Innovation, at least for innovation’s sake, is useless. Despite the protests that “innovation is key”, it really, really is useless. It won’t make your business, it won’t keep it afloat, it won’t save it and it won’t grow it.
I had been reading the article over at FastCompany on Friday. Then I saw it again this morning via Oliver.
Few people will deny Apple is innovative. I won’t, ever, give them credit for the mouse, colour screen or GUI, but I’ll give them credit for hundreds of other innovations large and small. Especially in recent years as they have truly “found themselves”, so to speak.
But, in spite of many innovations, including iTunes, the iPod, whole new suites of software including iDVD and iLife… Well, sales are flat, profits are flat, market share is flat.
Each new innovation is met with the proclamation that this will change the industry, but the fact of the matter seems to be that either these new products aren’t luring any new users… Or they are luring just enough to cover for the ones leaving for other platforms.
Should you innovate? Maybe. You should definitely find a reason for being, a reason for people to find you and for sure you should be differentiating… But whether you should innovate is something else entirely.
Innovation is expensive. Time consuming. Risky. And, apparently, it may not even be worth it.
January 12th, 2004 at 2:03 pm
I will agree with you that innovation in and of itself is kind of useless. If you make this cool widget and nobody uses it, then was your “innovation” relevant? Probably not. However, innovation begets (sp?) improvement. Yes, Xerox innovated when they came up with the GUI, but Apple, Microsoft, and the Open Source world improved on that innovation with a new way to use computers. While Apple and Microsoft have made a killing with their improvements on that one innovation, they would have been nowhere had the innovation never materialized. I think you’re seeing the “egg” side of a chicken-and-egg problem; the whole picture needs to be viewed in order to get a full understanding of all dependencies involved.
January 12th, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Innovation has it’s place, but innovation for innovation’s sake will never grow, save or help your company.
Help the world, the technology industry and the country, sure. But innovation for it’s own sake isn’t the way to run a business.
January 12th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
Apple is a bad company to pick for a discussion of innovation for innovation’s sake (which surely doesn’t make sense). They are the only computer manufacturer to pre-date wintel that is still around. They are the only independent PC manufacturer (i.e. that isn’t wintel).
Where is sinclair, atari, DEC, etc. etc? Other post wintel alternatives (BeOS, OS/2, etc), also failed. If they hadn’t innonated, betting the company at several turns, would they still be around? I think not.
That they are a niche player, is true enough. But what is Ferrari’s market share? Aren’t they innovating for innovations sake?
If you look at Apple’s success based on growth of sales, units installed, etc. They would look great for any industry other than PC sales, wouldn’t they?
January 12th, 2004 at 4:40 pm
Growth of sales? Sales have been flat for 5 years. Unit sales of the Macs have actually been dropping of late, with income only supported by iPod and iTunes.
Ferrari’s another great example. Innovation for innovation’s sake, but losing market share every year, so they’re trimming quality slowly and raising prices quickly.
Most “innovative companies”, who are in it for the sake of being innovative aren’t growing, haven’t been growing for a while and are, really, justifying their existence by being “niche companies”.
I can’t understand how shareholders can enjoy those kinds of companies who don’t grow, haven’t grown and likely won’t grow until they are out of their “innovation” phase.
Innovation is key to a business’s success. Wal-Mart innovated on supply chain management. Dell innovated on production and cost control. Krispy Kreme innovated on food distribution and branding.
It works. Just not as a founding business principle.
January 19th, 2004 at 10:41 am
There is more than one kind of innovation. Business model innovation can be as important as product innovation.
Apple’s true failing may lie in another direction. If they wanted to pursue a vertically-integrated strategy, then they needed to get volumes up and costs/prices down. When you have a unique product, it’s easy to convince yourself that you can charge more of a premium than is actually wise.
January 20th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
You may innovate all you want but without a marketing & distribution plan you’ll go nowhere. Just think – where would you go to actually buy an Apple product? Do you actually see Apple software being mass-sold/distributed through large chain stores such as Wal-Mart, SAM’s, COSCO, etc? I think not. From what I see, Apple’s corporate culture is unable to come to grips with being other than a niche player.
January 25th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
Hmmmm. While Apples hardware market share has not increased, you must remember that they have attained a 70% market share of the online music industry, sold a ridiculous amount of iPods (which is by a big margin the most popular MP3 player in the world, and looking at the recent release of the iPod mini, I can’t possibly see that decrease). They sold one million songs on the iTunes music store in the first week, and have recently passed the 30 million mark.
My personal impression is that Apple hardware and software holds an enourmously high level of quality, for a high, but not unreasonable price. However, it is also my impression that this has happened during the last two years or so. Before that, Mac OS was not as impressive, and the hardware was not nearly as impressive as it is now (except possibly for the powerbook). Now, on the other hand, the iMacs looks fantastic. The G5 is splendid. The powerbooks and ibooks are among the best laptops you can find. And most importantly, Mac OS X Panther is an extremely good operating system, quite possibly the best in the world. Now, these two-three years are not nearly enough to start making a dent in Microsoft gargantuan domination of the market. It’s simply not going to happen that fast. People don’t get new computers that often.
I definetly plan to get a Powerbook as my next computer, as Mac OS X has reached fantastic levels of quality with it’s last version.
January 27th, 2004 at 9:41 am
Don’t kid yourself, I’m even half tempted to get one. You’re right, fantastic product!
January 13th, 2004 at 3:28 pm
Is Innovation Really Useless?
Yesterday, my What’s the Purpose of a Business post commented on a Peter Drucker quote that claims that the purpose of a business is “to create a customer.”
January 19th, 2004 at 4:16 am
Carnival Of The Capitalists
It is my pleasure to present this week’s Carnival Of The Capitalists. The Carnival is now well-established and I am confident it needs no further introduction but I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate past hosts for their…
December 7th, 2004 at 1:09 am
[...] In no particular order, here are my Top 24 Posts of 2004: Bribery Will Continue Innovation is Useless What Companies Need: A Blogging Book Perfection Isn’t Per [...]
April 19th, 2005 at 7:44 am
prilosec
You are invited to visit some helpful info in the field of amoxicillin rheumatoid arthritis strattera