How is Apple innovative?

[Gav2k]

It has been used. I use it all of the time. And apple has plenty of failures. Thunderbolt, passbook, mobileme, appletv, and many other things over the years.

Thunderbolt was ment to be the next big thing. Wasn't apples doing that's more intels slow uptake.

Passport is out there and being used daily. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't

MobileMe... Wtf do you realise what iCloud is?

Apple TV is far from a failure! First gen maybe. Not now!

Yes apple has had it's failures I'm not denying that but atleast list relive by ones!

What does innovation give you...

Samsung Galaxy S III, over 45 million shipped
Apple iPhone 5, 40 million sold
Samsung Galaxy S II, 40 million shipped
Samsung Galaxy Note, 10 million shipped
Apple iPhone 4S, 9.5 million sold (60 million in 2012, 69.5 million total)

See the difference in sales there, samsung class a shipped phone as a sale. Apple classes a sale as an activation.

 

[flameproof]

See the difference in sales there, samsung class a shipped phone as a sale. Apple classes a sale as an activation.

You mean Samsung just ships phones and never sells them? No wonder their numbers are so high then.

 

[Gav2k]

You mean Samsung just ships phones and never sells them? No wonder their numbers are so high then.

It was in one of the Samsung keynotes. The little bloke tells everyone we have sold x amount of sg2's or whatever it was then one of the sites looked into samsungs figures and they were quoting shipped figures not actual sales.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Never thought I'd see a thread like this on an Apple board.

Shame

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Apple iPhone 5, 40 million sold

Do you have a source for this?

 

[flameproof]

It was in one of the Samsung keynotes. The little bloke tells everyone we have sold x amount of sg2's or whatever it was then one of the sites looked into samsungs figures and they were quoting shipped figures not actual sales.

So? This is wordplay. Samsung has other distribution channels and obviously has no POS data. And keep in mind that Apple also has other channels, hence also has no total control over the sales figures.

 

[Rogifan]

Why don't threads like this get locked. Clearly they're just magnets for trolling. Plus it's not like this is a new subject. It's kind of been beaten to death on this site.

 

[Plutonius]

I'm not seeing where the innovation went to :/

What innovations do you think Apple should have had ? I don't see how the original question has an answer without you defining what you think innovation means.

----------

I'm thrilled about the possibility of a 4.8" iphone. I'm sure many will be.

But just like the ipad mini converters we'll see large-iphone converts too now declaring large screen phones are great. Suddenly it'll be possible to fit into pockets.

Nope. It doesn't change the size of pockets . People will just stop mentioning that it no longer fits comfortably.

 

[aristobrat]

Google and Microsoft have apps for iOS, so if Apple is really that good why don't we see WP or Android apps from Apple?

Google and Microsoft are software and services companies. They write software/services to be either be sold, or as a means to collect information about you/advertise to you.

Apple is a hardware company. They write software to sell hardware. Writing apps for WP and Android makes no sense.

Although Microsoft is changing that now a little with Surface.

 

[KnightWRX]

Google and Microsoft are software and services companies. They write software/services to be either be sold, or as a means to collect information about you/advertise to you.

Apple is a hardware company. They write software to sell hardware. Writing apps for WP and Android makes no sense.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20124464-37/jobs-i-dont-want-to-make-android-users-happy/

In the biography, Isaacson quotes Jobs:

"We thought about whether we should do a music client for Android. We put iTunes on Windows in order to sell more iPods. But I don't see an advantage of putting our own music app on Android, except to make Android users happy. And I don't want to make Android users happy."

 

[MonkeySee....]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20124464-37/jobs-i-dont-want-to-make-android-users-happy/

But I don't see an advantage of putting our own music app on Android, except to make Android users happy. And I don't want to make Android users happy."

Love it

 

[dejo]

But just like the ipad mini converters...

Do you have specific examples of members who said they didn't want a smaller iPad only to praise them when they came out? If not, I think you are just amalgamating two separate sets of members.

 

[TheHateMachine]

It has been used. I use it all of the time. And apple has plenty of failures. Thunderbolt, passbook, mobileme, appletv, and many other things over the years.

Apple isn't the only culprit here. Sure the "supposed" early exclusivity put Thunderbolt in the coffin but the high license fees from Intel for the chipset nailed the coffin and then buried it.

Shame too, I was really looking forward to an Acer W700 Windows 8 Tablet with a thunderbolt port and an external GPU. It was released on the tech demo with one but when it came to retail it was eerily omitted.

 

[0098386]

Apple changed the game numerous of times. That's undeniable whether you like Apple or not. Of course Apple is going to brand itself as innovative even though most of their products are not. IMO, I feel Apple does deserve that branding.

So did Nintendo. They popularised touchscreen gaming (DS), casual home gaming (Wii), motion controllers (wii). Nobody calls them innovative.

