AAPL - Apple Inc.

[DCG]

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.

 

 

No, you're not getting it. Making products simpler, stringing together seemingly unrelated ideas, & improving the user design experience IS innovation. You seem to simply be associating 'innovation' with adding more features. You can be innovative improving upon previously invented products.

 

 

Read some books on innovation. Red Thread Thinking and The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs are great start.

 

[Palantir]

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 have said no such thing. You're mixing up commercial success, user experience, and quality (which Apple has) with innovation, and then going into "people keep buying this stuff, so it's innovative". Your definition of innovation is so broad, it's nearly trivial.

 

Apple does a great job of building products, but they are not new, in most cases they did not invent the segment, but rather are a carefully refined concept built on what came before.

 

 

[Palantir]

 

 

 

No, you're not getting it. Making products simpler, stringing together seemingly unrelated ideas, & improving the user design experience IS innovation. You seem to simply be associating 'innovation' with adding more features. You can be innovative improving upon previously invented products.

 

 

No it's not. By your logic, almost every company is "innovative", as most companies regularly strive to improve upon previous products.

 

Btw, why are you getting so worked up about this? Surely we are not in a stadium cheering on our favorite teams are we? Will your investment returns improve if you feel you win this argument?

[tengen]

 

in·no·va·tion  (n-vshn)

n.

1. The act of introducing something new.

2. Something newly introduced.

 

I guess you can pick the definition that suits you, but here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "innovate":

 

to do something in a new way : to have new ideas about how something can be done.

 

and from the Oxford dictionary:

 

make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products

 

Both of those reflect my understanding of "innovate" and its related noun "innovation".

[Liberty]

Palantir, do you consider that Google's search engine has been innovative at any point of its history?

[rkbabang]

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 have said no such thing. You're mixing up commercial success, user experience, and quality (which Apple has) with innovation, and then going into "people keep buying this stuff, so it's innovative". Your definition of innovation is so broad, it's nearly trivial.

 

Apple does a great job of building products, but they are not new, in most cases they did not invent the segment, but rather are a carefully refined concept built on what came before.

 

I don't think so.  If the iPhone wasn't innovative, and by that I mean a completely new type of product, when it came out then I can't think of anything invented in my lifetime that was.  After all the DVD player just played videos same as a VCR which was the same as a super-8 projector, the microwave just cooked food there hasn't been any innovation in food since someone invented fire, the Concord just moved people from North America to Europe same as a steamships which were just an improvement on sail.

[Palantir]

 

in·no·va·tion  (n-vshn)

n.

1. The act of introducing something new.

2. Something newly introduced.

 

I guess you can pick the definition that suits you, but here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "innovate":

 

to do something in a new way : to have new ideas about how something can be done.

 

and from the Oxford dictionary:

 

make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products

 

Both of those reflect my understanding of "innovate" and its related noun "innovation".

 

My definition is pulled straight from Merriam Webster. Do you want me to post a link?

[Guest valueInv]

 

in·no·va·tion  (n-vshn)

n.

1. The act of introducing something new.

2. Something newly introduced.

 

I guess you can pick the definition that suits you, but here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "innovate":

 

to do something in a new way : to have new ideas about how something can be done.

 

and from the Oxford dictionary:

 

make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products

 

Both of those reflect my understanding of "innovate" and its related noun "innovation".

 

My definition is pulled straight from Merriam Webster. Do you want me to post a link?

 

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Palantir]

I don't think so.  If the iPhone wasn't innovative, and by that I mean a completely new type of product, when it came out then I can't think of anything invented in my lifetime that was.  After all the DVD player just played videos same as a VCR which was the same as a super-8 projector, the microwave just cooked food there hasn't been any innovation in food since someone invented fire, the Concord just moved people from North America to Europe same as a steamships which were just an improvement on sail.

The DVD player was a totally different technology from the VCR. Your comparison is bad. Microwave is a totally different technology from fire. Your comparison is bad. Concord was not innovative, that I agree, but I think that a plane is a clear technological innovation over a steamship.

 

Feel free to disagree.

[DCG]

Palinter, again, please read the books I mentioned above and then come back to this thread.

[Palantir]

^Tell me why you are so worked up and whether your returns improve if you win arguments on the internet, then get back to the thread.

[rkbabang]

My definition is pulled straight from Merriam Webster. Do you want me to post a link?

 

Why don't we.  Innovate

in·no·vate

verb \ˈi-nə-ˌvāt\

 

: to do something in a new way : to have new ideas about how something can be done

in·no·vat·edin·no·vat·ing

 

Full Definition of INNOVATE

 

transitive verb

1 :  to introduce as or as if new

2 archaic :  to effect a change in <the dictates of my father were … not to be altered, innovated, or even discussed — Sir Walter Scott>

 

intransitive verb

:  to make changes :  do something in a new way

 

— in·no·va·tor noun

— in·no·va·to·ry adjective

 

Examples of INNOVATE

 

    The company plans to continue innovating and experimenting.

    The company innovated a new operating system.

 

Origin of INNOVATE

 

Latin innovatus, past participle of innovare, from in- + novus new

First Known Use: 1548

 

[Palantir]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovations

 

The root word of innovation is novus, or "new". Not "better".

