Innovation?

[fewlio]

Apple copied the idea for a GUI from Xerox, then cried like babies when Microsoft did the same thing to them.

Magnetic power connectors have been around forever. I have one on my ancient french fry cooker and my hot water boiler. It's a safety issue so no tripping on cords and sending hot liquids and oils all over the place. NOT an innovation!

A Unix based OS is hardly innovative. Microsoft actually has purchased and developed their own proprietary OS codebase. Apple relies on Unix which has been around for what 50-60 years? If anything this shows that Apple is more about chic design and less about technology as just about any tech they have is purchased from other companies and then popped into their products.

iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are not particularly innovative. Palm did just about everything only slower and with lesser screens and graphics. Apple popularized these devices but did not innovate. And do not start preaching to me about the Newton because I don't want to hear anything about that non-device.

I'm not saying Apple is bad...but the innovation is NOT there. They are one hardware maker among many and deserve loyalty contingent on continuing quality. This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers and not as a flame or troll post. Basically Apple makes nice hardware that lacks in priceformance. The consumer electronics line being the exception as I don't think their iPods, tablets and phones are priced a whole lot higher than their competition.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Apple copied the idea for a GUI from Xerox, then cried like babies when Microsoft did the same thing to them.

Magnetic power connectors have been around forever. I have one on my ancient french fry cooker and my hot water boiler. It's a safety issue so no tripping on cords and sending hot liquids and oils all over the place. NOT an innovation!

A Unix based OS is hardly innovative. Microsoft actually has purchased and developed their own proprietary OS codebase. Apple relies on Unix which has been around for what 50-60 years? If anything this shows that Apple is more about chic design and less about technology as just about any tech they have is purchased from other companies and then popped into their products.

iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are not particularly innovative. Palm did just about everything only slower and with lesser screens and graphics. Apple popularized these devices but did not innovate. And do not start preaching to me about the Newton because I don't want to hear anything about that non-device.

I'm not saying Apple is bad...but the innovation is NOT there. They are one hardware maker among many and deserve loyalty contingent on continuing quality. This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers. Basically Apple makes nice hardware that lacks in priceformance. The consumer electronics line being the exception as I don't think their iPods, tablets and phones are priced a whole lot higher than their competition.

I don't remember my old Palm smartphone ever looking like an iPhone, This thread is about as innovative as boiling an egg

 

[fewlio]

Palm did lots of devices with a big screen and a minimal amount of buttons. Lots of win ce and pocket pc devices like that, too. Some had phone capabilities but they were slow and had limited graphics. State of the art for the time, though.

True about the treo...but it was the Handspring Treo and Palm bought it out and used it. It wasn't a Palm hardware design.

I don't remember my old Palm smartphone ever looking like an iPhone, This thread is about as innovative as boiling an egg

 

[Macsavvytech]

Palm did lots of devices with a big screen and a minimal amount of buttons. Lots of win ce and pocket pc devices like that, too. Some had phone capabilities but they were slow and had limited graphics. State of the art for the time, though.

True about the treo...but it was the Handspring Treo and Palm bought it out and used it. It wasn't a Palm hardware design.

Two things,
Again how does this relate to the Macrumors Forum?
Second Search problems related to the Treo and other Palm phones, I think you'll entertain yourself.

 

[KingCrimson]

Have you ever visited http://www.patentlyapple.com/? Apple is a huge innovation house. Jonathan Ive was the first to apply the unibody principle to computers.

 

[ThirtyThr33]

Apple copied the idea for a GUI from Xerox, then cried like babies when Microsoft did the same thing to them.

Magnetic power connectors have been around forever. I have one on my ancient french fry cooker and my hot water boiler. It's a safety issue so no tripping on cords and sending hot liquids and oils all over the place. NOT an innovation!

A Unix based OS is hardly innovative. Microsoft actually has purchased and developed their own proprietary OS codebase. Apple relies on Unix which has been around for what 50-60 years? If anything this shows that Apple is more about chic design and less about technology as just about any tech they have is purchased from other companies and then popped into their products.

iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are not particularly innovative. Palm did just about everything only slower and with lesser screens and graphics. Apple popularized these devices but did not innovate. And do not start preaching to me about the Newton because I don't want to hear anything about that non-device.

I'm not saying Apple is bad...but the innovation is NOT there. They are one hardware maker among many and deserve loyalty contingent on continuing quality. This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers and not as a flame or troll post. Basically Apple makes nice hardware that lacks in priceformance. The consumer electronics line being the exception as I don't think their iPods, tablets and phones are priced a whole lot higher than their competition.

