|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:29 PM EST |
<p
align=right><b>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT</b><br><u>
;2575A</u><br>Comes v. Microsoft</p>
<center>Report Draft</center>
Subject: Report Draft<br>
Sent: 11/4/96 8:31 PM<br>
Received: 11/4/96 9:48 PM<br>
From: Doug Camplejohn, doug@digitalcommerce.com<br>
To: Peter hoddie, hoodie@apple.com<br>
CC:<br>
Message: Peter,</p>
Here's more flushed out version of the report in ASCII. Let me know what you
think. I'll make any final changes, and then send it on to you in Word
format.</p>
Best,<br>
Doug</p>
----------</p>
Shaking Up The World:<br>
Thoughts on the launch of QuickTime 3.0</p>
Doug Camplejohn<br>
11/4/96</p>
Overall Observations<br>
The next major release of QuickTime represents the most significant leap in the
product architecture since QuickTime's introduction, and should be capitalized
upon accordingly. After spending a day with various parties associated with
QuickTime at Apple, I believe that Apple has an opportunity to (at least) match
Microsoft's ActiveMovie efforts with release 2.5 for Windows, and take a
substantial lead with release 3.0. However. I feel that Apple needs to be much
bolder in its marketing plans, partnering, and messages if the company wants to
maximize the potential impact of this launch and product. Microsoft has great
marketing, broad distribution, and few morals, and to fight this battle naively
or weakly invites the possibility of them winning again, despite inferior
technology.</p>
Overall Strategy<br>
In the rest of this document, I've focused on the following areas, that comprise
the elements of a successful launch:<br>
*Technology<br>
*Branding<br>
*Message<br>
*Partners<br>
*Marketing<br>
*Business Model</p>
Technology<br>
The technology in the next release of QuickTime overall seem very strong, but
there are a few holes. First, it is critical that QuickTime 2.5 have at least as
good MPEG support as Microsoft's ActiveMovie, and can read ActiveMovie formats
transparently so that it's truly a superset product. The Internet link portion
of QuickTime 3.0 also needs to be fully developed (i.e. ActiveX control,
Navigator plug-in, tested over LAN and dial-up connections, etc.) as this will
be a large part of the marketing message. Finally, Apple needs to have a
stronger streaming story, which should be a combination of local caching-style
streaming (e.g. ShockWave) and client-server streaming (e.g. Precept,
Progressive Networks, Starlight, VXtreme).</p>
Branding<br>
I believe that QuickTime 3.0 is a revolutionary leap, and you should definitely
not call it QuickTime 3.0 and make it appear to be only an evolutionary step. I
like the name QuickTime Interactive (QTi), for what it's worth.</p>
I also think it's time to come up with a new/updated logo for QTi - one that can
be adopted to a new icon, an animated web banner (like the Microsoft Explorer
banner), and used throughout the marketing/advertising campaign.</p>
NOTE: when HyperCard 3.0 is ready to launch, I would do the same thing, and call
it HyperCard Interactive (HCi), NOT</p>
<b><center>WSAP 01463</center>
<p align=right>A
1377<br>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
<hr>
<br>
<center>Report Draft</center>
HyperCard 3.0</p>
Message<br>
QuickTime 1.0's message was "cut-and-paste multimedia."</p>
QTi has two messages: a developer message ("cut-and-paste
interactivity"), and a consumer message ("the universal player").
