a fan of the Moto phones' camera performance in low light - including the one on the Moto-made Nexus 6. The rear camera lets you shoot videos in both 540p (SloMo) and 1080p. The 5 megapixel front camera is not an ideal camera for selfies that you would like to flaunt. Nevertheless, it’s okay for video calling.
The options in the camera app are also very limited. You are forced to shoot images only at the highest resolutions, similarly in video there are only two quality settings.
Running Android 5.1.1, the phone has only a couple of Motorola-centric apps installed and therefore, offers almost a stock Android experience. It comes in two storage options - 16 GB (at Rs 18,499) and 32 GB (at Rs 19,999), which an option for dditional storage. The microSD card slot supports a card of up to 128 GB. We got the 32 GB model for review and it has user-accessible memory of around 25.5 GB. Given the little difference in the prices of two models, a 32 GB variant would anyday would be a better choice.
The speaker at the front is impressive - both in terms of loudness and audio results. But we are yet to test it in noisy areas. (I wrote this piece with music playing on this phone in the background. I didn't feel the need to attach external speakers. The loudness was pretty good.)
The phone has not shown any signs of lag during the little time we have spent with it, but it’s too early to comment anything about its performance including the battery life delivered by its large 3,630 mAh battery.
Motorola claims the phone to have a water-repellent coating to protect it from accidental water spills, splashes and little rain.
Inside the box is a phone, charger with support for two USB cables, and a pair of earphones.
At its price the specs and the initial performance appears promising. For the final verdict, stay tuned for our extended review.
Do you own a Motorola phone and wonder why some of your counterparts have Lollipop and you don't? Motorola is attempting to shed some light on the situation.
Google's mobile OS is cursed by fragmentation as each new version takes considerable time to arrive on the phones and tablets of all Android users worldwide. A peek at Google's Android Developers Dashboard earlier this month revealed a 39 percent share of the market for KitKat -- the predecessor to Lollipop. Jelly Bean -- the predecessor to KitKit -- was still at the top of the charts with a 46 percent share. And Lollipop wasn't even on the radar yet, meaning it had less than a 0.1 percent share. This situation frustrates not only users but app developers, who must try to design programs that can support multiple versions of Android.
In its blog, Motorola explained the process involved in an Android upgrade and why it takes so long.
After Google creates a new version of its mobile OS, Google performs a "public push," Motorola said. That means the source code for the OS is released to the Android Open Source Project, usually tied to the debut of a new Google Nexus flagship phone.
Following the public push, mobile phone makers then test the new OS with local carriers and other organizations, a process that varies with each region of the world. After completing that testing, Motorola can start pushing out the upgrade to users.
Okay, but why do some users receive the upgrade early and others have to wait weeks or months?
Motorola said that before it can roll out an upgrade to a wide number of users, it performs "soak" tests. Through such tests, the upgrade is deployed to a small group of people so Motorola can monitor its performance and collect user feedback. Such testing is critical because it can reveal any bugs in the software, giving the company a chance to fix them before the upgrade reaches a wider audience.
In some cases, Motorola expands the number of soak test users to catch issues that might pop up in a larger group. After this test is done, the company launches the upgrade for all users in a specific country and for a specific device.
To add to the complexity, testing may be required for different software versions for each device, which further impacts the availability of a new upgrade, both by region and carrier. Finally, mobile carriers get into the act through their own testing to make sure the upgrade meets their requirements.
"These requirements vary from carrier to carrier and across different regions." Motorola said. "They also have lab testing times that can range from weeks to months. In some cases, devices on older or less powerful chipsets may need more work to ensure good performance when running Lollipop."
Motorola did say that Google improved the Android upgrade process with Lollipop by releasing developer previews early enough so manufacturers had more time to test the software. As such, Motorola was able to push Lollipop to its Moto X (second generation) Pure Edition eight days after Google's public push.
And the rollout continues. Last week, Motorola said that Android 5.0 would be "rolling out in phases" to its Moto G (second generation) phone in the United States. Motorola users who haven't yet gotten a taste of Lollipop can check the company's Upgrades page to see if and when your model is slated to receive the upgrade.
With so many manufacturers, carriers, and devices involved, upgrading all Android devices with the latest version is always going to be a long, time-consuming process. Android users, you have two choices: be patient or switch to Apple's iPhone.
