Discussion in 'Macintosh' started by muzikool, Aug 3, 2005.
Not surprised about Apple, but I am a bit surprised that Google isn't higher.
hmm. Not sure about Apple, but not disputing it's rank. Just not sure about the 'outstanding design' part... I mean, it's all down to its marketing that got the ipods to become the top selling item in the music player market. Put it this way, who'd buy an mp3 player that doesn't have a screen?? Answer: People who has heard about Ipods so they buy the Shuffle.
The only reason I would buy a Shuffle is to go jogging with it... a time when I wouldn't be looking at the screen of any MP3 player. It's much more than just the iPods, though. The design is a huge part of everything Apple does. Have you ever purchased any type of Apple product? I ask because the packaging itself is outstanding. I remember getting my iPod mini, unboxing it and finding that the iPod was surrounded with clear plastic film, but none of the sticky substance was in direct contact with the iPod itself. I loved that because so often you're getting out the "Goo Gone" to remove crappy stickers from your shiny new product. Sounds cheesy, I know, but it really is an experience in itself to open the packaging of Apple products... and that's on account of good design.
I bought a Shuffle because my 40GB 3G iPod was too heavy (note: it's not heavy, but you can feel it's presence in your pocket) for the 30 minute trip to work and back, also 40GB of music is overkill for that journey. The shuffle suits my needs perfectly, even with my 40GB, I simply hit play and shove it in my pocket, there's really no need for a screen for most people, I can't see why there is such a big hang-up about it, other than people like to pick on Apple for no reason.
I agree with Muzikool too, the packaging to all Apple products is superb. Design applies to every single part of an Apple product.
i agree with 90% of that list.
Hahaha... care to elaborate on that?
Samsung Shouldn't they be in liquidation by now or something...
As for Apple I do somewhat agree, but Google being 8th just doesnt seem right in some way.
Becareful, you may have Samsung chips inside your machine.
They make all sorts of stuff, from crappy microwaves to plasma screens... not to mention the PC memory which are sold by well known companies.
Yeah, im just thinking about the POS televisions, vcr's, dvd-players and hifi's etc that i have owned and then thrown out after they break a day after warranty
ge and dell shouldn't be on there. they aren't innovative lol :lick:
I was a bit surprised about Dell myself.
That really depends on your definition of innovation. It's a very broad term that means different things to different people. Innovation is not simply about making flashy things.
If you look at the "Why" column, you'll notice why Dell is in there - they really do have one of the best business models in existence, and that's innovation from one point of view too. There's a reason why they are at the top in terms of marketshare/shipments as well as overall growth from year to year. This chart is a little old (I picked it up from one of my blog posts), but I don't imagine the numbers have changed much since then.
I didn't know M$ was innovative these days. Is that due to the new spyware scanner? I don't think I've come across much from them that is useful. Yay for trying to make products better and stretching to new markets... but what they're doing there doesn't seem to beat Google... and Dell definitely isn't doing more in any direction than Google. There may be some bias in this news. What? Bias in news? You must be kidding us.
The results are based on a poll conducted on a pool of 940 senior executives, so I imagine many of them are well aware of Microsoft's contributions to the enterprise space as well. Have you ever seen the capabilities of their corporate and enterprise technologies and software...things like Active Directory, Exchange Server, OWA, Live Communications Server, Office Communicator, Sharepoint Portal etc?
Second to none.
Apple's number is likely inflated because of their success with music players. I love their design policies but there are some other things they are not so innovative about, i.e. the mouse (interesting init they come out with a non-single button device )
I am surprised IBM is so high on the list after their recent predicament in losing Apple as a customer, failing to provide adequate product quality to Nvidia and divesting of their notebook lineup.
And speaking of OWA, here's an interesting eye-opener for you guys on AJAX from Wikipedia:
In essense, the very thing that differentiates Google's web apps from the rest was first written by the Exchange team. So much for Google being "more innovative" than Microsoft...
Im sorry but I think you have to be pretty damn innovative to do that, I think that there makes google far more innovative than microsoft will ever be...
Then again, you did say the word innovative is really user dependant
Could you elaborate on that a little bit? What exactly does the phrase "strong connection with customers" mean to you?
Exactly. There is no denying that Google is an extremely innovative company. I think they all are in different ways.
Dell's business model is definitely the consideration for its being viewed as innovative.
of course, this was printed before Apple released the mouse. :laugh:
they've fallen since then, just for that