Get a life dude. So you're saying Apple has the be the first to do everything in order to be innovative? They pretty much made what the tablet market is today, and they have absolutely revolutionized the phone. If you can't at least agree a little bit than you are just an ignorant hater

Btw, when was the last time Microsoft came out with anything exciting?

 

[Macsavvytech]

Get a life dude. So you're saying Apple has the be the first to do everything in order to be innovative? They pretty much made what the tablet market is today, and they have absolutely revolutionized the phone. If you can't at least agree a little bit than you are just an ignorant hater

Btw, when was the last time Microsoft came out with anything exciting?

This and,
I don't know any one/company that has been successful and copied all their work. It just doesn't happen yet a lone be as big as Apple.

 

[fewlio]

Get a life dude. So you're saying Apple has the first to do everything in order to be innovative? They pretty much made what the tablet market is today, and they have absolutely revolutionized the phone. If you can't at least agree a little bit than you are just an ignorant hater

A tablet is a big pda. Microsoft had tablet pads and convertible tablet pcs for a long time which were too expensive and perhaps before their time...multitouch screens that work with fingers are huge in making these devices user friendly. I'm not sure how long that technology has been around...I don't think it was commerically available or viable back in the 199X-2005 time period. A phone is a pda with a cellphone radio. Neither of those products are truly innovative, but they were the first homerun successes for each product. Good product design, both hardware and software for sure. If you like Apple then be proud of what they have actually produced, not myths about how cutting edge and innovative they are. I think if we want to be honest, IBM probably has all the other companies beat when it comes to tech innovations over the past 70 years.

 

[hawk1410]

Umm pretty sure iOS is pretty innovative, Palm was never even close to iOS in terms of ease of use.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Lets just stop and ignore this thread. Attention viewers there is no point posting here.

 

[fewlio]

Have you ever visited http://www.patentlyapple.com/? Apple is a huge innovation house. Jonathan Ive was the first to apply the unibody principle to computers.

I haven't been there but I'm sure it's mostly design patents (industrial design) and not much to do with new technologies developed in house.

 

[admanimal]

OK, I'll bite:

Apple copied the idea for a GUI from Xerox, then cried like babies when Microsoft did the same thing to them.

Inventing and having the foresight/ability to commercialize a product are two different things. Apple (i.e. Steve) saw the GUI and knew it was the future of computing, which neither Xerox or Microsoft realized. Even if one of those companies did see that it was the future, there is no guarantee they could have made a marketable product out of it at that point in time.

Magnetic power connectors have been around forever. I have one on my ancient french fry cooker and my hot water boiler. It's a safety issue so no tripping on cords and sending hot liquids and oils all over the place. NOT an innovation!

You're right, they have been around forever. So why did Apple have to be the first to put it on a laptop? See my first point.

A Unix based OS is hardly innovative. Microsoft actually has purchased and developed their own proprietary OS codebase. Apple relies on Unix which has been around for what 50-60 years? If anything this shows that Apple is more about chic design and less about technology as just about any tech they have is purchased from other companies and then popped into their products.

Or they are smart enough to realize that the Unix foundation is the pinnacle of (practical) modern OS design and that it is not worth building something new at that level of the system. In any case, Darwin was not just some existing open source project when Apple released it in 2000.

iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are not particularly innovative. Palm did just about everything only slower and with lesser screens and graphics.

This one is just too funny...

 

[fewlio]

Steve Jobs saw the prototypes and designs for a GUI at Xerox and decided it was the future. Bill Gates saw the prototypes from Apple and decided it was the future. What the heck's the difference? Does Steve Jobs deserve some special kudos for being the first to tour Xerox's R&D? My guess is Bill Gates was not along for that tour. Also, Gates had the vision and the drive/ability to create a marketable product in a relatively short period of time and was better at selling it than Jobs.

In regards to touch computing, the situation has played out opposite, with Microsoft having the early vision, but Apple seizing it and then selling it better than MS. Clearly, Ballmer isn't the leader that Gates was.

And regarding iOS, the main innovation imo is multitouch capacitive. That's the game changer...as far as I know the tech wasn't available to palm and microsoft when they made their initial forays into tablets and pdas. I don't know if they should be blamed for that...perhaps they were just ahead of their time? Bill Gates was touting tablet computing as the future far before Jobs ever did. When it was slow and expensive it didn't catch on. The main difference between iOS devices and earlier attempts is better technology and cheaper prices...and I don't think apple developed much of the technology or else they'd have some sort of patent on capacitive multitouch and other companies wouldn't be able to use it, or perhaps would have to license it.

