Guest valueInv Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Another example of Google "out innovating" Apple: http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/06/google-teams-up-with-automakers-to-bring-android-to-cars/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Unsurprising that after Apple mocked MS for turning tablets into laptops, they are going to do the same. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57616596-37/that-rumored-ipad-pro-could-be-more-than-just-a-big-ipad/ Despite what the fanbois say, Apple is not an innovative firm, but a firm centered on design and user experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Despite what the fanbois say, Apple is not an innovative firm, but a firm centered on design and user experience. Sounds like your definition of innovation is different than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 in·no·va·tion (n-vshn) n. 1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikhil25 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 http://www.fastcompany.com/3023591/angela-ahrendts-a-new-season-at-apple Hopefully, she'll help reinvent the customer experience at Apple stores across the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 in·no·va·tion (n-vshn) n. 1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced. Is it not possible to have an innovative design or an innovative user experience? Could you not call a firm that created that innovative design and innovative user experience an innovative company? Microsoft was not innovative, because they didn't invent the concept of an operating system. Warren Buffet isn't innovative, because he didn't invent value investing. Picasso wasn't innovative, because he didn't invent art. Tesla isn't innovative because it didn't invent the electric car.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 in·no·va·tion (n-vshn) n. 1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced. Sounds like the Galaxy Gear is innovative as was the Edsel and New Coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Is it not possible to have an innovative design or an innovative user experience? Could you not call a firm that created that innovative design and innovative user experience an innovative company? Microsoft was not innovative, because they didn't invent the concept of an operating system. Warren Buffet isn't innovative, because he didn't invent value investing. Picasso wasn't innovative, because he didn't invent art. Tesla isn't innovative because it didn't invent the electric car.... I know you were being sarcastic, but you're pretty much correct. Innovation is developing something new. It's a word that gets thrown around very casually, "this is so innovative!" and as a synonym for "good", but it is incorrect. Buffett was innovative, despite not inventing value investing he did other things that went well beyond other value investors. MIcrosoft was not innovative. Tesla is innovating in the underlying battery technology, but as a whole, their concept is not innovative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I know you were being sarcastic, but you're pretty much correct. Innovation is developing something new. It's a word that gets thrown around very casually, "this is so innovative!" and as a synonym for "good", but it is incorrect. Buffett was innovative, despite not inventing value investing he did other things that went well beyond other value investors. MIcrosoft was not innovative. Tesla is innovating in the underlying battery technology, but as a whole, their concept is not innovative. Products can be innovative because they provide a better, new user experience, even if all the individual component building-blocks aren't entirely new. It's how they're put together that is innovative (and that often includes decluttering and removing things that they could've put in if they were just trying to have the longest spec sheet). Apple benchmarks itself at the product level, not at the component level (even if they are often leaders there too). I'd rather have the first really good version of something than the first version. If Samsung feels the Gear Watch gives them bragging rights, good for them, but it's still a crap product that will soon be forgotten. Apple wasn't first with personal computers, graphical interfaces, the mouse, digital music players, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. But they definitely pushed each category forward significantly and their innovations were later much imitated*, so much so that there's usually a "before & after" era for their main products (before & after the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, the aluminum Macbooks, the iPad, etc). http://www.tapscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg http://tekgadg.com/static/511fde95e4b0dce195c164ce/511fdf4de4b06333a36348ee/511fdf55e4b06333a36357d3/1320809121133/Android_before_after_iphone_tekgadg.jpg/1000w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Products can be innovative because they provide a better, new user experience, even if all the individual component building-blocks aren't entirely new. It's how they're put together that is innovative (and that often includes decluttering and removing things that they could've put in if they were just trying to have the longest spec sheet). Apple benchmarks itself at the product level, not at the component level (even if they are often leaders there too). I'd rather have the first really good version of something than the first version. If Samsung feels the Gear Watch gives them bragging rights, good for them, but it's still a crap product that will soon be forgotten. Apple wasn't first with personal computers, graphical interfaces, the mouse, digital music players, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. But they definitely pushed each category forward significantly and their innovations were later much imitated, so much so that there's usually a "before & after" era for their main products (before & after the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, the aluminum Macbooks, the iPad, etc). Your comments about Samsung products being "crap" aren't relevant to the discussion about innovation, and just another example of why these tech threads are bad. We're not talking about your personal experience or what product you want to have or whose product is the greatest, but about the specific definition of innovation. Pushing each category forward is refining, not innovating. That is what Apple (and Steve