[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>Innovation is simply something new, not if it works, or is cool, or widely accepted. It may not mean cool, or good or even bad. It is simply new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it odd that you give the new iMac such low marks, then. Yes, it's "just" an all-in-one, in about the same way that the original iBook was "just" a laptop. Apple just reconceptualized the all-in-one.
The design is innovative, which means not that lump-stick-square is interesting in itself, but that it is capable of things that were not practicable before. That's the whole point of industrial design. It's not just about making things look pretty; more importantly, it's about making the design elegantly functional. At this point, Ive's designs are almost pure statements of function.
How many all-in-ones have you seen whose screen is that easily adjustable every which way? Which conceals the computer and showcases the screen so effectively, by a number of tactics ranging from the shape of the base to the quiet fan? These are, broadly, the goals that Apple has been striving for since before the first Mac, but the new machine takes it to a new level.
Then there's the simple fact that the top of the line iMac is capable, out of the box, of things that were difficult or impossible for any personal computer to do a year ago. That ought to count for something.
GOED: While I understand your viewpoint, for the most part, this I just don't get:
You claim that the 22" ACD was, indeed, innovative.
Yet the iPod was not.
Why?
The ACD added... what... widescreen? (Digital interfaces had been around for a couple of years, 21" LCDs were already available.)
The iPod added... FireWire, a new hard drive form factor (1.8") that no one else uses precisely so it was easy to hold in one hand, which let them use a slick minimalist UI.
I fail to see why the ACD was innovative in your book and the iPod wasn't. Explain?
I mean, if we go by your comment for 2/5 for the iPod, and then just change a couple of details...
"It may be a "breakthrough" product, but a <big LCD> has been done. It gets points for the <widescreen ratio>. That hasn't been done. "
I agree with you that cool <> innovative, by any means, but could you explain the discrepancy?
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
Innovation is simply something new, not if it works, or is cool, or widely accepted. It may not mean cool, or good or even bad. It is simply new.
What a company does with innovation is independent of the innovation itself (see Iridium).
Here's a stupid innovation: the minivan.
Chrysler introduced this in the dark days of the 1980s. Not only did it become a top seller for them, but others quickly imitated it to capture some of their success. What other advantages did it give Chrysler? How about a higher margin on minivans than their competitors. You can consider the original iMac Apple's minivan.
If Apple gave us their Inkwell technology in their next 'Book update, I'd be happy with that innovation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
STUPID INNOVATION?
Have you READ my minivan statements? Specifically, the Dodge Caravan 4-cyl, DOHC model.
I would say innovative is less 'exciting' than revolutionary. So...
I thought the original iMac without legacy ports was innovative. I also think putting USB ports on the keyboard was innovative. Adding firewire ultimately to all products was as well.
The ability to NetBoot an iMac without a harddrive is pretty innovative, if not revolutionary. Perhaps it's been done before, but I'd guess that the machines doing it were of a completely different class.
As far as this MacWorld is concerned, I'm not sure Apple released any innovative hardware. The arm of the new iMac is about the only thing I would consider, but moveable monitor/TV stands have been available for a long time. Perhaps the 6 hour battery life on a 14 inch laptop.
imac, the new imac, no beige, El Capitan, ipod, colors, the cube, Firewire, no floppy ( bold move ), no CRT for entire line ( another bold move ). All of this in the last 3 years. Webster's defines Innovation as: a new idea, method, or device. And of course you didn't want to talk about software. You just haven't been paying attention.
Geeesh... I'm just trying to be a purveyor in interesting discussion.
First of all, ratings are subjective. Don't like the Oscars? Come up with the Golden Globe. What I rate are based on my opinion, which is subjective. Why is green better than blue? It's not-- it's strictly subjective.
If you don't like my ratings, provide your own, with your reasons. That's fine. Then come up with an Apple innovation (that you may want).
I find it odd that you give the new iMac such low marks, then. Yes, it's "just" an all-in-one, in about the same way that the original iBook was "just" a laptop. Apple just reconceptualized the all-in-one.
...