Like Motorola smartphones, Moto 360 smartwatch will also be available exclusively available on Flipkart.
NEW DELHI: Over two weeks after unveiling it in India, Motorola has finally revealed the price of Moto 360 smartwatch, which goes on sale at 12pm on October 2. Though not the first Android Wear smartwatch in the country, Moto 360 is the first to have a round watch-face.
In a tweet, Motorola India revealed that its first Android Wear smartwatch will cost Rs 17,999. Unlike Samsung and LG's Android Wear smartwatches, the Motorola model will not be available on Google's Play Store. Instead, buyers can order Moto 360 only via Flipkart, which also holds the exclusive rights to sell Motorola's smartphones.
The pricing of Moto 360 makes it a little more expensive than Samsung Gear Live and LG G Watch, which cost Rs 14,999 and Rs 15,900, respectively. Though the latter is still in stock, the former is not available in the country at present.
Moto 360 sports a 1.56-inch backlit LCD display with 320x290p resolution. It comes with the option of a light or dark stainless steel case, and grey or black Horween leather band. The watch is powered by a 320mAh battery and runs on a Texas Instruments OMAP 3 processor. The watch has 512MB RAM and 4GB internal storage. The smartwatch comes with a full day's battery backup.
The Motorola smartwatch has a built-in pedometer and heart rate monitor and comes with a heart activity tracker app. It can withstand water damage up to 3.3-feet for a maximum of 30 minutes (IP67). It has a single physical button, vibration motor and dual microphones.
Like the other Android Wear models, this smartwatch pairs devices running on Android 4.3 or above via Bluetooth 4.0 (LE) and can take voice commands.
Moto 360 also features wireless charging and comes with a charging dock. The smartwatch weighs 49gram (leather strap model), has a 46mm diameter and is 11.5mm high.
Mark Randall, head of supply chain and operations for Motorola Mobility, was sitting in a meeting with a Brazilian carrier. The meetup was part of a world tour of carriers that he and then-CEO Dennis Woodside embarked on shortly after joining the company in 2012. Sitting in an office in Sao Paolo, Brazil, a poster on the wall caught Randall's eye. It featured a graphic of every handset in the market arranged by cost, and he fixated on one corner.
"I looked at the value end of the chart, and I thought to myself, wow, this was terrible," Randall said in an interview late last year. "If you're a consumer who doesn't want to spend $600 on a phone, you're getting a raw deal."
Motorola's newly built Chicago headquarters, which Lenovo says it will keep.Motorola Mobility
That chart, which Randall asked for and received a copy of from the carrier, sparked a discussion with Woodside and key Motorola Mobility product executives including Charlie Tritschler. The result:Moto G, a smartphone that's been praised for offering high-quality components at $179 unlocked, or without a contract.
While high-profile players such as Apple, Samsung Electronics, and HTC have staked their claim at the high end with premium smartphones that retail for around $650 without a contract, Motorola is taking a different route to reach consumers. Motorola Mobility, which is in the process of being sold by Google to China's Lenovo, is making its big calls at the low end of the market and what it calls "the next billion customers" who can't afford a smartphone -- or even access the Internet.
While the market is flooded with cheap Android smartphones -- just visit a local Chinese electronics store -- Motorola stands out for phones that run the latest version of Android, use quality components, and offer a build quality that's far better than its price suggests.
"We believe that a quality mobile experience is a right, not a privilege," said Tritschler, who took over as senior vice president of product for Motorola after Rick Osterloh, who was promoted to president and chief operating officer.
Charlie Tritschler, senior vice president of product at Motorola Mobility.Motorola Mobility
Motorola on Tuesday took another step toward lowering the cost for high-function smartphones with the Moto E, the third member of its Moto product family after the Moto X and Moto G. Part of the company's strategy to get more affordable smartphones in more hands, the Moto E will retail for $129 without a contract. Comparable phones at that price often come with older versions of Android or lower quality components such as slower processors or cheaper glass.
Giving more people access to smartphones and the Internet is a very Google way of thinking (Google bought Motorola Mobility in May 2012 and announced the $2.9 billion sale to Lenovo in January). The strategy has resulted in at least one small victory: Tritschler boasted to CNET in early May that the Moto G, introduced in November, was already the company's most successful smartphone in Brazil, and the Moto G has outsold both the Moto X and its Droid smartphones.