Jobs) was good at - constant refining and polishing upon things other people have developed. To take an American football example. Take Mike Martz, he had a system that was pretty much revolutionary at that point in the NFL, and it made him look like a genius. Today many of those concepts are incorporated throughout NFL systems, and Martz's offense no longer works as effectively. Why is that? Martz was a creative innovator, and not an excellent coach as was assumed. They are two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Pushing each category forward is refining, not innovating. You can define it that way for yourself if you want, but you are an outlier believing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Products can be innovative because they provide a better, new user experience, even if all the individual component building-blocks aren't entirely new. It's how they're put together that is innovative (and that often includes decluttering and removing things that they could've put in if they were just trying to have the longest spec sheet). Apple benchmarks itself at the product level, not at the component level (even if they are often leaders there too). I'd rather have the first really good version of something than the first version. If Samsung feels the Gear Watch gives them bragging rights, good for them, but it's still a crap product that will soon be forgotten. Apple wasn't first with personal computers, graphical interfaces, the mouse, digital music players, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. But they definitely pushed each category forward significantly and their innovations were later much imitated, so much so that there's usually a "before & after" era for their main products (before & after the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, the aluminum Macbooks, the iPad, etc). Pushing each category forward is refining, not innovating. It is innovating not refining. Creating a completely new category is inventing, not innovating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Pushing each category forward is refining, not innovating. You can define it that way for yourself if you want, but you are an outlier believing that. No, that is very clearly the definition of innovation - developing something new, from the root "nov", something that hasn't been done before. Not "I made the greatest watch!!!!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 No, that is very clearly the definition of innovation - developing something new, from the root "nov", something that hasn't been done before. Not "I made the greatest watch!!!!!". You are focusing entirely on "new" and forgetting to look at "something". That something doesn't have to be a new category that nobody has even seen before, unless you believe that there was no innovation with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Macbooks, the iMac, etc, in which case you definitely are using the word differently from most smart people. Refining is taking a 1ghz CPU and bumping it to 1.2 ghz, not going from the 2007 Blackberry to the original iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 How do you know what most smart people think, and what makes you the spokesman for them? Just curious. :) You're not refuting my argument. Innovation is making something new. Instead you try to make a semi ad hom of "You really don't think there was innovation involved in the iPhone?". If you start saying that improvement=innovation, then almost every company is innovative as they regularly improve their products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I know you were being sarcastic, but you're pretty much correct. Innovation is developing something new. It's a word that gets thrown around very casually, "this is so innovative!" and as a synonym for "good", but it is incorrect. Buffett was innovative, despite not inventing value investing he did other things that went well beyond other value investors. MIcrosoft was not innovative. Tesla is innovating in the underlying battery technology, but as a whole, their concept is not innovative. Products can be innovative because they provide a better, new user experience, even if all the individual component building-blocks aren't entirely new. It's how they're put together that is innovative (and that often includes decluttering and removing things that they could've put in if they were just trying to have the longest spec sheet). Apple benchmarks itself at the product level, not at the component level (even if they are often leaders there too). I'd rather have the first really good version of something than the first version. If Samsung feels the Gear Watch gives them bragging rights, good for them, but it's still a crap product that will soon be forgotten. Apple wasn't first with personal computers, graphical interfaces, the mouse, digital music players, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. But they definitely pushed each category forward significantly and their innovations were later much imitated*, so much so that there's usually a "before & after" era for their main products (before & after the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, the aluminum Macbooks, the iPad, etc). http://www.tapscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head.jpg http://tekgadg.com/static/511fde95e4b0dce195c164ce/511fdf4de4b06333a36348ee/511fdf55e4b06333a36357d3/1320809121133/Android_before_after_iphone_tekgadg.jpg/1000w kinda like how apple is copying Nokia's colorful! phones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 How do you know what most smart people think, and what makes you the spokesman for them? Just curious. :) Because that's how I've seen the word used by smart people. You're not refuting my argument. Innovation is making something new. Instead you try to make a semi ad hom of "You really don't think there was innovation involved in the iPhone?". If you start saying that improvement=innovation, then almost every company is innovative as they regularly improve their products. You didn't understand what I said. I agree innovation is making something new, I just don't agree with your restrictive definition of the "something" in that sentence. That something can be the final product/user experience even if it isn't made up of 100% new things. Just like two people using the same lego blocks, and one of them makes an "ok" thing and the other makes a really great, never seen before thing. That combination was innovative to me, but you'd say "it's the same lego blocks so