A word about "innovation"
Reading numerous translation articles about the outcome of the lawsuit between Apple and Samsung, I can’t get rid of the feeling that they are trying to manipulate my mind. Refusing to watch TV in my own time, almost without encountering various print publications, I almost forgot how easy it is to put the most delusional thought into the minds of thousands of people simply by repeating it often enough. And that thought, which will be discussed now, is called “innovation”.
Wikipedia defines this term as follows:
Innovation (English. Innovation) - is an innovation introduced, providing a qualitative increase in the efficiency of processes or products, demanded by the market. Is the end result of human intellectual activity, his imagination, the creative process, discoveries, inventions and rationalization
')
Appearing on the iPhone market is innovation. It was a qualitative innovation, not a gradual increase in hardware capacity, not extensive development, but a qualitative transformation of a regular phone. Poking into a resistive screen with a stylus, tormenting themselves with “intuitive” handwriting input systems, trying to see something on the sluggish screens, users wanted a miracle and it happened. This miracle was not created in the depths of Nokia, Samsung, Google, HTC, it was "the result of human intellectual activity, his imagination, creative process, discoveries, inventions and rationalization" within a company that had never produced telephones before. Did the future competitors realize this? Not right away. Moreover, immediately after the appearance of the iPhone, it was called a “toy” and was not taken seriously.
The time has passed. A new company, suddenly grabbed a piece of the market, and the fattest and most delicious. And here the rest had to start moving. Android completely rewritten . From a blackberry-like OS, it’s something like Apple. The phone manufacturers copied the look and, most importantly, the user experience from iOS (touchwiz). Was it an innovation? Not. The market went along the beaten Apple road, in a rarefied flow, without investing in research, in RnD, exploiting the successful concept found.
The time has passed. Nothing changed. More megahertz, more memory, more screen. There is no qualitative leap, there is no transformation of the market. Why does Samsung call itself an innovative company? What is innovation?
I hate to read that copying boosts competition. Apple doesn’t have to spur, the iPod lineup is actually lonely on the market, it doesn’t compete with anyone, and yet we have seen dramatic changes in the iPod shuffle and iPod nano in the past few years. The tablet market actually did not exist before the iPad, no one took it seriously. Copying, in fact, is a pack of wolves that pounds the game. When the game is eaten - the wolves will go to bed, a period of stagnation will come on the market. No innovation, as usual.
And when there is no innovation, it remains only to manipulate the mind. Murtazin erases his fingers with blood, riveting reviews separately for playing music in the Galaxy III, separately for accessories for him, a battery from him, two reviews of the carcass as a whole, a camera review, a comparison with competitors (in which the Galaxy always wins), etc. etc. Even at Habré there are reviews of Samsung technology in the spirit of “I accidentally got into the hands of the device before the start of sales and now I go with it for a week ... this innovative device."
I do not want to agitate anyone for one of the parties to the conflict, I urge you to think with your head. On this and finish, perhaps.
Wikipedia defines this term as follows:
Innovation (English. Innovation) - is an innovation introduced, providing a qualitative increase in the efficiency of processes or products, demanded by the market. Is the end result of human intellectual activity, his imagination, the creative process, discoveries, inventions and rationalization
')
Appearing on the iPhone market is innovation. It was a qualitative innovation, not a gradual increase in hardware capacity, not extensive development, but a qualitative transformation of a regular phone. Poking into a resistive screen with a stylus, tormenting themselves with “intuitive” handwriting input systems, trying to see something on the sluggish screens, users wanted a miracle and it happened. This miracle was not created in the depths of Nokia, Samsung, Google, HTC, it was "the result of human intellectual activity, his imagination, creative process, discoveries, inventions and rationalization" within a company that had never produced telephones before. Did the future competitors realize this? Not right away. Moreover, immediately after the appearance of the iPhone, it was called a “toy” and was not taken seriously.
The time has passed. A new company, suddenly grabbed a piece of the market, and the fattest and most delicious. And here the rest had to start moving. Android completely rewritten . From a blackberry-like OS, it’s something like Apple. The phone manufacturers copied the look and, most importantly, the user experience from iOS (touchwiz). Was it an innovation? Not. The market went along the beaten Apple road, in a rarefied flow, without investing in research, in RnD, exploiting the successful concept found.
A little distraction. If you are fond of sports, you probably know about a few comedic practices in track cycling, or rather in such discipline as the sprint. Riders ride three laps, but only the last 200 meters are clocked. In this case, the result obtained does not determine the winner; he is the one who first crosses the finish line. In this situation, it is most advantageous to start the finish sprint (last 200 meters) coming from behind the opponent's back. Firstly, he doesn’t see you there, secondly it’s easier to follow him - less energy is spent on overcoming air resistance. As a result, the first two laps racers tend to take the position of a catch-up. It looks pretty ridiculous:
Catch an analogy? The first two circles are RnD. Samsung I sit behind me, puts a minimum of effort to then get out of the back of a competitor and hit the jackpot. Right? Not really. Is that the market? Suppose, but then why not say “this is patent law” or “the law is harsh, but is it the law” and calm down?
The time has passed. Nothing changed. More megahertz, more memory, more screen. There is no qualitative leap, there is no transformation of the market. Why does Samsung call itself an innovative company? What is innovation?
I hate to read that copying boosts competition. Apple doesn’t have to spur, the iPod lineup is actually lonely on the market, it doesn’t compete with anyone, and yet we have seen dramatic changes in the iPod shuffle and iPod nano in the past few years. The tablet market actually did not exist before the iPad, no one took it seriously. Copying, in fact, is a pack of wolves that pounds the game. When the game is eaten - the wolves will go to bed, a period of stagnation will come on the market. No innovation, as usual.
And when there is no innovation, it remains only to manipulate the mind. Murtazin erases his fingers with blood, riveting reviews separately for playing music in the Galaxy III, separately for accessories for him, a battery from him, two reviews of the carcass as a whole, a camera review, a comparison with competitors (in which the Galaxy always wins), etc. etc. Even at Habré there are reviews of Samsung technology in the spirit of “I accidentally got into the hands of the device before the start of sales and now I go with it for a week ... this innovative device."
I do not want to agitate anyone for one of the parties to the conflict, I urge you to think with your head. On this and finish, perhaps.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/150309/
All Articles