PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Apple CEO John Sculley Believes 'Innovation Lull' Will End, Smart Watch Likely Key Product Focus




MacRumors
Mar 18, 2013, 08:26 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/18/ex-apple-ceo-john-sculley-believes-innovation-lull-will-end-smart-watch-likely-key-product-focus/)


John Sculley, Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993 and the man famously responsible for Steve Jobs leaving the company in 1985 to form NeXT, has said that although he considers Apple to be experiencing a "lull in innovation", he thinks this is an industry-wide issue and that Apple will be the first to spot the next big trend.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/03/r-EX-APPLE-CEO-JOHN-SCULLEY-large570.jpg
Interviewed in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/ex-apple-ceo-jon-sculley_n_2884937.html), Sculley was asked about his comments in a CNBC interview (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100504186) last month when he said he "wouldn't expect to see a creative leap from Apple for maybe a few years."I don't think that it's because Apple has lost its ability to innovate. My guess is that it has nothing to do with Apple at all, but with the current stage of technology.

Moore's law has been completely predictable for 40 years. You really need about a generation between each of [the] big innovations [but] there are just moments when all the stars are aligned for breakthrough products. Steve had a tremendous talent to be able to spot those ahead of everyone. The question is, who is going be the one to spot the next big trend, the alignment of stars? I'd bet my money on Jony Ive being the person to spot that.Sculley downplayed talk of an Apple HD TV set but fueled speculation on a possible iWatch.If [Steve Jobs] were alive today, I suspect he'd be really fascinated about what's happening with sensors. When you look at the ability to capture all kinds of information with sensors and then customize services back to individuals, that is so Steve Jobs. That's the kind of thing he'd have salivated over.

I think the next big area of product [innovation] is probably not around a television, as many are speculating -- actually, Apple TV is pretty good right now. I think it will be around wearable sensor-type products.Steve Jobs hired Sculley from Pepsi in 1983, but the two clashed over management styles and priorities, Jobs focusing on future innovation and Sculley more on current product lines and profitability. A showdown between the two resulted in Jobs leaving Apple to form NeXT, which Apple acquired in 1996, bringing Jobs back into the company three years after Sculley left.

(Thanks, Arthur.)

Article Link: Ex-Apple CEO John Sculley Believes 'Innovation Lull' Will End, Smart Watch Likely Key Product Focus (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/18/ex-apple-ceo-john-sculley-believes-innovation-lull-will-end-smart-watch-likely-key-product-focus/)



Ingot
Mar 18, 2013, 08:29 AM
I hope it makes my wrist snappier.

nick_elt
Mar 18, 2013, 08:43 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

rye9
Mar 18, 2013, 08:44 AM
I hope it makes my wrist snappier.

This. (http://www.pricepoint.com/images/styleImages/D_502%20NTHRF7.jpg)

smithrh
Mar 18, 2013, 08:47 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

beat me to it...

pancakedrawer
Mar 18, 2013, 08:57 AM
I hope it makes my wrist snappier.

Logged in just to upvote.

maxosx
Mar 18, 2013, 08:57 AM
"Smart Watch Key Product Focus"

Makes sense, anything to draw attention away from the pedantic iPhone. :D

sulpfiction
Mar 18, 2013, 09:00 AM
I believe this to be true. Everyone misses that feeling we all had back in 07. Including myself. But products like the iPhone don't pop up every year or 2. More like every decade or 2. Before iPhone, what was the prior "big thing"? HDTV? And look how that's been progressing. Prices have come down, TV's have gotten bigger and thinner, and we now have half baked 3D. But other then that, there hasn't been any big leap in the TV industry in a long time.

mabhatter
Mar 18, 2013, 09:07 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

To be fair nobody wanted TO PAY FOR innovation. They wanted CHEAPER, and Microsoft underbid everybody.

Add:TO PAY FOR

RBMaraman
Mar 18, 2013, 09:08 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

No one argues that John Sculley wasn't a terrible CEO, but Apple hardly lacked innovation during his tenure. John oversaw Apple's entry into the portable market, the creation of FireWire and he championed the Newton. If you recall, Jony Ive and the iOS engineering team all went back to the Newton for development of the iPhone and iPad.