One popular smartphone, however, can't revive the fortunes of a business that hasn't seen a profit in more than three years. In the first quarter, Motorola saw its loss widen to nearly $200 million from a year earlier. The business, which invented the cellphone and was a dominant force in mobile in the 1980s, never really got a good hold in the smartphone business. In 2007, it had 6.1 percent of the global market and was the third-largest smartphone maker in the world, according to research firm IDC. By last year, it held 1.2 percent of the market and was ranked No. 15.
It's Motorola's still-weak position in the market that raises questions about how it will change once Lenovo takes control of the company. Lenovo is ranked fifth in the world among smartphone makers, but would hop to third with the addition of Motorola.
"Motorola is a reflection of what Google wanted it to be and what it needed to be," said Jan Dawson, an analyst at Jackdaw Research. "It's not an indication of what it will be under Lenovo."
Tritschler said Motorola is "manically focused" on continuing its strategy of driving down prices on quality smartphones.
Motorola's new guard
When it comes to mass-producing a quality product at a low price, there are few executives as experienced as Randall. His last gig was at Amazon, where he dealt with the supply chain and the e-commerce company's Lab126 unit -- home to the Kindle Fire, a product that redefined pricing for tablets when it originally launched in November 2011 for $199 -- well below the $499 price for a base model iPad.
His past stints include working for global phone maker Nokia, which at its peak in the mid-1990s to early 2000s dominated in emerging markets such as India and Brazil with affordable cellphones.
Mark Randall, head of supply chain and operations for Motorola Mobility.Motorola Mobility
Tritschler also joined from Amazon, where he led development of the Kindle product line. He joined Motorola in 2013, about a year after Randall.
Randall and Tritschler are part of the new guard at Motorola, joining after Google took control and named Woodside as CEO (Following the deal with Lenovo, Woodside left and now serves as chief operating officer of cloud-storage provider DropBox). Randall said he joined Motorola because of Google and its "willingness to make big bets."
With those big bets came a new way of thinking. Motorola's traditional mentality was to build flashy flagship phones -- recall the StarTAC, the first-ever clamshell phone and the ultra-thin Razr flip phone. When Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha introduced the company's first Android smartphone, the original Droid, in 2009, it was a splashy product launch that was backed by Google and Verizon Wireless, who spent $100 million promoting the original Droid.
That legacy continued into summer 2013, when Motorola released its Droid Ultra lineup as an exclusive to Verizon. A few weeks later, Motorola would introduce the more Google-influenced Moto X, which serves as its current high-end flagship phone.
But Randall and Tritschler were already working on something completely different. Randall talked up his Amazon experience with the development team, which was overseen by Tritschler, and challenged them to create a smartphone built with the same principles as the Kindle Fire: a quality device that didn't compromise on specifications.
The typical development period for a phone was 12 to 18 months at Motorola. For the Moto G, Randall said his team reduced the time frame to just nine months.
The Motorola Moto G was the first step in the company's budget-friendly strategy.Sarah Tew/CNET
"I really pushed hard for the supply team to design a product that had incredible specs," he said.
After the whirlwind development effort, Woodside and Tritschler were on stage at an event in Brazil in November to unveil the Moto G. The reaction was positive. Tritschler said total unit sales in the first quarter grew 61 percent from a year ago, largely driven by the Moto G.
"What Motorola has done is present a phone at a certain price, but with a higher quality," said Ramon Llamas, an analyst for IDC. "It's a very smart process. Users are not ignorant of what a good smartphone is."
Randall, meanwhile, said he did some "bureaucracy busting," and slimmed down the organization and cleared up responsibilities for each element of the supply chain. He wasn't the only one who sliced operations. Last year Google initiated massive layoffs, including the loss of 5,400 jobs in the second quarter alone out of a total of 7,200.
Lowering the barrier
While the Moto E unveiling comes six months after the Moto G, executives insist it was part of their game plan.
"Even while we were working on Moto G, we were thinking of Moto E," Tritschler said.
Fortunately, many of the changes made to the manufacturing and supply chain process helped to speed the development of the Moto E. The company also made tweaks based on what didn't work with the Moto G production process, although he declined to provide specific examples.