Then there's the simple fact that the top of the line iMac is capable, out of the box, of things that were difficult or impossible for any personal computer to do a year ago. That ought to count for something.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I see your point. As an engineer, I look inside the box first. For design, it's certainly innovative.
However, just because it's better than a year ago, it would be hard to justify that as innovation. In that case, "innovation" could be applied too broadly, and wouldn't be useful.
Have you READ my minivan statements? Specifically, the Dodge Caravan 4-cyl, DOHC model.
What's stupid about it, GoED's opinion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Touchy. Okay-- I'll take the stupid back. I don't actually think minivans are stupid, I think the fact that minivans are an innovation is stupid, even if it falls within the definition of "innovation." Like I said, it's an opinion. You have yours.
Personally, I like small, sporty cars. Speed Thrills.
By the way, I'm an automotive safety engineer. You may want to consider another car...
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
Touchy. Okay-- I'll take the stupid back. I don't actually think minivans are stupid, I think the fact that minivans are an innovation is stupid, even if it falls within the definition of "innovation." Like I said, it's an opinion. You have yours.
Personally, I like small, sporty cars. Speed Thrills.
By the way, I'm an automotive safety engineer. You may want to consider another car...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, I must ask, Have you read my OTHER minivan statements?
Is 115 MPH enough SPEED for you? It is for 99.97% of people, I'd say.
Ain't NOTHING slow 'bout my DODGE CARAVAN BASE 4 CYL, THREE BIG HONKIN AUTOMATIC SPEEDS - all for $14,000 brand new, no trade in and you can sleep in it!
Who do you work for as a safety engineer? Where's your degree from?
imac, the new imac, no beige, El Capitan, ipod, colors, the cube, Firewire, no floppy ( bold move ), no CRT for entire line ( another bold move ). All of this in the last 3 years. Webtser's defines Innovation as: a new idea, method, or device. And of course you didn't want to talk about software. You just haven't been paying attention.
<strong>here's something else...innovation is as much perception as it is inspiration. innovation only "works" if everyone around you agrees your way is better. this is something apple has become very good at...taking an idea with "innovative potential" and turning it into technology people will talk about around the water cooler.
for example...apple invented firewire quite a few years ago. it was true innovation...and nobody cared. apple put firewire on their new systems...and very few people cared. apple puts a firewire port on the ipod so a CD only takes 10 seconds to download and suddenly everyone gets it. firewire is innovation! the same will be said of the new imac too. they didn't invent the flat screened computer, but they know how to make that idea sexy and, er, innovative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Compaq can pound a desktop pc into a pizza box and all the pc idiots will rush over to hail it an innovation and "the next wave of computing" without contest, while people here doubt if Apple has ever innovated. Something seems awfully wrong to me <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
Yeah, I see your point. As an engineer, I look inside the box first. For design, it's certainly innovative.
However, just because it's better than a year ago, it would be hard to justify that as innovation. In that case, "innovation" could be applied too broadly, and wouldn't be useful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not just better.
It does things that nothing in Apple's pro line could do a year ago. It brings power that was the exclusive province of Apple's professional line three months ago down to a $1299 consumer machine (although admittedly, you have to run pro apps to get some of it).
To say that this is not innovative is to say that the original Mac was not innovative. All-in-ones had been on the market for years. The 68K was not innovative, it was merely elegant, and it wasn't Apple's design anyway. Parts of the system in ROM? Done many times before. The mouse had existed for almost 20 years; the GUI is as old, and object-oriented programming is older still. 9" black and white monitors? Nothing new there either. Sony had been offering their odd "better floppy" for some time - with very little success - before the Mac shipped with it standard.
But I don't think anyone would hesitate to claim that the original Mac was innovative. Would you? Because from a hardware point of view the new iMac is innovative in the same way. It's not that the innards are so different, it's that the way the user reacts to and interacts with the innards is different.
The G4 tower I bought in 2000 was the first Mac out of 4 ( and computer ) I've owned that didn't have a floppy drive. Don't blame me for being late to the party. As for the rest Amorph has already said what I would have. Design comes under the heading of new idea ( as per Webster's definition ). The El Capitan case is innovative because of ease of use.