Also, Sculley's idea for the "Knowledge Navigator" (outlined in his 1987 book Odyssey) was the basis for several concepts integrated into the World Wide Web. Apple has also acknowledged that Siri development was spurred by Sculley.

slicecom
Mar 18, 2013, 09:12 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

What are you talking about? Apple had tonnes of innovations under John Sculley. Most of them flopped, but they certainly innovated a lot more than Apple has in the past couple years.

Nimrad
Mar 18, 2013, 09:25 AM
To be fair nobody wanted TO PAY FOR innovation. They wanted CHEAPER, and Microsoft underbid everybody.

Add:TO PAY FOR

You are mixing the word invention and innovation. The meaning of the word innovation requires commercial success.

Shrink
Mar 18, 2013, 09:35 AM
You are mixing the word invention and innovation. The meaning of the word innovation requires commercial success.

If you are talking about the denotative meaning of the word, I was unable to find, in any definition, the requirement of "commercial success".

If you are saying that in your opinion, innovation per se is not enough without the commercial success of the innovation...that's a different story. It is your opinion, however, not the word's definition.

:D

junior
Mar 18, 2013, 09:36 AM
You are mixing the word invention and innovation. The meaning of the word innovation requires commercial success.

You must have a different dictionary to everyone else.

gmanist1000
Mar 18, 2013, 09:40 AM
I think he is wrong about companies being at a stand-still.

Google is innovating. They are working on Glass (which is an amazing glimpse at the future) as well as more projects at their X labs.

Apple could be working on a watch revolution, but we have yet to see anything yet. Time will tell.

iBug2
Mar 18, 2013, 09:56 AM
I think he is wrong about companies being at a stand-still.

Google is innovating. They are working on Glass (which is an amazing glimpse at the future) as well as more projects at their X labs.

Apple could be working on a watch revolution, but we have yet to see anything yet. Time will tell.

The reason we heard about the glass and nothing from Apple is because we never hear anything from Apple until the product is almost ready to ship. Apple is secretive, Google, not so much. So, not hearing from Apple should never ever mean that they aren't cooking things up in their labs.

And basically every new product Apple came up with since the iPod has been an enormous commercial success. (Talking about physical products). So I think that speaks volumes. Which company out there can say the same for all of their products in the last 10 years? Certainly not Google.

needfx
Mar 18, 2013, 10:11 AM
oh now you thank users..

mdelvecchio
Mar 18, 2013, 10:14 AM
What are you talking about? Apple had tonnes of innovations under John Sculley. Most of them flopped, but they certainly innovated a lot more than Apple has in the past couple years.

oh lawd. who else created a unibody cell as thin & light and sleek as the iphone 5 in the past couple years? who else created a tablet as thin & light w/ as much battery as the mini in the past couple years? who else created an all-in-one as thin & light as the imac? who else has a smart hybrid drive like the Fusion drive?

these things may not matter to you, but they do to millions of other customers like myself. which is why i buy them.

bwillwall
Mar 18, 2013, 10:15 AM
His judgement... I hope he is right but I dont know he is. If Apple makes the watch "snap-on" like they are saying then it will fix the problem of it being a pain to put watches on though, so there's that.

mdelvecchio
Mar 18, 2013, 10:17 AM
I think he is wrong about companies being at a stand-still.

Google is innovating. They are working on Glass (which is an amazing glimpse at the future) as well as more projects at their X labs.

Apple could be working on a watch revolution, but we have yet to see anything yet. Time will tell.

glass a glimpse of the future? sorry, but i think youll be disappointed. normal human beings (not gadget nymphos) dont like the idea of either wearing head gear, or having others wearing them & recording us all of the time.

the gargoyles of Snow Crash are not the future.

andrewzz
Mar 18, 2013, 10:17 AM
Can someone shut this guy (Sculley) up? The last thing this guy knows about is innovation. Why is he coming out of the woodwork now that Steve is gone, has anyone actually missed him?

slicecom
Mar 18, 2013, 10:21 AM
oh lawd. who else created a unibody cell as thin & light and sleek as the iphone 5 in the past couple years? who else created a tablet as thin & light w/ as much battery as the mini in the past couple years? who else created an all-in-one as thin & light as the imac? who else has a smart hybrid drive like the Fusion drive?

these things may not matter to you, but they do to millions of other customers like myself. which is why i buy them.

