Comments on: What Happened to Innovation?

By: dlormand

dlormand — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:16:56 +0000

I think you’re quite right about the “popular” aspect of development. You say, “As it becomes less expensive for anyone to get their hands on the components they need to innovate”. I had been concerned (as a garage electronics hobbyist myself) that electronics was moving out of the realm of teenagers and do-it-yourselfers with SMT and programmable logic and all that. But its getting easier to get circuit boards made (and populated!), and even JTAG development systems are easily within reach of hobbyists. Almost the only thing left is to encourage people (especially high-schoolers) to get involved.

Too bad automobile mechanics seems to have moved beyond the capabilities of the lightly-equipped garage hacker…

By: Tachyon

Tachyon — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:37:56 +0000

I believe the general idea of real innovation has been squashed in a lot of large corporate environments. The priority is on mass appeal and profit margins. For example, look at the tablet industry. There are dozens of tablets coming, but they’re all very much alike. The only really innovative product I’ve seen in this segment is the yet to be released Adam from Notion Ink. And in their case they are a startup, run by actual geeks and nerds and not suits and accountants. We’ll see how that goes.

Meanwhile, the media exacerbates the problem by fawning over the same old crap again and again and ignoring the truly innovative work that tries to break into the market.
For example, I about lost it when I received my latest issue of Popular Science where they list the “top 100 innovations”. Sure there are a few real innovative items in there, but any real reporting is quickly undone when you read that their top innovation award when to the Apple iPad! WTF?! Exactly what is innovative about the iPad? There is not a single thing about the device that is new or innovative. IT’S A GIANT iPod TOUCH PEOPLE!
And those came out almost 4 years ago now. Now it would have been one thing if PopSci had named it product of the year because that’s a different measurement. Yes, the iPad has made in impact on the technology market. But innovation of the year?! please.
If taking the same crap you’ve been selling for a few years and making it bigger is an innovation, then McDonald’s should be recognized for coming up with Super Sizing. And for innovation of the year Uniroyal really got the shaft.
http://www.uniroyaltires.com/about/gianttire.html

Apple is a perfect example of what is wrong, not what is right with regards to innovation.
They push for more and more ways to control your content, take your money, and keep you hooked. That’s not innovation, that’s the darker side of the capitalism coin.
Real innovation is not profit motivated. Innovation is inspiration made reality.

The Sony walkman. That was innovative when it came out. No one had imagined such a thing as a real product. Sony innovated and made it real.
The original Palm Pilot was innovative.

Taking last years crap an offering it in three new colours and a Hanna Montana themed version is NOT innovative.

By: Sloth

Sloth — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:34:34 +0000

Oh, also: regarding innovation, how about hiring the recent Nobel chemistry winner to head up R&D? That’s what Sony just did. Maybe this will lead to the kind of innovation in materials and electrical engineering referenced in Bajarin’s piece.
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/12/14/sony-appoints-nobel-prize-winner-ei-ichi-negishi-as-rd-advisor/

By: Sloth

Sloth — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:32:00 +0000

I agree with you, Wuss, that it’s more about software than hardware nowadays. Part of it is because we don’t really have a dynamic consumer electronics market in America. The mentality is, everyone wants to get what everyone else is getting–consumers aren’t in the habit of really testing out different machines and new technologies and figuring out what they want. They just want to know that what they’re getting is user-friendly and works. For MP3 players, that means iPod, and for tablets that means iPad. And it’s not necessarily because the hardware is better. For instance, iRiver came out with MP3 players with touchscreens, radio tuning, and superior sound–and they invented the music interface that iPod uses (for which Apple paid $100 million to settle patent infringement)–yet iRiver is still a no-name. Sony came out with the first MP3 player with an OLED, and a super-sensitive touchscreen to boot, along with noise-canceling sound, yet who owns a Sony MP3 player? No one. Thing is, there is some great hardware out there, yet no one even thinks to try it out, opting instead to automatically go for the next Apple device because that’s where they’re told to go. So there’s no real gadget competition, and there no hardware competition, whether it’s evolution or revolution.
Now, much of the coolest hardware, where you can find it, isn’t revolution so much as evolution, but I think with a more dynamic market, with real competition, there’d be an incentive for companies to really put new materials and electronics to market. But as long as one or two companies dominate the news, thanks to lazy and fawning reporting, consumers will never ask for true product diversity, and companies will continue to make what everyone else is making or risk failing.

By: Wuss

Wuss — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:37:25 +0000

Not sure what you’re referring to when you say “Technology Industry”. Slashgear, for the most part, concentrates on consumer technology, so I’ll assume we’re talking about innovation in that regard. In which case, innovation is definitely on the decline.

It just doesn’t make business sense for companies to innovate in the consumer tech space. Today’s market is a tried-and-tested bed of incremental improvements on a proven platform, not creating a new platform.

Products perceived as innovative aren’t really innovative. They’re just the same concepts repackaged shinier. The iPad (take pretty much all Apple products actually) is a prime example. Why innovate when you can ship 10 million iPads in 6 months, then ship another 6 million iPad 2′s in the next 6 months simply by having added a camera.

I think we’re in a paradigm shift on the definition of innovation, where it almost always was in reference to new hardware, now true innovation will be in software. Tablets have been around forever, but they shine now with iOS (and eventually Honeycomb and other offerings). Motion sensing has been around for a long time, but Kinect software development is taking it to a whole new level. Smartphones have been around for years, but people are thinking outside the box on how to utilize location services (GPS), radio chips (NFC), etc.

The main difference between hardware innovation and software innovation is the source. Hardware innovation requires a larger amount of resources and logistics to make happen. Software innovation can be done by a smart 13 year old in his/hers moms basement. And that’s what we’re basically seeing.