Obviously these messages will have to be backed up with strong partnerships,
demos, and marketing background materials (e.g. white papers).</p>
Partners<br>
You've covered the obvious candidates (e.g. toolmakers, multimedia content
vendors), but need to hit some big strategic partners to make this take off and
be newsworthy. For example: Intel, JavaSoft, PointCast, Electronic Arts,
Sony/Sega/Nintendo, WebTV/Diba/Navio, Pixar (active clip art), Electric
Communities/Worlds Inc./OnLive (3D chat).</p>
The war will be won on content, not APIs. You need to make it easy for people to
get their materials into QTi format, and make it difficult for them to switch. A
few possibilities:</p>
1) Apple runs a for-profit program to get corporations to convert content into
QT format. Qualify and partner with a set of multimedia developers to do the
actual work. Create a "starter kit" program that lets companies send
in a video and set of slides (e.g. training), and converts the entire thing into
a big QTi movie.</p>
2) A more subversive approach is to engineer some form of subtle bug that
manifests itself (e.g. synchronization drift) if a QTi movie is converted into
ActiveMovie format (much like the copy protection "spike" put into
videotapes).</p>
You definitely need to have Macromedia's support, at least publicly. I'd have
someone write the Director-to-QTi conversion code. Turn it into an applet for
the developer CD, and give the source to Macromedia to make it easier for them
to integrate into Director.</p>
Marketing<br>
Some thoughts on the press presentation and demos:<br>
*Emphasize percentage of content out there in QT format on Internet versus
VFW/ActiveMovie, and statistics on QTW ranking overall net downloads (it's in
the Top 10 - check with CNET's shareware.com group)</p>
*Emphasize number of QT applications out there (be generous), and emphasize that
any QT application can immediately take advantage of QTi.</p>
*Be dramatic in visuals - e.g. create animation of all the run-time player icons
being put in the Trash, and then QTi icon appears.</p>
*The current demos are good technology demos, but you should create "Day in
the Life" scenarios of how this can be a paradigm shift in business,
education apps, etc. Have success stories of real customers solving real
problems to go hand-in-hand with this.</p>
*There should be a very strong emphasis on the Internet tie-in - the notion that
the Internet is "just a big hard disk" and that any piece of content
can be dynamically updated without having to launch a web browser or separate
application. Complement this with some announcements from some title vendors on
how they plan to update their QTi discs via the Internet.</p>
Assuming you have a solid marketing/advertising budget, I'd set a specific date
for launch, and then start advertising the release through teasers (much like a
movie release). If you build up enough anticipation, and have a killer one-two
punch of the technology and partnerships at the launch then you'll get
incredible coverage and having strong momentum. Think big. Consider billboards,
posters, print ads, etc.</p>
Business Model<br>
The real question here is: "Who has money?" The answer is authors,
hardware vendors, consumer electronics companies, and large
businesses.</p>
Authors: For authors you can charge for tools, developer programs, and
conferences. Create a CD-ROM with all the QTi authoring tools on it, including
some tools not available elsewhere. Offer a basic set of tools as part of the
price of the CD, and use unlocking technology (like Adobe Font Paks) to give
customers the opportunity to unlock and pay for other software on the CD. Either
put it into retail (the way Microsoft does with their entry-level developer
kits), or into developer channels. Include a 1-year QTi developer subscription
program in the price.</p>
<b><center>WSAP 01464</center>
<p align=right>A
1378<br>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
<hr>
<br>
<center>Report Draft</center>
HW Vendors: There is an opportunity to sell some pieces of QTi separately (e.g.
capture) if it is truly better than Microsoft's free offerings, but there must
be significant value-add. Most hardware vendors (especially PC OEMs) are not
paying anything for third party software on their products, and, in some cases,
are even getting paid for by the software vendors.</p>
*Consumer Electronics: To become the universal player for DVD would obviously be
a huge win. 'Nuff said. Need to have some strong copy-protection story here,
however, to make media companies comfortable with the notion of putting their
assets into this format.</p>
*Companies: Sell server software for caching content updates (like PointCast)
and streaming. Faster route might be to do deals to resell existing products
(PointCast, Starlight, Precept, etc.). Another opportunity is to sell content
conversion services, as indicated earlier.</p>
In conclusion, QuickTime Interactive is a very cool product, and, marketed
properly, has the chance to restore some of the luster to Apple the company so
deserves.</p>
Although this project's deliverable was the report above, I'm happy to discuss
any of these things further with anyone. You can reach me through the following
methods (in order of preference):</p>
email: mediadoug@aol.com<br>
home office: [redacted]<br>
work office: [redacted]</p>
Best,<br>
Doug Camplejohn</p>
<br>
Subject: Re: MPEG1 low bitrate data<br>
Sent: 10/20/96 9:26 PM<br>
Received: 10/20/96 9:26 PM<br>
From: self<br>
To: masamichi ONO, ono@sm.sony.co.jp<br>
CC:<br>
Message: Ono-san -</p>
<blockquote>My apologies for the late response. I have been very busy
lately, and have been behind in answering my email.</p>
I did receive the document, but I was unable to read the Microsoft word document
you sent. I think our email system trashed the file. Our engineer was able to
determine how the frame rate in the MPEG files works, and he believes they will
cause no problem.</p>
Also the sound is working very well with the files you sent.</p>
>>The best way to make your own low bit rate MPEG streams is
buying our<br>
>>MPEG1 real time encoder RTE-3000. :-)</p>
I would like very much to be able to make MPEG streams like these, but I don't
think our budget allows us to buy the RTE-3000. Perhaps we will create our own
software encoder some day. Of course, it won't be as fast as the
RTE-3000.</p>
Regards</p>
Peter Hoddie<br>
QuickTime Architect<br>
Apple Computer</p></blockquote>
<br>
<b><center>WSAP 01465</center>
<p align=right>A
1379<br>HIGHLY<br>CONFIDENTIAL</b></p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