Pretty sure I've bought a lot more Apple products than you over the years, but thinness is not innovation. Most of what you listed are thinner versions of innovations they made years ago.

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2013, 10:38 AM
No one argues that John Sculley was a terrible CEO, but Apple hardly lacked innovation during his tenure. John oversaw Apple's entry into the portable market, the creation of FireWire and he championed the Newton. If you recall, Jony Ive and the iOS engineering team all went back to the Newton for development of the iPhone and iPad.

Also, Sculley's idea for the "Knowledge Navigator" (outlined in his 1987 book Odyssey) was the basis for several concepts integrated into the World Wide Web. Apple has also acknowledged that Siri development was spurred by Sculley.

I believe you're the one arguing that John Sculley wasn't a terrible CEO. Actually, I agree with you. He gets a bad rap because he forced Steve out, and he probably wasn't the best choice to run a technology company. But he did as you said, and he also transformed Apple into a very profitable company during his tenure. He cleaned up the mess left by Steve. Apple really suffered under his two successors, both in terms of innovation and profitability. (The record should indicate, were both of them were technology people.)

That said, Sculley has no special insight into innovation at Apple. I do happen to think he is right, though.

wovel
Mar 18, 2013, 10:38 AM
Pretty sure I've bought a lot more Apple products than you over the years, but thinness is not innovation. Most of what you listed are thinner versions of innovations they made years ago.

What is innovation?

Webster's defines the word as this:

1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2013, 10:40 AM
Apple could be working on a watch revolution, but we have yet to see anything yet. Time will tell.

So to speak?

MonkeySee....
Mar 18, 2013, 10:47 AM
What is innovation?

Webster's defines the word as this:

1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Unfortunatly people don't seem to understand this and think innovation is solely your first point and excludes the second.

tYNS
Mar 18, 2013, 10:52 AM
What are you talking about? Apple had tonnes of innovations under John Sculley. Most of them flopped, but they certainly innovated a lot more than Apple has in the past couple years.

Not to mention Scully basically gave birth to this generation of mobile processors by massively funding ARM during their beginnings. Which (in turn) saved Apple's ass from going Bankrupt when Steve came back. People think Microsoft bailed out Apple when in reality it was apple selling off their stake in ARM to help fund their R&D for the onslaught of new products last decade.

He wasn't great at visualizing, simplifying and fine tuning products.. But Scully was not exactly ALL that bad either.

PinoyAko
Mar 18, 2013, 11:13 AM
Lot's of people here sounds like they know Jobs and Sculley like the back of their hand.

szw-mapple fan
Mar 18, 2013, 11:20 AM
If you are talking about the denotative meaning of the word, I was unable to find, in any definition, the requirement of "commercial success".

If you are saying that in your opinion, innovation per se is not enough without the commercial success of the innovation...that's a different story. It is your opinion, however, not the word's definition.

:D


Have you been reading macrumors' forums recently? People who trolls about lack of innovation usually only trolls in products thats beginning to have smaller marketshare(aka iPhone and iOS) "innovation" nowadays is just another way of saying "commercially successful and keeping up with trends".

tkhan456
Mar 18, 2013, 11:26 AM
No one cares about a watch. Half of people already just use their phone for this. People would rather have a TV set from Apple

gmanist1000
Mar 18, 2013, 11:34 AM
glass a glimpse of the future? sorry, but i think youll be disappointed. normal human beings (not gadget nymphos) dont like the idea of either wearing head gear, or having others wearing them & recording us all of the time.

the gargoyles of Snow Crash are not the future.

Just like computers and electronics were for nerds and geeks 10 years ago? Now it's cool for everyone to have it.

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2013, 11:48 AM
No one cares about a watch. Half of people already just use their phone for this. People would rather have a TV set from Apple

Nobody cares about tablet computers. People would rather have a new Mac from Apple.

nick_elt
Mar 18, 2013, 11:56 AM
Not to mention Scully basically gave birth to this generation of mobile processors by massively funding ARM during their beginnings. Which (in turn) saved Apple's ass from going Bankrupt when Steve came back. People think Microsoft bailed out Apple when in reality it was apple selling off their stake in ARM to help fund their R&D for the onslaught of new products last decade.

