Innovative? For what?
Making people hurl at the sight of their iOS7?
When unveiling the soon-to-be-released computer-in-a-can Mac Pro at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference this June, Apple marketing headman Phil Schiller quipped "Can't innovate anymore, my ass," a barb aimed at those observers who accuse Cupertino of having lost its mojo. Global business strategy firm Boston …
Making people hurl at the sight of their iOS7?
Left as an exercise for the reader.
The news for the Fandroid just gets worse and worse.
200,000,000 updates to iOS 7 in three days
9,000,000 new 5S sold not shipped in three days
Sales of 5C building up
No real problems
Minor update out quicker than a slippery sh*t
Voted most innovative
They must be feeling suicidal and scraping the barrel with old jokes and trying to find fault.
May the pain continue!
Let the PC puss*es downvote or be damned.
>They must be feeling suicidal and scraping the barrel with old jokes and trying to find fault.
Clearly so, as Android started a small number of years behind iOS and has overtaken it?
"9,000,000 new 5S sold not shipped in three days | Sales of 5C building up"
Funny, it wasn't but a few days ago when the 9m number applied to new iPhones of all types. You could wait to revise history until the headlines die down at least. I also think you'll find that the sold number not only includes the 5C but iPhones sold by Apple into the distribution stream and not actually to customers.
Tim? Is that you, dude?
"200,000,000 updates to iOS 7 in three days"
Pah! Microsoft knock seven bells out of *that* figure every second Tuesday in the month.
Add to that - iOS first with 64 bit, first with a decent fingerprint scanner and being voted number 1 for customer satisfaction.
If you copy the number one you will also appear innovative.
Twice a day, uphill both ways and in the snow!
Oh, and ofcourse the inevitable patches for the patches(Patchception).
re AC 27/9@20:41
Uh, grow up. That is all.
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
No kidding. It looks like it's more "most visible" instead of "most innovative". Groupon? Most innovative at what? Ripping people off?
Yeah, ignoring the Apple side of things entirely, would Samsung even be on the list if it weren't for Google? Therefore do they really deserve to be above Google?
It's like any other vote, name recognition and popularity mean a lot more than actual ability or recent contributions. Big deal the front runners tweaked a phone/slablet/computer but the real innovators don't get any credit at all because they are mostly invisible. Where are the likes of Mazor Robotics, SpaceX, Ocean Renewable, SoulCycle, Enalta, Makerbot and Sproxil to name but a few. Oh right, the MSM doesn't have a priaprism for these no-names who actually do innovate rather than just endlessly tweak five year old tech toys with the latest ARM processor and a new shade of lipstick. Sure some may disagree with my examples but I don't see how any are less innovative than Apple, Samsung, Google or Microsoft.
Given that almost everything the top few have was made possible by ARM's innovations, it's clearly not about innovation and all about market visibility.
Not surprising though, surveys like this always were popularity contests that are very easy for the surveyor to influence.
If any of the other vendors were top dogs, you would simply say the same thing about them. Personally I am glad that Apple gets this vote, so it keeps the others on their toes. Competition is the best thing. I am glad Apple, Google, VMware, Microsoft exist but I do not want one of them to be totally dominant.
Of the aforementioned, Microsoft are always the one that preaches they want kill others off! (Ballmer bang tables etc). Glad that c*ck has gone!
Go VMware go :-)
...there is any correlation between the votes and stock portfolios of the "1,500 senior executives".
Or future board positions on said companies due to voting for them?
'"Can't innovate anymore, my ass,"'... his /ass/?!
Is this some kind of bestiality thing they do at Apple HQ?
Experiments in appearance and form factor isn't exactly an innovation.
People have been putting computers inside weird cases for years.
Experiments in appearance and form factor isn't exactly an innovation.
But - but - it's a cylinder! With a divot on top! This changes everything!
How often have we heard someone say "I could use my overpriced home computer to fix everything that's wrong with my life, if only it were not an approximation of a rectangular prism"?
And the Cray-1 was cylindrical, and it was the Best Computer Ever, until the new Mac Pro, of course. Though I suppose that means the really innovative bit about the Mac Pro is making the cylinder smaller. Still, you can't deny that's genius.
Apple innovation died with Steve Jobs.
>Apple innovation died with Steve Jobs.
Shirley you meant Wozniak?
Jobsy just copied, wallowing in personal adoration, as he 'Ballmered' (*), black turtleneckily, about how magic 'just one more (copied) thing' was. Wozniak did stuff, invented stuff.
(*) Whether Jobsy's superficially 'cool' Ballmering was preferable to Ballmer's totally prattish Ballmering is a moot point. My take is that when ego takes precedence over substance (as it did in both cases) there is sfa to choose. Both suffer(ed) from extreme cases of ego-itis. As substance means more to me they both came across as bears of little brain.
...and don't call him Shirley.
I think they have mistaken being cool or profitable for innovation. For things like the eye control I would rate Samsung (even if the thngs they do are a bit gimmicy).
April 1st twice this year?
>'"Can't innovate anymore, my ass,"'... his /ass/?!
>Is this some kind of bestiality thing they do at Apple HQ?
>1 thumbs down
Sorry, '1 thumbs down'. Guess this is a case of 'lost in translation' - vocabulary and irony.
Outside the USofA an ass is a donkey (a mule). Inside it has become a euphemism for the good old Anglo-Saxon word, arse (*), which has no ambiguity about it.
These days ladies who lunch and other "polite-erati" (think (of) days of Louisa May Alcott, though Jo would have said, "arse", I suspect, being a young lady of serious pluck, for those days) prefer not to discuss nether regions and so ambiguity of such with placid animals is more acceptable.