As another person said; innovation is subjective. Almost all the big companies are innovative (Samsung, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple) but the perception is only Apple innovates and everyone else follows which is incredibly short sighted, but ultimately an opinion only held by their fans.

 

[quickmac]

I think they were more innovative in the early years when Steve Jobs returned to Apple and when Apple was trying to pull it self back up from the downward spiral.

A few things come to mind:


The cheesy but colorful laptops and all in one desktops they came out with was innovative. Everyone else, including Apple at first, made drab off white rectangles that all looked the same.

I mean the iPod didn't reinvent the wheel (no pun intended) but it reinvented what an MP3 player could be and do. Combined with iTunes it was a game changer.

Some would also argue that the unibody aluminum Macbook Pros were innovative for their design. Sure there were Thinkpads and Toughbooks before the MBPs but who came along and made a sturdy tough laptop that also looked good?

And of course the iPhone completely changed the phone market.

These days I'd say they aren't very innovative. Their comfortable with what they have and likely see little reason to innovate. Why change what isn't broken so many companies have said. Consider RIM, IBM, Blockbuster, etc etc. Other companies make devices and software better than them these days.

Apple innovated most when it did things differently than others. Colored plastic casings on computers in a world of drab colored boxes. That's cool, that's fresh, that's innovative. 1000 songs in your pocket, with a nice program to buy and sync it all, that's innovative.

I think a lot of people will say, "Whens the last time Apple really surprised people and put out something that at least seemed innovative?" For me the first iPad was the last time I really was excited to see what Apple was doing and really saw it as a game changer.

 

[MonkeySee....]

I think they were more innovative in the early years when Steve Jobs returned to Apple and when Apple was trying to pull it self back up from the downward spiral.

A few things come to mind:


The cheesy but colorful laptops and all in one desktops they came out with was innovative. Everyone else, including Apple at first, made drab off white rectangles that all looked the same.

I mean the iPod didn't reinvent the wheel (no pun intended) but it reinvented what an MP3 player could be and do. Combined with iTunes it was a game changer.

Some would also argue that the unibody aluminum Macbook Pros were innovative for their design. Sure there were Thinkpads and Toughbooks before the MBPs but who came along and made a sturdy tough laptop that also looked good?

And of course the iPhone completely changed the phone market.

These days I'd say they aren't very innovative. Their comfortable with what they have and likely see little reason to innovate. Why change what isn't broken so many companies have said. Consider RIM, IBM, Blockbuster, etc etc. Other companies make devices and software better than them these days.

Apple innovated most when it did things differently than others. Colored plastic casings on computers in a world of drab colored boxes. That's cool, that's fresh, that's innovative. 1000 songs in your pocket, with a nice program to buy and sync it all, that's innovative.

I think a lot of people will say, "Whens the last time Apple really surprised people and put out something that at least seemed innovative?" For me the first iPad was the last time I really was excited to see what Apple was doing and really saw it as a game changer.

Retina Screen on the iPhone 4 was mind blowing. It can be taken for granted now but when it came out it was just jaw dropping.

I think Siri is an innovation in the way it interacts with what you ask and how it deals with conflicts.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20124464-37/jobs-i-dont-want-to-make-android-users-happy/

In the biography, Isaacson quotes Jobs:

"We thought about whether we should do a music client for Android. We put iTunes on Windows in order to sell more iPods. But I don't see an advantage of putting our own music app on Android, except to make Android users happy. And I don't want to make Android users happy."

The assumption Jobs had was that Android users were an unhappy lot to begin with. I'm not sure that was an appropriate assumption back then...and most certainly not now.

Although, from a competitive perspective, when everyone spends so much time comparing themselves to the iPhone, and how much better they are than the iPhone due to feature X, spec Y or size Z, it does make you begin to realize that the iPhone remains the "reference model" for the entire generation of smartphones in the marketplace today. Otherwise...why bother comparing?

 

[GermanyChris]

Retina Screen on the iPhone 4 was mind blowing. It can be taken for granted now but when it came out it was just jaw dropping.

I think Siri is an innovation in the way it interacts with what you ask and how it deals with conflicts.

I went from a G1 to an iPhone 4. The thing for me was the internal storage my G1 used SD cards and my iPhone had 32GB of storage and that was awesome.

My wife just got an SIII Mini and that screen is outstanding but the battery life isn't a good as my iPhone.

 

[blackhand1001]

Retina Screen on the iPhone 4 was mind blowing. It can be taken for granted now but when it came out it was just jaw dropping.

I think Siri is an innovation in the way it interacts with what you ask and how it deals with conflicts.