But the Moto E features the same all-day battery, sports a customizable back cover just like the Moto G, and offers the same rear camera and Gorilla Glass touchscreen display. It also shares the same design and feel as its higher-priced siblings.The Moto E has a 4.3-inch display and a slower dual-core Qualcomm chip, compared with the Moto G's 4.5-inch screen and quad-core processor. It's also missing a front-facing camera and the touchless controls that were a hallmark of the Moto X.
The Moto E also has dual-SIM capabilities in certain markets such as India and Brazil, allowing customers who have multiple carrier accounts to switch between services to better take advantage of cheaper calling rates. Tritschler said Motorola is developing software that will detect the optimal time to use a specific SIM card based on the rate or the person.
Considering the price, the trade-offs seem fair.
At $129, the Moto E is only $50 cheaper than the Moto G. But looking at the demographic of customers Motorola is targeting, that $50 represents a huge difference, Tritschler said.
Under new management
Will all this progress stall once Lenovo steps in?
Not at first. Just as Motorola continued to carry on development of its product pipeline under Google, it will work through the additional products in its queue, such as a potential successor to the Moto X, as well as its upcoming Moto 360 smartwatch.
With a metal band and traditional watch-face, the Moto 360 looks like a classic timepiece.Motorola
But things becomes less clear over time. Motorola still runs at a loss, so Lenovo, which isn't interested in running a money-losing business, will almost certainly make changes.
"What does Lenovo have to do to Motorola to knock it into shape?" Dawson asked.
The need to lower costs suggests that further job cuts are a possibility, and that the production may have to shift to Lenovo's own facilities in China. The Moto X, for instance, is manufactured in Fort Worth, Texas.
Will Lenovo be as interested in creating wallet-friendly, but high-quality phones? Analysts say that strategy was Google's way of taking control of the fragmented market for cheap Android smartphones in emerging countries. Lenovo, which ranks second in China behind Samsung, has its own experience in the low-end of the market, and its vision may not line up with Motorola's executives.
"Motorola is a reflection of what Google wanted it to be and what it needed to be. It's not an indication of what it will be under Lenovo."
Jan Dawson, an analyst at Jackdaw Research
It's not unfathomable that Lenovo may eventually produce its own smartphones with a Motorola brand slapped on top, Dawson said.
Lenovo CEO Yang said back in January that he doesn't see a need for layoffs and that he would keep Motorola's newly built headquarters in Chicago. Lenovo executives haven't been too keen to say anything else, including when the deal is expected to close.
But Motorola's strategy of driving costs down in its phone is one of the reasons Lenovo was interested in the business, Tritschler argued.
Osterloh, speaking at a press conference at Mobile World Congress in February, said Lenovo is "committed to helping us deliver the products we're working on now."
And then?
"We'll look at opportunities beyond that," he said.
Apple and Samsung have been facing off in court since March 31.James Martin/CNET
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- An appeals court decision Friday in a patent-infringement suit between Apple and Motorola threw a wrench in the ongoing Apple v. Samsung case currently being argued in a court here, extending the duration of the trial to give the parties time to present more evidence.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld a ruling by Judge A. Posner of the Northern District of Illinois that determined a specific interpretation of Apple's '647 "quick links" patent. Apple had accused Motorola of infringing the patent for quick links, and it also has accused Samsung of infringing the patent.
The patent covers actions such as a user being able to send a telephone number straight to the phone dialer versus having to memorize or copy and paste the number. Apple's patent involves the use of an "analyzer server" to perform the action, and the definition of how that works has differed between the Motorola and Samsung cases.
The 95-page ruling by the appeals court upheld Posner's definition:
"Regarding Apple's '647 patent, the parties dispute the meaning of the claim terms 'analyzer server' and 'linking actions to the detected structures.' The district court construed 'analyzer server' as 'a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client' and 'linking actions to the detected structures' as 'creating a specified connection between each detected structure and at least one computer subroutine that causes the CPU to perform a sequence of operations on that detected structure.' Apple argues that both constructions are erroneous. We disagree with Apple and affirm the district court's claim construction."