He wasn't great at visualizing, simplifying and fine tuning products.. But Scully was not exactly ALL that bad either.

That stake in ARM would be quite handy these days to have no?

Macrolido
Mar 18, 2013, 12:01 PM
Anyone cares about the opinion of the guy who sent Apple to their darkest years?

johncrab
Mar 18, 2013, 12:04 PM
As a consumer, I am enjoying a break from being pushed so hard to keep up. It's nice just to use this stuff and get a few things done for a change rather than the chase to upgrade and migrate all the time. I'll be ready to move when Apple is. I think we all needed a break.

This also means that since the copycats have to wait on Apple to release something new before they can copy it (badly), Apple is sandbagging them all going into the Christmas season.

BornAgainMac
Mar 18, 2013, 12:24 PM
The next big thing would be robots in the home. We know what Google will call them.

ThunderSkunk
Mar 18, 2013, 12:25 PM
New this year, the same thing we made last year, but look how thin it is... .6 mm thinner than last year... see that thin edge? it's so thin... look at the thinness...

There have been amazing technologies being developed every day for years, that just need a product implementation to call home. Compared to the great strides Apple could be making, a new kind of wristwatch and their anorexia fetish seems a lot more like a distraction. It's almost like they're afraid of innovating beyond where they've settled.

With all the resources Apple has at their disposal, they ought to be able do more than spec whatever faster chips mfg's are making this year in their existing products.

If anyone can recognize an Apple luffing its sails, it's Sculley

iBookie
Mar 18, 2013, 12:25 PM
For all the Sculley bashing, let's not forget a few things.

Without Sculley ousting Jobs we would not have:

Pixar
OS X
A wizened Steve Jobs hungrier to make a dent in the Universe.



Apple very well might have languished in the 90's under the "old" Jobs. Disney might have continued to recycle old characters and produce crap movies. And, worst of all, people might still be buying BlackBerry's because there was no iPhone. We live in the universe where Steve Jobs got a second act (however tragically brief) and we have John Sculley to thank for that. ;)

econgeek
Mar 18, 2013, 12:25 PM
You must have a different dictionary to everyone else.

Really? So, what you're saying is that the wright brothers airplane was not innovative? Because it was just an experiment that barely flew for a little while, rather than a commercially successful product?

Amazing!

rGiskard
Mar 18, 2013, 12:33 PM
In related news, Robert McNamara's ghost says nobody knows how to fight wars these days...

jonnysods
Mar 18, 2013, 12:34 PM
Apple was such an underdog a while ago, and then blasted out some amazing tech. Now they are on top of the heap with some pretty solid products, and people just want to be blown away every week with something new from them. That expectation on them is wreaking havoc with their stock prices.

"innovate more" everyone yells and criticizes. It's not as easy as everyone thinks!

keysofanxiety
Mar 18, 2013, 12:49 PM
I hope it makes my wrist snappier.

I love you.

designaholic
Mar 18, 2013, 01:24 PM
i hope it makes my wrist snappier.

8)

IronLionZion
Mar 18, 2013, 01:27 PM
Scully thinks things are going to turn around? Okay. Now I'm worried! ;)

Shrink
Mar 18, 2013, 01:53 PM
The meaning of the word innovation requires commercial success[/B].

If you are talking about the denotative meaning of the word, I was unable to find, in any definition, the requirement of "commercial success".

If you are saying that in your opinion, innovation per se is not enough without the commercial success of the innovation...that's a different story. It is your opinion, however, not the word's definition.

:D

Have you been reading macrumors' forums recently? People who trolls about lack of innovation usually only trolls in products thats beginning to have smaller marketshare(aka iPhone and iOS) "innovation" nowadays is just another way of saying "commercially successful and keeping up with trends".

Try reading the first post, and my response again. The post to which I responded asserted that the definition of the word included commercial success. Then read my response, which commented upon the definition of the word.

