Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Apple I thought OSNews would be a good forum to talk about a matter that has been weighing on my mind lately primarily because the site has been so focused on Apple's patents and litigation as of late. The news that HP, the largest PC manufacturer in the world is spinning off or getting out of this business is what really prompted me to write this article.
Thread beginning with comment 487012
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tony Swash
Member since:

"and how to innovate.

thats the problem i have with apple
everyone tells me how innovative apple is, and what they invented
but all i see is a company that excels at copying other ideas, polishing them to a mirror shine and selling them

I think you may be confusing 'innovate' with 'invent' - they are two very different things. To give you an example: Apple's retail stores was an innovation by Apple. There are plenty of existing retail stores and retail stores operated by tech companies but the Apple stores were innovative for Apple and also innovative in general in how they were operated.

The Apple retail stores are now the most successful retail stores (by value sold per square foot) in any retail sector.

What was not immediately apparent was how these retail stores would be so crucial in the new mobile device tech paradigm. It turns out that access to and control of sales channels is deeply important to the sales of phones and tablets. Android phones could compete against Apple for a range of reasons but one was that there were well established sales channels operated by the carriers already geared up to sell phones. Android tablets have been much less successful (and may never be successful) and one of the reasons is that the same carrier phone stores that helped so much with Android handsets are, it turns out, not very good at selling tablets (for all sorts of reasons that we can explore another time).

So the way to view innovation (particularly in the new and emerging post-pc world) is that it can involve lots of factors, only some of which might involve new hardware components or new software, and that it will often be multidimensional - bringing together disparate but critical factors like value-stacks, brand characteristics, retail operations and channels, customer support, etc etc.

Innovation is complex - that's why success on the scale of Apple or Google (or in the past Microsoft and Sony) is so rare.

Reply Parent Score: 3

rr7.num7 Member since:

The problem with stretching the term "innovation" that far, is that then almost anything can be called innovative, making it a pretty meaningless word.

For instance, the first version of Windows wasn't exaclty like the original Mac OS. If you count the differences between both systems (support for overlapping windows, for example) then you could say that Microsoft was innovative too. Maybe their product was worse than the one it was insired by, but "innovation" and "quality" are two completely different concepts.

So I more or less agree with the OP. I think "perfectionist" would be a much more accurate description of Apple than "innovative".

Reply Parent Score: 1