Because of the ruling, Apple and Samsung will present more testimony Monday. Both were granted one hour apiece above their originally allotted 25 hours to present expert-witness testimony about the '647 patent. The companies originally would have wrapped up their evidence in the first hour of court Friday, with closing arguments planned for Monday. Closing arguments now will take place Tuesday.
Koh expressed her frustration with the ruling and what it means for the current case being argued in her court.
"Neither side has been shy about asking for other claim constructions," Koh said. "Now to come in and potentially blow up what we've already done with this jury for a month is frustrating to me."
The patent in question, No. '647 for quick links, is one of the most valuable patents wielded by Apple in its case against Samsung. As patent expert Florian Mueller noted, the ruling could mean that Apple's requested damages total in the current case -- $2.191 billion -- would have to be reduced by a third. Apple had asked for a royalty of $12.49 per unit for allegedly infringing the '647 patent. In total, the Cupertino, Calif., company asked for $40 per unit for Samsung devices that it says infringed all five of its patents.
Koh had allowed the patent to be interpreted in a way that differed from Posner's accepted meaning. Samsung has argued many times that Koh's interpretation was incorrect. Koh on Friday said it will take her some time to get through the ruling, but "just because a district court judge has construed a claim in one way doesn't mean I have to adopt that."
Mueller on his blog, Foss Patents, said that "the only reasonable solution I can see is that the '647 patent be withdrawn from the current case because Apple's infringement argument and its damages claim, both erroneously supported by Judge Koh, were based on a wrong claim construction."
However, that will not happen. Rather, the companies will try to explain to the jury the differences.
"I'm not sure how the jury would understand these particular constructions without having further instructions with witnesses," Samsung attorney Dave Nelson argued early Friday.
However, Nelson reversed his stance when court resumed at 3:30 p.m. PT after a nearly five-hour recess. He then said that it wasn't necessary to call more witnesses.
"I do think this gives Apple a do-over," Nelson said. "They made a strategic choice, so strategic, that they tried to gut my case, literally not allow my expert to testify about analyzer servers."
Koh disagreed and gave each side one extra hour apiece to present information about the '647 patent.
"It's only fair to do a reopening of testimony," she said. Koh added that she will tell the jury that there are new instructions and because of that, the two sides get time to bring back technical experts.
The two parties did agree that it wasn't necessary to present more testimony related to damages, simplifying the issue.
Almost two years after Apple and Samsung faced off in a messy patent dispute, the smartphone andtablet rivals have returned to the same San Jose, Calif., courtroom to argue once again over patents before Federal Judge Lucy Koh. Apple is arguing that Samsung infringed on five of its patents for the iPhone, its biggest moneymaker, and that Apple is due $2 billion for that infringement. Samsung wants slightly more than $6 million from Apple for infringing two of its software patents.
While the companies are asking for damages, the case is about more than money. What's really at stake is the market for mobile devices. Apple now gets two-thirds of its sales from the iPhone and iPad; South Korea-based Samsung is the world's largest maker of smartphones; and both want to keep dominating the market. So far, Apple is ahead when it comes to litigation in the US. Samsung has been ordered to pay the company about $930 million in damages.
Most Samsung features that Apple says infringe are items that are a part of Android, Google's mobile operating system that powers Samsung's devices. All patents except one, called "slide to unlock," are built into Android. Apple has argued the patent infringement trial has nothing to do with Android. However, Samsung argues that Apple's suit is an "attack on Android" and that Google had invented certain features before Apple patented them.
Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets. Instead, Apple has sued companies that sell physical devices using Android, a rival to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. In particular, Apple believes Samsung has followed a strategy to copy its products and then undercut Apple's pricing. While Apple isn't suing Google, it expects that Google will make changes to its software if Samsung is found to infringe on patents through Samsung's Android devices.
In the current case, Apple and Samsung have accused each other of copying features used in their popular smartphones and tablets, and the jury will have to decide who actually infringed and how much money is due. This trial involves different patents and newer devices than the ones disputed at trial in August 2012 and in a damages retrial in November 2013. For instance, the new trial involves the iPhone 5, released in September 2012, and Samsung's Galaxy S3, which also debuted in 2012.
Samsung's Galaxy S3CNET
Samsung on Tuesday revealed that it has reduced the amount of damages it wants for Apple's accused infringement of two patents because it dropped the iPad from the list of infringing devices. Apple should pay Samsung about $6.2 million, testified Brigham Young University economics professor James Kearl, an expert hired by the Korean electronics maker to calculate damages. Earlier in the trial,Samsung asked for about $6.8 million in damages.
