To thrive in the technology business, you should be innovation driven. No two organizations comprehend this better than Apple and Google. Both these companies have developed over the years, and have ended up as masters of the tech industry in their own rights on account of a series of inconceivable ideas that have shaped the technology the world relies on today.
However, the important question is which of these two technological giants continue to innovate and improvise? I believe that both are at it with equal vigor and dynamism. Apple with its fitness-oriented Apple Watch, a contact payment technology called Apple Pay (a feature on the latest iPhones & Apple Watch) and a new streaming system that promises to revive the music industry, has generated considerable interest.
Google, on the other hand, has come up with Google Glass, an optical head-mounted display designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses. Wearers of the Google Glass can communicate with the Internet via natural language voice commands.
Apples’ innovative products are classy and appeal to a large section of the affluent tech-savvy society and consistently generate revenue. However, as the initial burst of excitement starts to wear off, the company loses interest.
The same can’t be said about Google. I tend to disagree with the outlandish criticism about Apple that in the two years following Steve Jobs death, the company has ceased to be innovative.
The reason for this criticism attached to Apple is that it is not a monopoly in its products’ markets, and people expect revolutionary new products to be launched consistently.
In fact, Google often praised for their innovation, is nothing but main improvements on what already exists, although there is innovation to an extent or else the company would have faded into oblivion. The same can be said for Facebook or any other technology company for that matter.
The reason the innovation label hangs over Apple is that the organization’s prosperity is seen to rely on the arrival of weighty new items. From the iPod to the iPhone to the iPad, Apple presented standard customer electronic hits that essentially changed the way we live.
Individuals loved these items. People love that Apple brought items they lived with and improved their lives. This is the reason consumers need Apple to continue to “innovate.” They need Apple to deliver another item that they can experience passionate feelings for.
The issue is making new items from scratch is truly hard. Pundits discuss Apple making something new as though it can be done at the drop of your hat.
Nothing illustrates this better than Fred Vogelstein’s fantastic story about the creation of the iPhone in the New York Times Magazine. Here’s a selection that aggregates up what Apple confronted when it assembled the iPhone:
Numerous officials and specialists, riding high from their prosperity with the iPod, expected a telephone would resemble building a little Macintosh. Rather, Apple planned and fabricated not one but three distinctive early forms of the iPhone in 2005 and 2006.
One individual who took a shot at the venture thinks Apple then made six completely working models of the gadget it at last sold – each with its own set of hardware, software, and design tweaks.
Some of the group wound up so worn out that they left the organization not long after the principal telephone hit store racks. “It was like the first moon mission,” says Tony Fadell, a key executive on the project. (He started his own company, Nest, in 2010.) “I’m used to a certain level of unknowns in a project, but there were so many new things here that it was just staggering.”
Had the iPhone been a failure or not gotten off the ground by any stretch of the imagination, Apple would have had no other enormous items prepared to declare for quite a while. In fact, the failure of iPhone would have caused the entire corporation to collapse.
The iPhone was a win, and it was such a win, to the point that individuals simply accept Apple can throw together new manifestations without a moment’s notice. This story demonstrates that making a new product category from scratch isn’t something that happens easily, quickly, or without considerable risk to the whole company.