For the record I own the iPad and think it's the best Apple product I've ever used. I love it, and since I don't trust Google at all I will be using iOS devices unless there is a better, non-Google alternative. I'm not into smartphones as I don't deal with high monthly fees. The modern practice of spending 50-100 per month on telephone service is the biggest scam ever considering we used to pay 15-35 for landlines. Yeah yeah internet...but most people are paying for internet twice for home and mobile...it's a huge waste of money. Considering we are living in the worst depression since 1929 maybe we should learn something from our grandparents and be a bit more frugal with our money.

OK, I'll bite:



Inventing and having the foresight/ability to commercialize a product are two different things. Apple (i.e. Steve) saw the GUI and knew it was the future of computing, which neither Xerox or Microsoft realized. Even if one of those companies did see that it was the future, there is no guarantee they could have made a marketable product out of it at that point in time.



You're right, they have been around forever. So why did Apple have to be the first to put it on a laptop? See my first point.



Or they are smart enough to realize that the Unix foundation is the pinnacle of (practical) modern OS design and that it is not worth building something new at that level of the system. In any case, Darwin was not just some existing open source project when Apple released it in 2000.



This one is just too funny...

 

[Hyper-X]

Apple copied the idea for a GUI from Xerox, then cried like babies when Microsoft did the same thing to them.

Magnetic power connectors have been around forever. I have one on my ancient french fry cooker and my hot water boiler. It's a safety issue so no tripping on cords and sending hot liquids and oils all over the place. NOT an innovation!

A Unix based OS is hardly innovative. Microsoft actually has purchased and developed their own proprietary OS codebase. Apple relies on Unix which has been around for what 50-60 years? If anything this shows that Apple is more about chic design and less about technology as just about any tech they have is purchased from other companies and then popped into their products.

iPhone/iPod touch/iPad are not particularly innovative. Palm did just about everything only slower and with lesser screens and graphics. Apple popularized these devices but did not innovate. And do not start preaching to me about the Newton because I don't want to hear anything about that non-device.

I'm not saying Apple is bad...but the innovation is NOT there. They are one hardware maker among many and deserve loyalty contingent on continuing quality. This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers and not as a flame or troll post. Basically Apple makes nice hardware that lacks in priceformance. The consumer electronics line being the exception as I don't think their iPods, tablets and phones are priced a whole lot higher than their competition.

I'm a PC biased person atm but that can quickly change at any time. However I do see what you're saying but there's a few issues with your posts.

The GUI regardless of who came out with it was an inevitability. However I've seen other OS's (on a disk) that had GUI's before Xerox, it basically was a GUI with an interface using the keyboard or joystick instead of the mouse... however your point is correct, Apple is not the originator of the GUI for any operating system.

Mag-safe connectors are a brilliant idea, and again you're right, my old rice cooker and a few power tools have such a connector. Apple did not innovate the idea, what they did was successfully implement it into their line of products. Innovation, in terms of successful products, isn't just limited to the engineering portion which came up with the idea in the first place, the other perhaps more important portion is the successful marketing. Apple IMHO has been very successful in that 2nd part. I don't think the Mag-Safe connector is all that safe, you can easily damage the Macbook by tripping over the cable under certain situations, you can put a lot of trauma on the cable itself and damage it instead of the machine, etc.

Their OS... I completely agree. I don't see how any company can take the base code of FreeBSD Unix, merge it with a Mach Kernel, call it something different (XNU), make it pretty, slap software onto it and claim it as their own. Apple flaunts OSX as if it's their product and it's not. They assume credit for its security when it had nothing to do with their efforts. Ubuntu, Mint, Slackware and Redhat all have similar security benefits without the user getting involved (default settings). However we go back to innovation and how it also involves marketing, for which Apple's had incredible success. It really doesn't matter what the underlying truth really is because customers really like Apple's implementation and that's what counts the most.

The iPhone is an innovation from the ground up, I can find no other product like it, the same goes for the iPod Touch. The touch interface isn't an idea Apple came out with, in fact HP had a product in the late 90's that didn't sell that had what I'd call the prototype to which all tablets are now copying. Apple has marketed many things in their image, and succeeded where others have failed, in that respect they are very impressive.