The difference comes from the '239 patent that covers video transfer. Samsung now wants $6.07 million in damages for infringement of the patent. Earlier, it asked for $6.78 million. The company dropped infringement claims against the iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, and iPad Mini over the weekend, Kearl said.
Samsung says Apple's FaceTime video call feature infringes the patent, as does technology that allows users to take videos and send them to other devices via email or text messages. It now has accused only the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and iPhone 5.
Apple on Tuesday also launched its own defense against Samsung's infringement suit. Its first witnesses, Apple engineers Tim Millet and Roberto Garcia, testified about the creation of technology used in iPhones and iPads. Millet serves as senior director of platform architecture at Apple, helping create the processors that power iOS devices. Garcia, meanwhile, talked about the creation of the FaceTime product that has been accused of infringing a Samsung patent.
James Storer, a professor of computer science at Brandeis University hired by Apple as an expert witness, then testified that Apple didn't infringe Samsung's patents. Apple rested its defense shortly before 2 p.m. PT.
The latest trial kicked off March 31 with jury selection. The following day featured opening arguments and testimony by Phil Schiller, Apple's head of marketing. Other witnesses who have testified include Greg Christie, an Apple engineer who invented the slide-to-unlock iPhone feature; Thomas Deniau, a France-based Apple engineer who helped develop the company's quick link technology; and Justin Denison, chief strategy officer of Samsung Telecommunications America. Denison's testimony came via a deposition video.
Apple experts who took the stand over the past few weeks included Andrew Cockburn, a professor of computer science and software engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Todd Mowry, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University; and Alex Snoeren, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of California at San Diego.
The crux of Apple's case came with two expert witnesses, John Hauser, the Kirin professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management; and Christopher Vellturo, an economist and principal at consultancy Quantitative Economic Solutions. Hauser conducted a conjoint study that determined Apple's patented features made Samsung's devices more appealing, while Vellturo determined the amount of damages Apple should be due for Samsung's infringement -- $2.191 billion.
Samsung, which launched its defense April 11 after Apple rested its case, called several Google engineers to the stand to testify about the early days of Android and technology they created before Apple received its patents. Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google vice president of engineering for Android,said his company never copied iPhone features for Android. Other Google Android engineers, Bjorn Bringert and Dianne Hackborn, also testified about features of the operating system.
High-ranking Samsung executives, including former Samsung Telecommunications America CEO Dale Sohn and STA Chief Marketing Officer Todd Pendleton, also took the stand during the weeks-long trial. The two executives testified about Samsung's marketing push for the Galaxy S2 and other devices, saying a shift in the Korean company's sales and marketing efforts -- not copying Apple -- boosted its position in the smartphone market.
The past several days of testimony have largely been experts hired by Samsung to dispute the validity of Apple's patents and to argue that Samsung didn't infringe. The experts include Martin Rinard, an MIT professor of computer science; Saul Greenberg, a professor of human computer interaction at the University of Calgary in Canada; Kevin Jeffay, professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Daniel Wigdor, a computer science professor at the University of Toronto.
David Reibstein, chaired professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, on Friday refuted Apple expert Hauser's testimony from earlier this month. NYU Stern School of Business professor Tulin Erdem, meanwhile, on Friday also testified that she conducted her own studies, using eye tracking, to determine what devices consumers would buy. She concluded that Apple's patented features didn't boost desire for Samsung's products.
There are seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple has accused Samsung of infringing US patents Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. All relate to software features, such as "quick links" for '647, universal search for '959, background syncing for '414, slide-to-unlock for '721, and automatic word correction for '172. Overall, Apple argues that the patents enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging.
Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos. 6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The '239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission functionality and could have implications for Apple's use of FaceTime.
The Samsung gadgets that Apple says infringe are the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and the Stratosphere. Samsung, meanwhile, says the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth generation) and iPod Touch (fourth generation) all infringe.
The arguments by Apple and Samsung in the latest case should finish by the end of April. Court will be in session three days each week -- Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays -- though the jury will deliberate every business day until it has reached a verdict. Closing arguments likely will take place April 29.