The original imac didn't look like anything else on the market ( a sea of beige ) a new idea again. The new imac is innovative for the reasons Amorph has already stated. Firewire.... well it's faster. I think I've made my point. These all fall under the definition of innovative as set by Websters ( which I accept above any party on this board ). Just because you personally don't find them interesting doesn't make it any different. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
The G4 tower I bought in 2000 was the first Mac out of 4 ( and computer ) I've owned that didn't have a floppy drive. Don't blame me for being late to the party. As for the rest Amorph has already said what I would have. Design comes under the heading of new idea ( as per Webster's definition ). The El Capitan case is innovative because of ease of use.
The original imac didn't look like anything else on the market ( a sea of beige ) a new idea again. The new imac is innovative for the reasons Amorph has already stated. Firewire.... well it's faster. I think I've made my point. These all fall under the definition of innovative as set by Websters ( which I accept above any party on this board ). Just because you personally don't find them interesting doesn't make it any different. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
I took my definition from American Heritage. The British/ Australian/ Canadian/ New Zealand/ Every-other-English-speaking-user may take exception to it, but it's then only dictionary I have.
El Capitan is cool. I have one. Ease of opening the case? The top of the old Apple ][ just popped out.
Different does not necessarily mean Innovative. Or do you believe Dell is also being innovative?
New means innovative. I'm using the dictionary's definition. But like I said before, if you get a new tie for Christmas, is that an innovative tie?
If it blinks, plays "Jingle Bells," and puts your kids to bed, that could be innovative. But I wouldn't want it.
Cool does not necessarily mean innovative, either.
[Not directed to anyone in general.]
Besides, this is Future Hardware. Doesn't anybody want to talk about what innovation Apple should introduce anymore? Anti-gravity G5 Towers to ease dusting?
What about a wireless audio/video rack component that uses 802.11x to stream content to your stereo or tv from the computer?
Don't worry about whether past Apple designs were innovative or not.
Look at the Past for inspiration, if you want, but we're heading for the Future.
Comments
<strong>Innovation is simply something new, not if it works, or is cool, or widely accepted. It may not mean cool, or good or even bad. It is simply new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it odd that you give the new iMac such low marks, then. Yes, it's "just" an all-in-one, in about the same way that the original iBook was "just" a laptop. Apple just reconceptualized the all-in-one.
The design is innovative, which means not that lump-stick-square is interesting in itself, but that it is capable of things that were not practicable before. That's the whole point of industrial design. It's not just about making things look pretty; more importantly, it's about making the design elegantly functional. At this point, Ive's designs are almost pure statements of function.
How many all-in-ones have you seen whose screen is that easily adjustable every which way? Which conceals the computer and showcases the screen so effectively, by a number of tactics ranging from the shape of the base to the quiet fan? These are, broadly, the goals that Apple has been striving for since before the first Mac, but the new machine takes it to a new level.
Then there's the simple fact that the top of the line iMac is capable, out of the box, of things that were difficult or impossible for any personal computer to do a year ago. That ought to count for something.
You claim that the 22" ACD was, indeed, innovative.
Yet the iPod was not.
Why?
The ACD added... what... widescreen? (Digital interfaces had been around for a couple of years, 21" LCDs were already available.)
The iPod added... FireWire, a new hard drive form factor (1.8") that no one else uses precisely so it was easy to hold in one hand, which let them use a slick minimalist UI.
I fail to see why the ACD was innovative in your book and the iPod wasn't. Explain?
I mean, if we go by your comment for 2/5 for the iPod, and then just change a couple of details...
"It may be a "breakthrough" product, but a <big LCD> has been done. It gets points for the <widescreen ratio>. That hasn't been done. "
I agree with you that cool <> innovative, by any means, but could you explain the discrepancy?
<strong>
Innovation is simply something new, not if it works, or is cool, or widely accepted. It may not mean cool, or good or even bad. It is simply new.
What a company does with innovation is independent of the innovation itself (see Iridium).
Here's a stupid innovation: the minivan.
Chrysler introduced this in the dark days of the 1980s. Not only did it become a top seller for them, but others quickly imitated it to capture some of their success. What other advantages did it give Chrysler? How about a higher margin on minivans than their competitors. You can consider the original iMac Apple's minivan.