The HP tablet with the touch interface didn't do so well for a few simple reasons. First it came out when everyone was still stuck on Palm OS and using a Stylus, going against the grain would mean using a PocketPC. Second was timing and the way it was marketed. When Apple markets a product, everyone and their moms know about it, it's a huge event, there's all sorts of media coverage about the introduction of the product and why it's so cool, etc. HP has never marketed that way, they expect the product to sell successfully based on the printed specs on their ads.

I know you don't want to hear about the Newton but it's my opinion that it was a significant product. No it didn't sell well, Apple back then had the same issues HP has, coming out with products people aren't ready for and not marketing it well so it sells. The Newton was years ahead of its time, but people thought buying it was taking too much of a risk dumping too much money into something that might not catch on. The current Apple company assures the customers that the product is already readily supported, with a large community and products ensuring many years of solid use, it takes the risk away from gambling on a new product purchase.

Even if a good idea doesn't sell like the Newton, Apple can always go back to it and redo the entire process. Come up with a new product, figure out what the people would need to use it for, create a sense of urgency with the customers so that they feel like they have to get one for themselves, make them feel confident that they're not just tossing their money into a product that's going to disappear in a year or two. Make it the cool thing to have, make it a fun thing to use, show them that it can be a very productive tool in your everyday casual and/or professional life.

 

[admanimal]

And regarding iOS, the main innovation imo is multitouch capacitive. That's the game changer...as far as I know the tech wasn't available to palm and microsoft when they made their initial forays into tablets and pdas. I don't know if they should be blamed for that...perhaps they were just ahead of their time? Bill Gates was touting tablet computing as the future far before Jobs ever did. When it was slow and expensive it didn't catch on. The main difference between iOS devices and earlier attempts is better technology and cheaper prices...and I don't think apple developed much of the technology or else they'd have some sort of patent on capacitive multitouch and other companies wouldn't be able to use it, or perhaps would have to license it.

Bill Gates' idea of a tablet computer was a Windows laptop with a stylus. Not exactly innovative. And if Apple just bought the basic multitouch technology from someone else (which I believe is correct), then why wasn't some other company smart enough to buy it and make an iPhone-equivalent first? There are plenty of cases where one could say "well, some other company could have done that first" but they didn't and Apple did. That is not an accident.

Steve Jobs is a genius at seeing the future of technology, getting the necessary resources to execute it, and then marketing it. You can call it innovation or something else, but he and Apple have done more to drive/change popular technology in the last 30 years than any other company, including Microsoft. Bill Gates is a genius businessman, but not great at predicting where technology is going.

 

[fewlio]

Before capacitive multitouch, you really did need a stylus so I'm not going to laugh at palm and MS for using them. For drawing programs on an iPad...you still need one. There are probably many types of programs that can benefit from a stylus even with the advent of modern screen technologies.

Regarding windows tablets...laptop with stylus was one version, foldback tablets such as lenovo still sells which were to be held and viewed like an iPad were also there. As well as tablet only devices (no clamshell or keyboard). A tablet is not an Apple innovation...but kudos to them for making a good one and popularizing the product category, this is their true accomplishment.

Bill Gates' idea of a tablet computer was a Windows laptop with a stylus. Not exactly innovative. And if Apple just bought the basic multitouch technology from someone else (which I believe is correct), then why wasn't some other company smart enough to buy it and make an iPhone-equivalent first? There are plenty of cases where one could say "well, some other company could have done that first" but they didn't and Apple did. That is not an accident.

Steve Jobs is a genius at seeing the future of technology, getting the necessary resources to execute it, and then marketing it. You can call it innovation or something else, but he and Apple have done more to drive/change popular technology in the last 30 years than any other company, including Microsoft. Bill Gates is a genius businessman, but not great at predicting where technology is going.

 

[smurfjammer]

This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers and not as a flame or troll post..

Sounds like you're just posting to stir to me... as your "POINTS" are only your options and how can you dismiss the Newton as a non-device when it was released 2 years before the Palm Pilot?

 

[*LTD*]

This is written as a wake up call to the kool-aid drinkers and not as a flame or troll post.

Except the latter is all you've accomplished. This is an Apple-centric site in an age in which Apple leads the way for the industry. How much traction do you expect to get with posts like this?

(I'm guessing as much as RIM did with their Playbook.)

If you want your "wake up call" to be taken seriously, I'm sure you'll find plenty of eager readers (and long-suffering souls) right here:

http://www.neowin.net
http://www.winrumors.com

But hey, stick around for the quarterly report today. Now THAT will be a wake up call.

 

[OllyW]

But hey, stick around for the quarterly report today. Now THAT will be a wake up call.

It might be a long wait, the quarterly report is out tomorrow.

