INNOVATION: GOOD OR BAD?

The introduction is not on topic as it is about making money from innovation and not concerned with innovation itself.

Innovation is always good in the in eyes of its inventor and in most cases is good for those in the invironment of that inventor.

The problem is that the better mouse trap is not good for the mice nor the other manufacturers of mouse traps.

If a manufacturing process makes 90% of employees redundant, it is good for the owner, the consumer and maybe reduces the energy requirement, but it is only good for the employees if they can enjoy their new found spare time more than they enjoy working.

I wonder how much innovation these days is for innovation's sake.

The only radically new part of Microsoft's latest offerings is the ability to disect a Word document, and replace parts - images or tables - without opening the document. Is this really needed, especially when the problems of size/shape/position which are normal when the document is open. The term "bloatware" has been applied to this as too many features are included which only a few may ever use.

"Innovation" also seems to head in the same direction - how many car manufacturers boast of innovations, but all are looking at increasing power and passive safety. Is there no other way to approach this?

""Innovation" also seems to head in the same direction - how many car manufacturers boast of innovations, but all are looking at increasing power and passive safety. Is there no other way to approach this?"

Auto manufacturers boast of innovative technologies every time they launch new variant or model with unnecessary short forms for technical names be it engine , transmission ,suspension , safety and comfort which only they have but altogether it is same

I've noticed your recent posts to this series of threads, Vikas, and have though it is interesting how these old threads come alive again. This series is of intense interest to me, but I've not posted much in this series for that reason -- the issues are so complex. (I feels like any response should be book length.)

At times, I'll be in the grocery store looking for a can of shaving cream, basically looking for whatever is cheap -- I've shaved plenty of times with just lathered-up ordinary soap when I've run out of shaving cream. So having a zillion brands, for me, is just unnecessary noise. I'd rather see three choices: expensive, medium, cheap. I'd grab the cheap one and be on my way.

In the Auto industry there is so little real innovation. I think back to my first Honda Accord. At the time, Detroit's cars drove poorly, and the Detroit manufacturers complained that it was impossible to meet the new emission standards while maintaining drivability. Honda proved them wrong, and came out with the very drivable Accord, which quickly went on the become a car that routinely sold for greater than "retail" price, while most cars sold for substantially less than "retail." Arguably, the Honda Accord was the first economy car that didn't shout "cheap." My first Accord had 76 hp, and that was plenty. My current one has over twice the hp, and gets poorer fuel mileage. It's a great car, with more features than the original, but relatively bloated. The brand new Accord is more bloated yet, qualifying as "full sized" in the EPA system. Honda has quite possibly lost me as an Accord customer -- although I may buy a Civic next time. The first Accord was innovative, the current one is the result of the same "longer, lower, wider" practice that Detroit followed for many years (and is once again following).

The Insight was innovative, at least in the sense that it was significantly different than the offerings of other manufacturers. The Accord came out in 1976 (I think) the Insight in 1999, and in the 23 years in between, there was nothing that could be called fundamentally innovative, just loads of highly competent evolutionary engineering.

But both Honda and Toyota have been wildly successful, so I suppose one can argue that they are as innovative as necessary. But why not push the envelope a little? Why not, instead of creating concept cars that are often silly, create one really new model (like an Insight) every three years, and use the standard evolutionary models for stability and constant cash flow. The Tesla shows what can be done by a tiny company. Why can't a company with huge resources do something equivalent?

Why can't a company with huge resources do something equivalent?

Maybe that question almost answers itself. A company with huge resources is a huge company. Huge companies really don't work for innovation. It's a bit like trying to fly aerobatics with a 747.

INNOVATION - another word rendered meaningless by the marketing monkeys