Isn't every single one of those vapor ware currently? And any company that derives 90%+ of revenues from advertising is only ever going to be so innovative.
Anyways, the way people toss the word "innovate" around has made it nearly completely meaningless.
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit/revenue source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).
Oh nobody is stating that Android was an innovation. But I would like to correct one misunderstanding, there were actually two versions being developed a Sooner (more blackberry like and less ambitious phone/OS that would be ready sooner) and a Dreamer (a touch interface OS and smartphone). Andy Rubin's quote “Holy crap, I guess we’re not going to launch that phone.” was taken out off context as he was talking about the Sooner. Thus the iPhone definitely focused the development of Android but it's not like everything needed to be turned around.
But that aside. Your comment makes it sound as if you think something can only be an innovation if it is a financial success. I wholeheartedly disagree, many of the worlds most innovative ideas or products never become acommercial success.
I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.
To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.
It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Like Sano's glucose patch).
Actually, Om Malik who suffers from diabetes had a great post about how bad their glucose lens is for people that actually have diabetes.
Even if you don't know what the acquisitions are, you can still draw one conclusion just by the a sheer number, namely: they can't all be for one project, it's just too many.
Therefore I hope they're not doing a Google and just trying their hand at everything under the sun: TV, car, watch, medical... That's what you do when you don't have a visionary with a gut feel for what's next.
I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).
Again, "innovation" barely has meaning any more. But my point is Google is an advertising company. Do they have minor side projects that sometimes see the light of day (and often don't)? Sure. Big deal. I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new. And the vast, vast, VAST majority of that larger ecosystem is selling ads anyways.
Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears. OTOH, eliminate anything else they work on, and it has an almost imperceivable effect -- imperceivable on Google, and imperceivable on the public at large.
Two! Two people that can’t read sarcasm! Ah ah ah!
FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
Google is an algorithm that allowed them to monopolize search and reap mesmerising revenue. Throwing free endless mud at an endless wall is not innovation, it does impress Wall Street though ... just my 2 cents
I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
I hope so. People who try to brute force creativity (by just trying everything) soon learn the hard way about Combinatorics, i.e. the sheer and unexplorable number of ways even a small number of things (such as ideas or technologies) can be combined.
I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.
To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.
It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new.
Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears.
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
Not one of those is a shipping product. Thank you for proving the OP's point.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
1) I don't personally care what happens to Google, one way or the other. Google has no effect whatsoever on my life, positive or negative.
2) YouTube? Really? It existed for HOW long before Google bought it? Heck, I have a number of YouTube subs that predate Google's involvement by years.
3) Search. Google has managed to dominate web search, yes. But it's not as if search doesn't predate Google. Heck, I remember using Gopher on a regular basis.
1) I don't personally care what happens to Google, one way or the other. Google has no effect whatsoever on my life, positive or negative.
2) YouTube? Really? It existed for HOW long before Google bought it? Heck, I have a number of YouTube subs that predate Google's involvement by years.
3) Search. Google has managed to dominate web search, yes. But it's not as if search doesn't predate Google. Heck, I remember using Gopher on a regular basis.
Fine, but other than acquiring other companies for their technology, innovation is simply building a a better mouse trap and Google has done that in spades.
Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
Apple isn't a PR factory. It can't help it that its products are newsworthy. Just because Apple doesn't publish every product it's working on doesn't make them less innovative.
Fact is the driverless cars, diabetes contact lenses are neat engineering solutions but they will not be mainstream anytime soon. And don't get me started in the Glassholes.
FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
I knew it was sarcasm. The use of "dude" and "totally" gave it a way.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
Don't forget MapReduce, yet another Google innovation that revolutionized the technology world.
Comments
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit/revenue source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).
Oh nobody is stating that Android was an innovation. But I would like to correct one misunderstanding, there were actually two versions being developed a Sooner (more blackberry like and less ambitious phone/OS that would be ready sooner) and a Dreamer (a touch interface OS and smartphone). Andy Rubin's quote “Holy crap, I guess we’re not going to launch that phone.” was taken out off context as he was talking about the Sooner. Thus the iPhone definitely focused the development of Android but it's not like everything needed to be turned around.
But that aside. Your comment makes it sound as if you think something can only be an innovation if it is a financial success. I wholeheartedly disagree, many of the worlds most innovative ideas or products never become acommercial success.
I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.
To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.
It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Like Sano's glucose patch).
Actually, Om Malik who suffers from diabetes had a great post about how bad their glucose lens is for people that actually have diabetes.
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/17/one-diabetics-take-on-googles-smart-contact-lenses/
It goes to the point I was making in my other post.
Even if you don't know what the acquisitions are, you can still draw one conclusion just by the a sheer number, namely: they can't all be for one project, it's just too many.
Therefore I hope they're not doing a Google and just trying their hand at everything under the sun: TV, car, watch, medical... That's what you do when you don't have a visionary with a gut feel for what's next.
I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
Not one of those is a shipping product. Thank you for proving the OP's point.
Well, 80%.
Lol as if innovation has anything to do with your profit source. Project Ara is ready for developers and will be released next year. Google's glucose lens is ready but like any new technology it will have to undergo years of testing by the FDA before release. (Just ask Sano with their glucose patch, 1,5 years and counting with no end in sight yet).
Again, "innovation" barely has meaning any more. But my point is Google is an advertising company. Do they have minor side projects that sometimes see the light of day (and often don't)? Sure. Big deal. I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new. And the vast, vast, VAST majority of that larger ecosystem is selling ads anyways.
Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears. OTOH, eliminate anything else they work on, and it has an almost imperceivable effect -- imperceivable on Google, and imperceivable on the public at large.
I'm 90% sure they don't own Facebook.
Well, 80%.
LOL!
Two! Two people that can’t read sarcasm! Ah ah ah!
FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
Google is an algorithm that allowed them to monopolize search and reap mesmerising revenue. Throwing free endless mud at an endless wall is not innovation, it does impress Wall Street though ... just my 2 cents
I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
I hope so. People who try to brute force creativity (by just trying everything) soon learn the hard way about Combinatorics, i.e. the sheer and unexplorable number of ways even a small number of things (such as ideas or technologies) can be combined.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
Originally Posted by AaronJ
I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new.
Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears.
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense.
My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.
1) I don't personally care what happens to Google, one way or the other. Google has no effect whatsoever on my life, positive or negative.
2) YouTube? Really? It existed for HOW long before Google bought it? Heck, I have a number of YouTube subs that predate Google's involvement by years.
3) Search. Google has managed to dominate web search, yes. But it's not as if search doesn't predate Google. Heck, I remember using Gopher on a regular basis.
2) YouTube? Really? It existed for HOW long before Google bought it? Heck, I have a number of YouTube subs that predate Google's involvement by years.
3) Search. Google has managed to dominate web search, yes. But it's not as if search doesn't predate Google. Heck, I remember using Gopher on a regular basis.
Fine, but other than acquiring other companies for their technology, innovation is simply building a a better mouse trap and Google has done that in spades.
Apple isn't a PR factory. It can't help it that its products are newsworthy. Just because Apple doesn't publish every product it's working on doesn't make them less innovative.
Fact is the driverless cars, diabetes contact lenses are neat engineering solutions but they will not be mainstream anytime soon. And don't get me started in the Glassholes.
I knew it was sarcasm. The use of "dude" and "totally" gave it a way.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
Don't forget MapReduce, yet another Google innovation that revolutionized the technology world.
Apple obviously has something up their sleeves. Secret acquisitions mean secret products with secret technology. Can't wait to buy it.