3 ms·
Not to be an egghead/navel gazer about it, but I’ve grown skeptical of “innovation” as an end in itself: was Facebook innovative, or was it just another small i
by zerbinxx 3y ago
Not to be an egghead/navel gazer about it, but I’ve grown skeptical of “innovation” as an end in itself: was Facebook innovative, or was it just another small iterative improvement on an existing form? Same with Google and search. My gut tells me companies should focus on more concrete measures of success rather than the abstract “innovation”.
It’s probably not semantically wrong to say that these two cases really were/are innovative, but even so, was that really the cause of their success? And is it replicable as a methodology? My gut tells me that a lot of what gets labeled as a massive innovation is really just a market inevitability, and someone got to the right idea first, either by luck or having a single clever differentiating idea.
- chatmasta 3y agoYeah, "innovation" has always been a rather nebulous term for iterative improvement, and more particularly, the iterative improvement that people remember in retrospect. Often the same "innovation" appears almost simultaneously from multiple companies (or inventors, or mathematicians... this phenomenon has existed for a long time). But usually only one of them can win, and it seems relatively arbitrary who it is. Certainly once they're perceived as winning, they benefit from a compounding effect. Really, "innovation" is a matter of hard work, timing, and luck. You need to work hard to ship a product or publish a theory. You need to recognize the opportunity and execute on it at the right time. And you probably need some luck to get your initial boosts. But even after all that, you still need to be mature and capable enough to turn your small golden egg into a golden goose. It's still a long slog from initial hit to resting on your laurels.