Innovation is sadly seen less and less in the technological world. The definition of innovation is as follows:
in·no·va·tion
1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device
(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation)
Companies such as Apple like to use the word “innovation” as if it didn’t have this definition attached to it. They called the iPhone innovation. What exactly was innovative about it? From a practical perspective, absolutely nothing was. From a business perspective, I suppose one could say that their marketing strategies were innovative. No one has ever been able to sell such a limited mobile platform so well before. If Microsoft had been Apple (marketing-wise), then Windows Phone would have been the leader. Both iOS and Windows Phone are incredibly limited and non-customizable mobile platforms. Ironically, Windows Mobile was one of the biggest competitors to iOS (then called iPhone OS) and although Windows Mobile was almost as limited as it is now, it could do much, much more than iPhone OS could. Even Nokia’s Symbian OS outdid iPhone OS when considering the features it offered. Some people claim that the iPhone’s glass screen was innovative, but in reality, capacitive screens were around before the iPhone was introduced. Apple was just the first OEM to bring the technology to the consumer market. Some people also claim that the iPad was innovation. While it certainly was an improvement to existing tablet PCs, many people forget that there were tablet PCs before the introduction of the iPad. In 2002, Windows XP Tablet Edition powered the world’s tablet PCs. Unlike iOS, Windows XP Tablet Edition was just Windows XP Professional with various added enhancements for tablets. What this means is that to this day, Windows XP tablets are still more customizable and full-featured than the current generation iPad. Once again, Apple showed expert marketing skills, and was able to convince the world that the iPad was a new and innovative concept.
Apple’s most recent “innovation” (according to their custom “definition”) has been iOS 7. Unfortunately, (for them) iOS 7 is one of the least innovative products Apple has ever released. IOS 7 brings the iOS platform up to date with Android. Even in 2010, Android was more functional, more stable, and easier to use than iOS. IOS 7 brings most of the benefits of Android to iOS (as well as benefits from other mobile platforms such as Blackberry 10 and webOS) and this makes Apple look incredibly hypocritical. IOS will never be as customizable as Android is, though. The one thing that Apple has recently released that qualifies as “innovation” is the current generation Mac Pro. The Mac Pro uses an innovative design that uses one fan to cool all of the components of the computer which are built in a cylinder-like design. This makes it easier to cool the components, and allows for an extremely compact form factor. Unfortunately, the Mac Pro (like all of Apple’s other products) is not practical when the cost is considered. While the older generation of the Mac Pro was the only “customizable” Apple product, the current Mac Pro eliminates this benefit. What you see is what you get, and what you get cannot be changed unless you buy (extremely overpriced) proprietary upgrades from Apple. I wouldn’t be surprised if some OEMs made third party components for the Mac Pro, but I’m sure that the OEMs know that anyone who buys a Mac Pro will be willing (for some strange reason that will always be unknown to humanity) to pay full price for it. I doubt there will be any cheaper third-party components for the Mac Pro. The design of the Mac pro is truly innovative. Unlike the rest of Apple’s products, there has not been any OEM that I know of that has made any PCs with such a design. There is probably a reason for that, though. With a design such as the Mac Pro’s design, customizability is going to be difficult, and if you are on a budget, then it will most likely be almost impossible. People might argue that the “size-to-power” ratio alone is innovative, but there are cases out there that you can buy and you can build your own computer that not only outperforms the Mac Pro, but is the same size (although not circular). While the Mac pro isn’t as innovative as some other things, it is (in my opinion) the most innovative thing Apple has done since the Macintosh. Some other Apple products that people commonly (and incorrectly) refer to as “innovation” are as follows:
- MagSafe—While the particular design of the MagSafe connector is original and patented, the concept isn’t. Various electronics use magnetically bonded power connectors.
- iPod – This is another example of great marketing. There were already alternatives that were cheaper and arguably better than the original iPod.
- iTunes – The iTunes store was innovative in the sense that Apple was the first company to make large amounts of money from selling digital media, however the concept was certainly was not an original one.
- -iMac – This is the same story. The “all-in-one-PC” concept had been done many times before, but Apple was able to make their PC more stylish. That’s pretty much it. And at the time, Mac OS was just about as unstable as Windows was.
- Fusion Drive – Apple’s Fusion Drive is labeled as an “innovative breakthrough” in technology. Unfortunately for Apple, this makes them look stupid and untrustworthy. A “Fusion Drive” is just an overpriced SSD with a proprietary connection interface that is used to cache commonly used data. Intel had been offering similar technology years before its release, and the fact that an SSD with the equivalent storage costs less than half of the cost of a Fusion Drive doesn't help Apple very much.
- iBook – The very first iBook looked beautiful, but much of the technology used in it that was called “innovative” actually wasn’t. The iBook had passive cooling, a handle, and a stylish design, all features that other OEMs had already done before.
- Thunderbolt – Apple is commonly credited with “inventing” this interface, but it was actually Intel that originally developed the interface (under the name “Light Peak”). Intel still owns full rights to the interface, and Apple only owns rights to the trademark.
- Retina Display – Are you kidding me? Anyone who thinks that Apple’s Retina Display is the best option on the market has a screw loose. The highest PPI count (pixels per inch) on any of Apple’s Retina Displays is 326 (the four most recent generations of the iPhone). The OPPO Find 5 has a full 1080p display (441 PPI) and costs only $40 more (unlocked) than an unlocked iPhone 4s (that’s right, an iPhone 4S). Apple’s iPad is sometimes thought to have an amazing screen, and while it certainly doesn’t have a bad screen, then current generation Nexus 7 has a whopping 323 PPI (which beats the heck out of the Retina iPad’s meager 264 PPI display). The iPad with Retina Display’s starting price is $499 while in comparison, the Nexus 7’s starting price is only $229.
- Fingerprint sensor on iPhone 5S – Although this has been done before on various Android phones, attempts were not hugely successful. Apple with its genius marketing skills has once again managed to present this as “innovation”. Way back before Android was a public product (mid-2000s) there were already laptops with fingerprint sensors that were not only as secure as Apple’s sensor (contrary to what they want you to believe) but also performed just as well in comparison.
- iOS7 – This is another “you’ve got to be kidding me” moment. If a company makes a mobile firmware that takes just about every good feature from other mobile platforms, ruins it in the process (iOS7 users know what I’m talking about) and keeps it as closed and un-customizable as its preceding releases were, does that even begin to count as innovation? That’s like taking seven colors of paint, slopping them effortlessly on a piece of paper and saying “look at me, I invented a rainbow”.
It is obvious that Apple has lost its right to label itself as an innovator. Although many people realize this, they sometimes don’t realize how long ago they lost it. Apple was only very briefly a “master of innovation”, but they will likely be “masters of marketing’ for years to come. Apple is very good at taking technology that is already available to the public and repackaging it with a “premium” theme. Apple devices will probably be associated with “style” for quite a while, but like other things made for “style” on the market (like Beats headphones) often under-perform compared to their cheaper, less “stylish” counterparts. If someone buys an Apple product and says that they got it to be “cool and in style” (although I have yet to understand how that actually makes people look cool) then I have no problem with that. The problem arises when someone says that they got an Apple product because they “wanted the latest innovation and the best technology” (I’ve heard this one quite a few times, believe me).
What are your thoughts? Can Apple still be called an “innovator”? If you can think of a reason that they can, please leave a comment below. Who do you think should be labeled as the most legitimate innovator?