it's just refinement, you would have had to invent new blocks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 kinda like how apple is copying Nokia's colorful! phones? I sincerely hope you're kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 kinda like how apple is copying Nokia's colorful! phones? I sincerely hope you're kidding. the original mac was a copy of a xerox concept. apple will soon be copying the Samsung Note, which was a mobile innovation that has been a spectacular success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You didn't understand what I said. I agree innovation is making something new, I just don't agree with your restrictive definition of the "something" in that sentence. That something can be the final product/user experience even if it isn't made up of 100% new things. Just like two people using the same lego blocks, and one of them makes an "ok" thing and the other makes a really great, never seen before thing. That combination was innovative to me, but you'd say "it's the same lego blocks so it's just refinement, you would have had to invent new blocks". Almost everything Apple has made has been "seen before", so your point is false. But yes, even if two people make a structure out of Legos, but one guy is much better than the other, it doesn't make his structure more "innovative". You're confusing "innovative" with "good", and I'm happy to keep correcting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 the original mac was a copy of a xerox concept. apple will soon be copying the Samsung Note, which was a mobile innovation that has been a spectacular success. Isn't that what I said a few posts ago when I said that Apple wasn't first in almost anything? What makes them great is the user experience of their products, not that they have "first" bragging rights (that's worthless to a customer who has to use the thing). It doesn't make their products copies of what came before, though; if they were just that, I doubt they'd have had any success at all. You're missing the forest for the tree. A larger screen size or a color can be a nice thing, but in isolation it's worthless and obvious. What matters is how all the details combine together. If Blackberry had been the first with a retina screen, it wouldn't have mattered because the rest was inferior. The examples I showed were Android and Samsung basically taking as much of the look & feel of the user experience that took Apple years to develop. Nothing else was like that before, and everything was similar after. This isn't making a color shell or using a dropdown menu after someone else did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 kinda like how apple is copying Nokia's colorful! phones? I sincerely hope you're kidding. the original mac was a copy of a xerox concept. apple will soon be copying the Samsung Note, which was a mobile innovation that has been a spectacular success. It wasn't. Look up your history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You didn't understand what I said. I agree innovation is making something new, I just don't agree with your restrictive definition of the "something" in that sentence. That something can be the final product/user experience even if it isn't made up of 100% new things. Just like two people using the same lego blocks, and one of them makes an "ok" thing and the other makes a really great, never seen before thing. That combination was innovative to me, but you'd say "it's the same lego blocks so it's just refinement, you would have had to invent new blocks". Almost everything Apple has made has been "seen before", so your point is false. But yes, even if two people make a structure out of Legos, but one guy is much better than the other, it doesn't make his structure more "innovative". You're confusing "innovative" with "good", and I'm happy to keep correcting you. You have a strange overly restrictive definition of innovative. You are saying that since the telephone was invented, no phone can ever be innovative. After the ENIAC no computer has ever been innovative. I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post, this sounds like what you are saying. The first caveman to paint on a wall was an innovator, every artist since was just copying the idea and making improvements. I have a much broader definition of innovation. You could look at a company and say that they just produce computers, mp3 players, cell phones, and tablets (which are all commodity items) and it invented none of them, so it must not be innovating. But if a company is producing nothing but commodity items with no innovation, then it isn't possible for it to have much higher profits than any other company in the space. If it does, then it must be innovating somewhere. Something is "new" about what it is doing. There are some possibilities. Not all necessarily apply to Apple. 1) The products have something new and (dare I say) innovative about them which consumers are willing to pay more for. 2) Their manufacturing or distribution process is innovative, allowing them to make an outsized profit on a commodity product by undercutting competitors on price. 3) Their marketing and branding is highly innovative, so much so that consumers are willing to pay more for the product simply because it has the name or logo on it. Any of those things can be the mark of an innovative company. 1 & 3 clearly apply to Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 kinda like how apple is copying Nokia's colorful! phones? I sincerely hope you're kidding. the original mac was a copy of a xerox concept. apple will soon be copying the Samsung Note, which was a mobile innovation that has been a spectacular success. So then by your logic the Galaxy Note can be considered a copy of the Palm Pilot, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Almost everything Apple has made has been "seen before", so your point is false. But yes, even if two people make a structure out of Legos, but one guy is much better than the other, it doesn't make his structure more "innovative". You're confusing "innovative" with "good", and I'm happy to keep correcting you. Where had you seen the iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc, before? If you come out with a Nomad, a Blackberry, and a Microsoft tablet, we can just drop this, it's pointless... I guess there's been no innovation between the Commodore 64 and the Mac Pro. A simple question for you: Give me some examples of what you consider innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now