 

[maflynn]

Apple does innovate, just look at the iPhone, iMac, iPod as great examples.

Sure there were phones, PDAs, music player around before apple came to the market but hey took a product and produced a device that was exceedingly easy and powerful to use. Take the iPhone, what was there before? A treo with a physical keyboard, and a tiny screen, or a WinCE phone that was not really useful?

The iPod was incredibly innovative by creating a music listening device with a HD and tying it with a itunes. Correct me if I'm wrong but apple was the first to sign up the music industry to download mp3 music legally through itunes.

They have shown great insight in providing start to finish solutions for the consumer that works great and looks good.

 

[*LTD*]

It might be a long wait, the quarterly report is out tomorrow.

That's right, tomorrow. I keep thinking today is the 19th. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The iPod was incredibly innovative by creating a music listening device with a HD and tying it with a itunes. Correct me if I'm wrong but apple was the first to sign up the music industry to download mp3 music legally through itunes.

You are wrong. There were multiple sits that had it up legally before Apple. Biggest difference is a lot of the big name labels would not sign on board those.

Apple used it rare size to be able to force its closed DRM down on us but the big music labels were whiling to sign on. Now other players entered the marketed and got DRM free MP3 and in all honestly I think that only happened because they saw losing anti trust lawsuits writing on the wall.
Either it music labels or Apple saw that if not both. Hell I honestly believe Apple dropped fairplay DRM because they knew the time was coming that they were going to lose in court on it the writing was on the wall so they removed it before the cases really started hitting. I would call it a smart move and for consumers we won that one as now there are multiple locations to buy mp3 music with out DRM.

 

[SwiftLives]

Invention ≠ Innovation. I think you're conflating the two.

Apple doesn't go into a market that doesn't exist. They pretty much only enter newly-established and/or burgeoning markets. There were plenty of hard drive-based music players before the iPod. There have been numerous tablets before the iPad. Apple didn't invent these categories. They just entered these markets through innovating the user experience.

Apple doesn't aspire to the the first to the market, but rather the best in the market. (And I they have the profits to show for that). It's fair to say that Apple doesn't invent market categories. But it's disingenuous to say that they don't innovate.

I'm curious, OP...what is your definition of innovation?

 

[maflynn]

You are wrong. There were multiple sits that had it up legally before Apple. Biggest difference is a lot of the big name labels would not sign on board those.

Isn't that what I said, they were the first to sign the labels.

Apple used it rare size to be able to force its closed DRM down on us but the big music labels were whiling to sign on.

What size? Apple was not dominant at that point. They just dug themselves out a hole financially and the iMac/Powermacs were doing fairly well. They had little leverage especially compared to today.

 

[fewlio]

Webster defines:

Innovation:

1. The introduction of something new

Apple didn't introduce anything new. "user experience" isn't a technology it's a preference for a certain look or interface.

2. A new idea, method, or device

No new ideas, and any methods they introduced were created by other companies (i.e. multitouch) and while they have produced devices none of them were new. At times they have been the best, but not particularly innovative. For example, we could say Henry Ford innovated with his vision of a car company and production methods. GM copied Ford and for a time exceeded them...were the best...did things better. However, it's hard to say GM was as innovative as Ford Motors.

And there is not always a pure superiority about Apple's attempts or products. In many cases Apple benefits from free advertising/hype from the mainstream media. Apple is a left-wing leaning company, often producing an artsy or chic design that particularly appeals to left-wing thinking people. Notice the artists, filmmakers, designers that flock to apple products. Apple appeals to these people through look and design, not through innovative technology.

Notice the computer designs that apple has produced, versus the boring beige or black boxes that are more common for PCs. For many PC users it's what's inside that counts and they don't always care what it looks like. It's about technology versus design.

My point in this thread is that Apple hasn't innovated new technologies, they are more an industrial design company and all of their key techs and products are purchased or copied from others (powerpc, x86, Unix/FreeBSD, mp3 players, smartphones, tablets)

Invention ≠ Innovation. I think you're conflating the two.

Apple doesn't go into a market that doesn't exist. They pretty much only enter newly-established and/or burgeoning markets. There were plenty of hard drive-based music players before the iPod. There have been numerous tablets before the iPad. Apple didn't invent these categories. They just entered these markets through innovating the user experience.

Apple doesn't aspire to the the first to the market, but rather the best in the market. (And I they have the profits to show for that). It's fair to say that Apple doesn't invent market categories. But it's disingenuous to say that they don't innovate.

I'm curious, OP...what is your definition of innovation?