I was commenting on the denotative definition of the word as asserted by the first quote, not what may well be the common usage.

Nunyabinez
Mar 18, 2013, 02:17 PM
No one cares about a watch. Half of people already just use their phone for this. People would rather have a TV set from Apple

I just love how people are able to criticize a non-existent product. First, I hate that people are calling it an iWatch. If anything is actually released it will not be a watch, it will be a worn computer product. I haven't worn a watch for years and would not put one back on just because Apple made it. But, something that goes on my wrist that can:

Notify me discretely of incoming messages, texts, alerts, etc.
Monitor heart-rate, or maybe temperature, or other physical data.
Do any number of things that my phone does without having to pull my phone out of my pocket (yes watch, navigation, Siri, etc.)
NFC (not super excited about this because of security concerns)

That I could get excited about. When I think about the amount of time I use my "iPhone" for making phone calls versus anything else, it seems silly to call it an iPhone. Just like it seems ridiculous to call whatever Apple is working on an "iWatch." I am hopeful that whatever they come up with (if they do) will be just like everything else they made recently; something I didn't know I couldn't live without until they showed it to me.

SeattleMoose
Mar 18, 2013, 02:36 PM
i pray that the iwatch is just a red herring to throw off the copycats and waste their time. Unless of course it can "beam you up" ;)

SockRolid
Mar 18, 2013, 04:06 PM
"I think the next big area of product [innovation] is probably not around a television, as many are speculating -- actually, Apple TV is pretty good right now. I think it will be around wearable sensor-type products."

Agree on the concepts, but not on the timing, John.

If and when Apple does re-make the television industry in its own image (which probably won't happen for years) my wild guess is that the actual big-screen HDTV will be the last item on their to-do list. First: keep improving the Apple TV "hockey puck," keep building out iCloud server infrastructure, keep accumulating iTunes accounts and iCloud users. Next: sign all those hard-to-negotiate deals with deeply entrenched content providers. This might take years. Launch: roll out the actual live / on-demand playback service with monthly subscription and/or a la carte rental and/or content purchase. Kiss your old 50-button remote goodbye. Say "hello" to the Siri microphone in some future Apple TV box. Last: release a 55" AMOLED HDTV monitor with one input for Apple TV and an iSight camera for biometric user recognition and playback and game control gesture recognition. (The camera, by the way, would be the value add of the Apple monitor: only its camera would give you the full experience.)

And yes, I think wearable computing will be big. Eventually. As soon as someone Apple can figure out either 1) how to display enough data on a tiny screen to be useful, or 2) how to integrate Siri voice input and output into a wearable device, or 3) both of the above. Eventually Apple will do it. But not before the market is ready. In terms of end-user acceptance of tiny wearable devices, and in terms of Apple's ability to profit from that market segment.

Sure, eventually wearable computing will be cool. But right now it isn't. Who wants to be the "Glassh*le" wearing Google Glass, staring through people right in front of you? I don't. Maybe iWatch actually does make sense, from an end-user perspective.

But Apple's problem with wearable computing is that the devices probably can't be as expensive as an iPhone, or roughly $600 at the moment. (I'm talking the actual value of iPhone, not its subsidized take-home price.) Yes, there are any number of $600+ watches, but they're all uni-tasking status symbols. Could Apple really price an iWatch at $600? I'm not sure they could. I think it, and other small wearable computers, will have to be much cheaper than that.

And the problem with a lower-priced iDevice is that even with a 40% margin, the total revenue won't match that of more expensive iDevices unless you sell more of them. And the market for wearable iDevices, even less expensive ones, is unknown territory for Apple and everyone else. Apple may not want to get too far ahead of the market, in terms of consumer demand. They've already done that with Newton and Macintosh TV (an early-90s monstrosity) and I'm sure they haven't forgotten those lessons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_tv

So again, I wouldn't expect an iWatch for a few more years.
So what does that leave as Apple's "next big thing"?

How about the in-car experience? The Siri "Eyes Free" button on steering wheels is a good start. It would replace, for many tasks, built-in dashboard monitors. Safer because your eyes stay on the road. Easier because Siri would just tell you what to do when you need to do it. No need to reconcile a map on a screen with the real world you're moving through. Simple for auto manufacturers to build into their cars. Just a button on the steering wheel, and a lightning dock for your iDevice.