(*) In days of yore, when Yanks were allowed to call an arse an arse, they, too, used the word as it was designed, without fear of blushment or disapproval.
If you take the tech line of inventing new stuff (ie. technical innovation) then Apple isn't particularly innovative.
If you take the line of bringing profitable products to market (ie. business innovation), then Apple has it in spades.
Apple were not the first to make MP3 players, but the ipod turned an MP3 player from a little box that makes sounds into a highly desirable fashion/lifestyle trinket. Same too with their iphone biz.
Being a poll of "global execs" who look at corporate bottom lines, they would naturally use the second definition. If they had polled programmers and engineers they would have had the first interpretation.
In my field there a word that gets thrown around to start debates/engineer bar fights: Craftsmanship. It means something different to nearly everyone you ask about it. Innovation is a similar word that has philosophies attached to it. A wide variety of philosophies. And, as you point out, people also have misconceptions about what a word, innovation, means.
I take innovation to mean combining, manipulating, expanding or positioning preexisting things in new ways. Storing MP3's on a portable listening device already exists; putting that technology inside a well designed new style of case with a different kind of small device interface, that's innovation. It is not invention. Innovation is how one combines various inventions; it is not the act of inventing.
Are Apple great inventors, I don't really think so. They are, or were depending on your views, pretty good innovators. They've had some well received combinations on their takes on existing ideas. Whether you like their products or not, hundreds of millions of people do like them and are willing to spend more than really necessary to have them*. They have an innovative positioning strategy and innovative products, but they aren't creators, inventors or craftsmen.
*I own an iPhone and like it just fine, but I think they are pricey.
"Are Apple great inventors, I don't really think so. They are, or were depending on your views, pretty good innovators. They've had some well received combinations on their takes on existing ideas. Whether you like their products or not, hundreds of millions of people do like them and are willing to spend more than really necessary to have them*. They have an innovative positioning strategy and innovative products, but they aren't creators, inventors or craftsmen."
Although I would have to add that I do not own an iPhone, do not wish to and yes, they are definitely pricey!
But they haven't done any of that in the last few years.
Their business innovation and technical innovations all happened years ago, and their recent success is due to "surfing the wave".
The only innovation this year was adding a fingerprint scanner to a phone. That's it - no business innovations at all. Everything else is simple incremental steps made obvious, nay necessary, by the innovations of other companies.
Both Samsung and Nokia were more innovative with their new phones - especially Nokia, rest in peace.
Bad example with the iPod, last week has been proved that Apple "stole" the design for the iPod from a Japanese company. Stealing is not a innovation either
As I was reading I asked myself if there was a clear set of criteria used to rank "innovativeness" in this survey. I did not find any, but I did have a look at the linked BCG's blurb, and found at least one non-obvious (to me?) bias: the rankings were "weighted to incorporate relative three-year shareholder returns, revenue growth, and margin growth." So a company that does well financially, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, not necessarily related to innovation, will be placed higher on the list?
That's a reflection on our society. There is an idea that if something makes a lot of money, it is good and must be innovative or people would have purchased something else. As you point out, it is a terribly, terribly stupid criteria for judging anything other than the size of a bank account.
It is a real problem, but the fact remains there are a lot of people out there who are incapable of judging something on its merits and/or its ability to fulfill its purpose. They have to be told it is better with an easy to understand 'score': Price. The rub is that if you can't determine something's worth without a score attached to it, you can guarantee you're going to pay extra; ignorance is expensive...
Sometimes the expensive option really is the best. Sometimes the better option is the cheaper thing. But the price itself has zero impact on the actual value of the thing.
As compared to Space X?
3D printed organs?
Hell, 3D printed anything for that matter.
Missing body parts rebuilds by stem cells?
Freight train advances in solar power efficiency?
Mobile phone attachments that damn near turn your phone into a real life tricorder?
The folks commercially manufacturing graphene sheets?
The list is long. And those are just the commercially active ones successfully selling their products every day.
Apple has yet to earn the right to be on that list.
Tell me execs more about this world you live in.
What have they "innovated"? They haven't invented any of the major technologies they've ever sold (minor patents for bits they've stuffed in their devices don't really count, they're mostly improvements to existing technology rather than true innovation), and since Jobs has died they've lost they guy who told them what to steal and remarket/rebrand and therefore haven't come out with a "new" (and given that nothing Apple ever produces is actually new technology I use the word in its loosest sense) product for ages. All they've done is cheapen the brand with plastic crap they still had the cheek to charge full price for (because even poor Apple fans must adhere to aspiring to owning their crap), which was one of the things Jobs told them never to do. All they've actually "innovated" in the last 3 years is how to have the largest amount of money wiped of the price of their shares since thier peak in history.
If it were the "Peak Apple" award or the "Bubble has finally burst" award or even the "Keeping the company afloat through litigation on products they originally stole themselves" award I could understand it. I think the people voting for this award have confused "Innovation" with "how to continually screw money out of a trained and obedient customer base".
More butt hurt fandroids being butt hurt. Don't you all get bored.
Typical iTard, that's all you can say? No elaborated ideas, no sophisticated thoughts? Than is not a surprise that you've been fooled by articles like this to buy the Android clone, a iPhone :)).
Wow. Butt hurt much? Why must i be an iTard? Couldn't I be a blackberry user or a Windows Phone user? You fandroids a absolutely ridiculous.
Because of the new Mac Pro! ; ) The central cooling 'chimney' is a neat idea:
But I'm sure the haters will conjure up some similes for us to roll our eyes at. Yes, yes they will.
Eight Consecutive Years?
With apologies to the Spanish swordsman, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017