[DCG]

^Tell me why you are so worked up and whether your returns improve if you win arguments on the internet, then get back to the thread.

 

 

I'm not the least bit worked up. You started claiming you don't think Apple is innovative, and then demonstrated that your argument is based on a poor understanding of innovation. I'm just contributing to the tread like everyone else. All I (and everyone else in this thread) have done was try to briefly explain the true definition (to the majority of the world) of innovation and you keep coming back attacking people. I don't think the word 'new' has to mean that the product itself has never been created before. Arranging apps in a grid on a large touchscreen, and incorporating things like a touch-screen keyboard are things that were New to smart phones. Apple/Jobs came up with the idea of using a magnet for the power supply on computers after seeing the idea on a rice cooker. It was a 'new' idea to apply that to computers.

 

 

[Palantir]

No, I have a perfectly good understanding of innovation. What happened was, I made an assertion about Apple's strategy, and I guess some people took it personally and jumped to defend Apple's honor and responded with ad homs of "go read this book" "your definition is wrong, Apple makes great products therefore it is innovative". Apple's game is about user experience, not innovation, and it excels in using other people's innovation and combining them into a quality product.

[DCG]

Sorry if you've done this, but mind providing some examples to things you'd consider innovative?

[Palantir]

Sticking to Apple, some things I would consider innovative are ARM chips and multitouch. I think their optical fingerprint scanner is pretty innovative, but I don't know enough about fingerprint scanners to comment "how" innotative it is.

[Guest valueInv]

Sticking to Apple, some things I would consider innovative are ARM chips and multitouch. I think their optical fingerprint scanner is pretty innovative, but I don't know enough about fingerprint scanners to comment "how" innotative it is.

 

But you're an expert on multitouch and ARM chips?

[Guest valueInv]

Nice piece:

 

http://techpinions.com/what-i-love-about-apples-strategy/26240

[nikhil25]

Nice piece:

 

http://techpinions.com/what-i-love-about-apples-strategy/26240

 

"The decisions they make as a company are not based around what their competition is doing but around what is best for their customers. Like it or not, this is their strategy."

 

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

[Guest wellmont]

interesting development. apple has new phone products out and this report says they lost share to windows and android. my assmption is they did not lose share to bbry.

 

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Windows+Phone,+Android+Steal+Share+from+iOS+in+Several+Key+Markets+%28MSFT%29+%28AAPL%29/9026453.html

[Guest valueInv]

interesting development. apple has new phone products out and this report says they lost share to windows and android. my assmption is they did not lose share to bbry.

 

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Windows+Phone,+Android+Steal+Share+from+iOS+in+Several+Key+Markets+%28MSFT%29+%28AAPL%29/9026453.html

 

Jeez, that explains Samsung's earnings miss on already lowered expectations :)

[Liberty]

interesting development. apple has new phone products out and this report says they lost share to windows and android. my assmption is they did not lose share to bbry.

 

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Windows+Phone,+Android+Steal+Share+from+iOS+in+Several+Key+Markets+%28MSFT%29+%28AAPL%29/9026453.html

 

Interesting. Comscore shows Apple's US share went up:

 

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2014/1/comScore_Reports_November_2013_US_Smartphone_Subscriber_Market_Share

 

152.5 million people in the U.S. owned smartphones (63.8 percent mobile market penetration) during the three months ending in November, up 3 percent since August. Apple ranked as the top OEM with 41.2 percent of U.S. smartphone subscribers (up 0.5 percentage points from August). Samsung ranked second with 26 percent market share (up 1.7 percentage points), followed by Motorola with 6.7 percent, LG with 6.5 percent and HTC with 6.4 percent.

 

But market share as a whole doesn't matter much since Apple isn't playing in the low-end and that's where there's more growth. What matters is profit share and market share in the segments where they play (which happen to be the segments that matter to developers; if you're too cheap to spend on a phone, you won't spend on apps. Most of the low-end seems to be upgrading from feature phones but still using their new 'smartphones' as feature phones).

 

f.ex. It's like if there's tons of growth in $15k cars. You could say that Porsche is losing market share if you look at the whole pie. But if you look at only the segments where they compete, they might be gaining market share, or growing at the same rate as that segment of the pie and not losing any.

[Guest wellmont]

your numbers are usa. my numbers are global. right I think we all understand the argument that apple is Porsche and android is chevy.

[Liberty]

your numbers are usa. my numbers are global. right I think we all understand the argument that apple is Porsche and android is chevy.

 

I know, that's why I wrote "Comscore shows Apple's US share went up".

 

The segmentation argument I made is even more important in global markets. The low-end is growing quite fast there, faster than in the US, no doubt, but Apple doesn't compete in that segment and not all customers have the same value.

 

I wish these market share numbers had a drilldown for something like:

 

under $200

$200-400

$400 and more

 

(and equivalents in various international markets)

 

You'd see how everybody except Apple is getting a lot of their volume in the first two categories, and then everybody turns around and directly compares market share points like they're all the same, comparing Apples and orange, so to speak.