|
Rpruett said: I disagree. Sony innovated motion controls in the PS2 gen (And it was probably done even before that). Innovation is simply doing something in a new way. To that extent, every console this generation has 'innovated'. Sony innovated just as much as Nintendo did with their Sixaxis controller. Nintendo just happened to be far more successful in their venture. To say Nintendo 'innovated' motion controls and Sony didn't is just patently false. No where in the definition of innovation will you find 'success' being a keyword associated with it. |
With this kind of broad definition the word is useless.
Final-Fan was right, you're wrong. You may define innovation whatever you like, but it only make sense when the newly innovated becomes the standard, otherwise in most of the cases it's just overpriced gimmick. Even I could come up with 'innovative' idea based on cutting edge technology that probably will be unreliable, uncomfortable and cost you an arm and a leg.
In fact, according to Christensen's theory, which Nintendo kinda follows, innovation equals implementation, i.e. only business decisions matter. Ralph Baer, an engineer, 'invented' home console, Nolan Bushnell, an entrepreneur, innovated and bring it to the public. According to Christensen it's even natural to expect from the industry leader to come up with the tech first since they have more money to burn on R&D and patents, but at the same time they lack foresight the newcomer have. Every one of big companies have a dozens of blueprints of potentially innovative things, since they permanently invest into R&D, but probably none of those will ever see the light of day, and only few companies will benefit from those innovations, those are innovators. What differs them from the rest? The ability, knowledge and initiative to implement innovation, i.e. being innovative. Price of innovation without implementation is zero. That's why ideas cost nothing, while existing businesses with those ideas implemented may cost a fortune.