Eventually, Apple could evolve the system to project an image in the driver's line of sight out the windshield. Somewhat like the high-tech BMW in "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol." (That was a concept car built to preview some of the features of the BMW i8 hybrid, which should enter production later this year BTW.) Apple could license the technology to auto manufacturers for a decent revenue stream. I think that form of revenue will become more important to Apple over the years: baked-in technology that auto manufacturers and other industries can license from Apple.

And that whole in-car thing may be yet another reason why Scott Forstall was fired.
Because Maps is going to be a crucial part of that, and although it's getting
better rapidly, you only get once chance at a good first impression.

n8mac
Mar 18, 2013, 05:08 PM
Google is innovating. They are working on Glass (which is an amazing glimpse at the future) as well as more projects at their X labs.

They better change the name before product launch because the Egyptians invented that millennia ago. A pharaoh is gonna come back from the dead and kick some legal butt. It will be like a The Mummy sequel, courtroom style ;)

bmt134
Mar 18, 2013, 06:07 PM
Waiting for Apple's innovation lull to end for years.

Ugg
Mar 18, 2013, 09:50 PM
I believe this to be true. Everyone misses that feeling we all had back in 07. Including myself. But products like the iPhone don't pop up every year or 2. More like every decade or 2. Before iPhone, what was the prior "big thing"? HDTV? And look how that's been progressing. Prices have come down, TV's have gotten bigger and thinner, and we now have half baked 3D. But other then that, there hasn't been any big leap in the TV industry in a long time.

The iMac changed personal computing as did the iPhone and the iPad.

It could be argued that the iPad was an incremental step, and perhaps it was but I'm expecting a Big Bang in the near future.

kd5jos
Mar 18, 2013, 10:14 PM
If my wrist were any snappier, it'd be broken.
Only if you hold it wrong...

firewood
Mar 19, 2013, 01:04 AM
how well did apple do under him again? he can't really talk about lack of innovation.

If Apple didn't innovate under Scully, he might be the best person to see history repeating itself, and talk about it.

But Apple did innovate during his reign. They did the Newton, from whence came the mobile/tablet app business, which led to Hawkins doing the PalmPilot, which Jobs thought about buying before deciding to roll his own.

Apple also created the first PowerBooks during Scully's era, which changed the laptop computer market (they all copied Apple's form factor).

Mike MA
Mar 19, 2013, 02:38 AM
Well, he's got an opinion...

ascylto
Mar 19, 2013, 04:10 AM
Sculley is now well over 70. He should stick to pruning his roses instead of interfering in a younger company.

Mal67
Mar 19, 2013, 07:14 AM
oh lawd. who else created a unibody cell as thin & light and sleek as the iphone 5 in the past couple years? who else created a tablet as thin & light w/ as much battery as the mini in the past couple years? who else created an all-in-one as thin & light as the imac? who else has a smart hybrid drive like the Fusion drive?

these things may not matter to you, but they do to millions of other customers like myself. which is why i buy them.

All good and true except maybe for the imac reference but still lots of good and interesting stuff being done during earlier periods.

Shrink
Mar 19, 2013, 07:23 AM
Sculley is now well over 70. He should stick to pruning his roses instead of interfering in a younger company.

You're so right. We all know anybody over the age of 25 is, by definition, a hopeless, out of it, moron.

Important to know the age of anybody with any ideas. It's not the ideas that count, it's the age of the source of the ideas.

:rolleyes:

dvoros
Mar 19, 2013, 08:36 AM
Why is anything that Sculley says relevant? He was better at making sugar water.:o

junior
Mar 19, 2013, 09:49 AM
Really? So, what you're saying is that the wright brothers airplane was not innovative? Because it was just an experiment that barely flew for a little while, rather than a commercially successful product?

Amazing!

errr..
What can I say..
What or who are you arguing with?

macs4nw
Mar 20, 2013, 01:55 AM
I donít think that itís because Apple has lost its ability to innovate. My guess is that it has nothing to do with Apple at all, but with the current stage of technology.