If Apple gave us their Inkwell technology in their next 'Book update, I'd be happy with that innovation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
STUPID INNOVATION?
Have you READ my minivan statements? Specifically, the Dodge Caravan 4-cyl, DOHC model.
What's stupid about it, GoED's opinion?
I thought the original iMac without legacy ports was innovative. I also think putting USB ports on the keyboard was innovative. Adding firewire ultimately to all products was as well.
The ability to NetBoot an iMac without a harddrive is pretty innovative, if not revolutionary. Perhaps it's been done before, but I'd guess that the machines doing it were of a completely different class.
As far as this MacWorld is concerned, I'm not sure Apple released any innovative hardware. The arm of the new iMac is about the only thing I would consider, but moveable monitor/TV stands have been available for a long time. Perhaps the 6 hour battery life on a 14 inch laptop.
imac, the new imac, no beige, El Capitan, ipod, colors, the cube, Firewire, no floppy ( bold move ), no CRT for entire line ( another bold move ). All of this in the last 3 years. Webster's defines Innovation as: a new idea, method, or device. And of course you didn't want to talk about software. You just haven't been paying attention.
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
First of all, ratings are subjective. Don't like the Oscars? Come up with the Golden Globe. What I rate are based on my opinion, which is subjective. Why is green better than blue? It's not-- it's strictly subjective.
If you don't like my ratings, provide your own, with your reasons. That's fine. Then come up with an Apple innovation (that you may want).
Remember-- the first part of Apple's slogan is...
Think
<strong>
I find it odd that you give the new iMac such low marks, then. Yes, it's "just" an all-in-one, in about the same way that the original iBook was "just" a laptop. Apple just reconceptualized the all-in-one.
...
Then there's the simple fact that the top of the line iMac is capable, out of the box, of things that were difficult or impossible for any personal computer to do a year ago. That ought to count for something.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I see your point. As an engineer, I look inside the box first. For design, it's certainly innovative.
However, just because it's better than a year ago, it would be hard to justify that as innovation. In that case, "innovation" could be applied too broadly, and wouldn't be useful.
<strong>
STUPID INNOVATION?
Have you READ my minivan statements? Specifically, the Dodge Caravan 4-cyl, DOHC model.
What's stupid about it, GoED's opinion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Touchy. Okay-- I'll take the stupid back. I don't actually think minivans are stupid, I think the fact that minivans are an innovation is stupid, even if it falls within the definition of "innovation." Like I said, it's an opinion. You have yours.
Personally, I like small, sporty cars. Speed Thrills.
By the way, I'm an automotive safety engineer. You may want to consider another car...
<strong>
Touchy. Okay-- I'll take the stupid back. I don't actually think minivans are stupid, I think the fact that minivans are an innovation is stupid, even if it falls within the definition of "innovation." Like I said, it's an opinion. You have yours.
Personally, I like small, sporty cars. Speed Thrills.
By the way, I'm an automotive safety engineer. You may want to consider another car...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, I must ask, Have you read my OTHER minivan statements?
Is 115 MPH enough SPEED for you? It is for 99.97% of people, I'd say.
Ain't NOTHING slow 'bout my DODGE CARAVAN BASE 4 CYL, THREE BIG HONKIN AUTOMATIC SPEEDS - all for $14,000 brand new, no trade in and you can sleep in it!
Who do you work for as a safety engineer? Where's your degree from?
[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: JRC ]</p>
<strong>G of ED,
imac, the new imac, no beige, El Capitan, ipod, colors, the cube, Firewire, no floppy ( bold move ), no CRT for entire line ( another bold move ). All of this in the last 3 years. Webtser's defines Innovation as: a new idea, method, or device. And of course you didn't want to talk about software. You just haven't been paying attention.
[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, whatever. Define why they're innovative. My first Apple ][ didn't come with a floppy. Let's use reason.
Also, this is the Future Hardware forum, not Past Hardware, and not Software. What was the topic again...?