There were already phones with higher DPI screens more than two years before the iPhone 4 came out. Even the original Motorola droid had 102 more pixels per inch than the iPhone 3gs. Not to mention apple didn't make those screens. Samsung/lg did. See my post earlier in this thread about high DPI screens prior to the iphone 4.


https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16699254/

 

[KnightWRX]

The assumption Jobs had was that Android users were an unhappy lot to begin with. I'm not sure that was an appropriate assumption back then...and most certainly not now.

The comment was just flame bait to sell books, nothing more. The truth is, like he said, iTunes for Windows brought iPod sales, iTunes for Android brings them nothing but support/maintenance/developement costs.

The revenue the iTunes Music Store generates is a small percentage of Apple's total revenue. Dedicating time to opening this stream to a platform of people who probably already have access to it on their PC/Mac (Android users don't live in a isolated bubble) is time that is better spent on something else for Apple.

But if saying "I don't want to make Android users happy" will help sell books to people who really, really, really want to see Android die for some god forsaken reason, then so be it, let's just print that since the truth is boring.

----------

There were already phones with higher DPI screens more than two years before the iPhone 4 came out. Even the original Motorola droid had 102 more pixels per inch than the iPhone 3gs. Not to mention apple didn't make those screens. Samsung/lg did. See my post earlier in this thread about high DPI screens prior to the iphone 4.


https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16699254/

You missed one very important handset in that post, one with a very special release date that nails the coffin in the whole "Apple innovated with the Retina display!" when in fact, most of us were disappointed the 3GS didn't have it (with Android handsets already being announced with high-res displays back in 2009).

The Toshiba Protege G900 had a 3" display running at 800x480 for a whopping 310 PPI (over the 300 of the "Retina treshold" claimed by Apple). What is the special date on this baby ? June. 2007. What other phone was released at the same time ? Why yes, the original iPhone in all of its 163 PPI glory. So really, if you want to stand there and say Apple was a "first" with a "Retina" display, you have to be really ignorant of what was out there in terms of phone LCDs.

It also ran... gasp... an Intel XScale 520 MHz processor, you know, a ARMv5 processor manufactured by Intel (so much for ARM vs Intel...).

A lot of people really don't know what was out there before the iPhone. Seems a lot of folks trying to discuss the iPhone have a real lack of culture in what went on in the embedded and mobile world before Apple joined the party.

 

[KnightWRX]

The cheesy but colorful laptops and all in one desktops they came out with was innovative. Everyone else, including Apple at first, made drab off white rectangles that all looked the same.

The IBM Aptivas sold in Black in the early 90s beg to differ.

The SGI Octanes and O2s also.

So do a bunch of Sun Microsystems workstations (Heck that last one is even an AIO... from 1994).

Of course, Steve himself dabbled in non-white/beige boxes. Who can forget the NeXT cube :

I mean the iPod didn't reinvent the wheel (no pun intended) but it reinvented what an MP3 player could be and do. Combined with iTunes it was a game changer.

What did it reinvent exactly ? The iPod's strength was the UI that let you navigate in a folder like structure (albums - artists - songs) without having to linearly skipping songs like on a CD or knowing track numbers.

The problem is that UI method was patented by Creative Labs for use in their Nomad player, which was also a micro-drive type player.

And the iPod didn't change any games at first. It took 3 generations until it did. 2 things were missing from the original that made it not that great of a device : Windows support and USB support. Once Apple released a USB based iPod usuable on Windows, then the success started.

BTW, iTunes wasn't even there at first, it was shipped later after Apple acquired it from SoundJam.

 

[Rogifan]

OK so apparently Apple doesn't innovate. But it creates products people want to buy and is very profitable doing so. When people buy an iPhone, iPad or Mac do they really think about who invented/innovated what? I'm guessing most people don't care.

 

[KnightWRX]

OK so apparently Apple doesn't innovate. But it creates products people want to buy and is very profitable doing so. When people buy an iPhone, iPad or Mac do they really think about who invented/innovated what? I'm guessing most people don't care.

It's not that Apple doesn't innovate, it's that they never innovated at the fast pace people seem to think they did. Apple does come up with some innovations, but they are few and far between, most of their products being refinements/polishing of existing devices out there, bringing them to wider audiences.

So people are expecting Apple to churn out innovation but that's never been the case. Inflated expectations.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

So did Nintendo. They popularised touchscreen gaming (DS), casual home gaming (Wii), motion controllers (wii). Nobody calls them innovative.

As another person said; innovation is subjective. Almost all the big companies are innovative (Samsung, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple) but the perception is only Apple innovates and everyone else follows which is incredibly short sighted, but ultimately an opinion only held by their fans.

You must be young to say that. Nintendo was highly regarded as innovative.

 

[0098386]

You must be young to say that. Nintendo was highly regarded as innovative.

Was and still are, I'm talking about public perception. As I say - Apple are seen (around these parts) as the great innovator, the inventors, but as we really know, they're not.