Mooreís law has been completely predictable for 40 years. You really need about a generation between each of [the] big innovations [but] there are just moments when all the stars are aligned for breakthrough products. Steve had a tremendous talent to be able to spot those ahead of everyone. The question is, who is going be the one to spot the next big trend, the alignment of stars? .....
Article Link: Ex-Apple CEO John Sculley Believes 'Innovation Lull' Will End, Smart Watch Likely Key Product Focus (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/18/ex-apple-ceo-john-sculley-believes-innovation-lull-will-end-smart-watch-likely-key-product-focus/)

Can someone shut this guy (Sculley) up? The last thing this guy knows about is innovation. Why is he coming out of the woodwork now that Steve is gone, has anyone actually missed him?

Yeah, that came kinda out of left field, but aside from his ability, or lack thereof, to be the visionary to run APPLE, I believe Sculley is correct in the above assessment of the current state of innovation. We've become so jaded about the great things that have come our way, in the last dozen or so years, that we now seem to expect miraculous new technologies to come down the pipeline with uncanny regularity. I believe that for a little while anyway, we'll have to settle for incremental improvements.

But there is no doubt that sooner or later, great things will come again, and not necessarily just from APPLE.

Nimrad
Mar 20, 2013, 01:56 PM
If you are talking about the denotative meaning of the word, I was unable to find, in any definition, the requirement of "commercial success".

If you are saying that in your opinion, innovation per se is not enough without the commercial success of the innovation...that's a different story. It is your opinion, however, not the word's definition.

:D
Not really. I will quote wikipedia today as my dictionary:
Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Invention is the idea, the product, whereas innovation requires a result.

Shrink
Mar 20, 2013, 02:44 PM
If you are talking about the denotative meaning of the word, I was unable to find, in any definition, the requirement of "commercial success".

If you are saying that in your opinion, innovation per se is not enough without the commercial success of the innovation...that's a different story. It is your opinion, however, not the word's definition.

:D

Not really. I will quote wikipedia today as my dictionary:

Invention is the idea, the product, whereas innovation requires a result.

Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

Sorry, I still don't see where innovation, in it's denotative definition, says anything about "commercial success", as was the heart of my original reply post on this subject.

The Wikipedia quote suggests that innovation refers to the use of a novel idea, invention, etc., while "invention" refers to the the creation of a novel idea, method etc.

I never questioned, once again refering to my original reply, that there was not a difference in the denotative definitions of the two words. What I challenged then, and challenge now, is that the denotative definition of "innovation" requires "commercial success" to be inherent in it'e definition. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia quote above that challenges that assertion.

MrNomNoms
Mar 25, 2013, 07:16 PM
To be fair nobody wanted TO PAY FOR innovation. They wanted CHEAPER, and Microsoft underbid everybody.

Add:TO PAY FOR

And to also be fair, under Steve Jobs it wasn't just 'innovation' but huge amounts of restructuring that took place such as slimming down product lines, outsourcing production into China etc. The return to profitability had as much to do with innovation (aka standing out from the pack) as it did with restructuring the organisation so that it was focused and streamlined.

alexgowers
Mar 26, 2013, 05:12 AM
What are you all on about, apple are innovating all the time, new retina macs, ipad mini, iCloud etc. There has only been an industry wide slow down in tech. You can't make something new from tech that is the same as last year, you can only refine as apple have done.

For those that get bored with their iOS device. Apple don't want you, seriously if you are bored of iOS you really need to calm down and go and find something with flashing LEDs all over it. It's an os not an entertainment park or roller coaster.

Scully is a very good innovator and was ahead of his time, Newton was the forerunner to all this tech now. It was very user friendly and only killed by Steve because he felt it was an apple success at the time that he wanted to reinvent.

Yes apple developed great products with him they just didn't see the need to push forward relentlessly. Remember this was the time of windows just exploding and everyone made a computer out of anything in a back room and sold it. Apple could not make grey boxes like everyone did. Steve only saw that with help from Ive.

They made the colourful white and blue iMac and the rest is history.

Apple are still the only company making quality industrial design in tech, I still think it is Ive not jobs who is responsible for success, the same way woz was the creator of the modern computer but jobs claimed all the glory.