<strong>here's something else...innovation is as much perception as it is inspiration. innovation only "works" if everyone around you agrees your way is better. this is something apple has become very good at...taking an idea with "innovative potential" and turning it into technology people will talk about around the water cooler.
for example...apple invented firewire quite a few years ago. it was true innovation...and nobody cared. apple put firewire on their new systems...and very few people cared. apple puts a firewire port on the ipod so a CD only takes 10 seconds to download and suddenly everyone gets it. firewire is innovation! the same will be said of the new imac too. they didn't invent the flat screened computer, but they know how to make that idea sexy and, er, innovative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly,
<strong>
Yeah, I see your point. As an engineer, I look inside the box first. For design, it's certainly innovative.
However, just because it's better than a year ago, it would be hard to justify that as innovation. In that case, "innovation" could be applied too broadly, and wouldn't be useful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not just better.
It does things that nothing in Apple's pro line could do a year ago. It brings power that was the exclusive province of Apple's professional line three months ago down to a $1299 consumer machine (although admittedly, you have to run pro apps to get some of it).
To say that this is not innovative is to say that the original Mac was not innovative. All-in-ones had been on the market for years. The 68K was not innovative, it was merely elegant, and it wasn't Apple's design anyway. Parts of the system in ROM? Done many times before. The mouse had existed for almost 20 years; the GUI is as old, and object-oriented programming is older still. 9" black and white monitors? Nothing new there either. Sony had been offering their odd "better floppy" for some time - with very little success - before the Mac shipped with it standard.
But I don't think anyone would hesitate to claim that the original Mac was innovative. Would you? Because from a hardware point of view the new iMac is innovative in the same way. It's not that the innards are so different, it's that the way the user reacts to and interacts with the innards is different.
Never underestimate the significance of design.
The G4 tower I bought in 2000 was the first Mac out of 4 ( and computer ) I've owned that didn't have a floppy drive. Don't blame me for being late to the party. As for the rest Amorph has already said what I would have. Design comes under the heading of new idea ( as per Webster's definition ). The El Capitan case is innovative because of ease of use.
The original imac didn't look like anything else on the market ( a sea of beige ) a new idea again. The new imac is innovative for the reasons Amorph has already stated. Firewire.... well it's faster. I think I've made my point. These all fall under the definition of innovative as set by Websters ( which I accept above any party on this board ). Just because you personally don't find them interesting doesn't make it any different. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>G of ED,
The G4 tower I bought in 2000 was the first Mac out of 4 ( and computer ) I've owned that didn't have a floppy drive. Don't blame me for being late to the party. As for the rest Amorph has already said what I would have. Design comes under the heading of new idea ( as per Webster's definition ). The El Capitan case is innovative because of ease of use.
The original imac didn't look like anything else on the market ( a sea of beige ) a new idea again. The new imac is innovative for the reasons Amorph has already stated. Firewire.... well it's faster. I think I've made my point. These all fall under the definition of innovative as set by Websters ( which I accept above any party on this board ). Just because you personally don't find them interesting doesn't make it any different. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agreed with Amorph regarding design. Relax.
I took my definition from American Heritage. The British/ Australian/ Canadian/ New Zealand/ Every-other-English-speaking-user may take exception to it, but it's then only dictionary I have.
El Capitan is cool. I have one. Ease of opening the case? The top of the old Apple ][ just popped out.
Different does not necessarily mean Innovative. Or do you believe Dell is also being innovative?
New means innovative. I'm using the dictionary's definition. But like I said before, if you get a new tie for Christmas, is that an innovative tie?
If it blinks, plays "Jingle Bells," and puts your kids to bed, that could be innovative. But I wouldn't want it.
Cool does not necessarily mean innovative, either.
[Not directed to anyone in general.]
Besides, this is Future Hardware. Doesn't anybody want to talk about what innovation Apple should introduce anymore? Anti-gravity G5 Towers to ease dusting?
What about a wireless audio/video rack component that uses 802.11x to stream content to your stereo or tv from the computer?
Don't worry about whether past Apple designs were innovative or not.
Look at the Past for inspiration, if you want, but we're heading for the Future.
Man, you guys are touchy lot.
"G of ED." Funny.
I'll post later. I'm busy, sorry.