Quoted: Google vs. Apple in innovation

“The greatest innovation in the world right now is coming from Google.”

Walter Isaacson, author of “Steve Jobs,” the biography of the late Apple CEO. Apple, of course, is one of Google’s two biggest competitors. Isaacson said that while Apple’s partnership with China Mobile is a big deal, he thought Google’s announcement this week that it’s buying Nest is an even bigger deal. The $3.2 billion purchase of Nest, which makes high-end, app-controlled thermostats and smoke detectors, reflects “an amazingly strong integrated strategy that Google has to connect all of our devices, all of our lives,” he said. (In case you haven’t heard, that push is called the Internet of Things.)

Some might argue that innovation by acquisition doesn’t count, but Google also has created or is working on: self-driving cars, Google Glass, robots, balloons to bring Internet connections to far-flung places, and more. Meanwhile, people are waiting for Apple to come out with the next big thing. (CEO Tim Cook has hinted at “big things,” and Apple has been known to deliver.) Nick Bilton of the New York Times — who recently wrote that the future of tech seems to belong to Google — also pointed out a key difference between Google and Apple: “If Apple is working in secret on its own robot army and futuristic universe, Google is building for the future in public.”


Photo: A bicyclist rides by a Google self-driving car at Google’s Mountain View headquarters in 2012. (Getty Images)


Tags: , , , ,


Share this Post

  • Speaking of innovation, on the contrary to what many people believe, Google kills
    innovation! Google is doing extremely well in marketing itself. But when you think about what Google has actually innovated, you will be surprised, it innovated so little:

    – Google did not invent search technologies. There were many search companies before Google, and they had great technologies. The only difference was Google found a revenue model with its AdWords. This is certainly not a technology innovation.

    – More controversial is Google’s Android.

    1. It was not invented by Google originally. Google acquired Android through M&A.

    2. iPhone was a revolution because it started something new; but Android was merely an alternative to iOS, and it is a copycat of iOS (and partially Windows OS).

    3. Unlike Apple and Microsoft, Google did not develop its own operating system, it just took Linux and Java.

    4. Google is a company that destroys innovation and intellectual properties. It has no
    regards for patents and copyrights. Its Android OS infringed so many patents and
    copyrights. Yet, Google still enjoys such great reputation!! Just imagine if a Chinese
    company developed Android and made it free – won’t that company be sued all over the world? Won’t that company have a very bad reputation for stealing patented / copyrighted technologies?

    5. Google is an innovation killer also because of its business model. Google is a monopoly in search, which contributed over 90% of its profits. Its business practice has been focused on protecting its monopoly on search. Therefore, it does not need any revenue on software, hardware and services. This is worse than Microsoft’s monopoly on PC operating system. Microsoft only dominated the PC operating system, but other companies can still profit on hardware, software and services. Yet, Google’s business practice will kill all of them.

    6. Google’s patent portfolio is much weaker than companies like IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. It filed fewer patent applications than most other companies. Because of the weakness, Google tries to invalidate other companies patents, so that it can use these patents freely and offer them to Asian companies for free! Those Asian companies then use Google’s weapon to compete with other U.S. companies, and they actually win!

    7. Google’s toy, Google Glass, received so much hype, is actually a DOA (death on
    arrival). It’s been more than 1 and a half years since Google unveiled it, and it’s still
    no where to be found. Anyway, who wants to wear it all day long? If you don’t wear it all day long, then it has no advantages over smartphones.

    If it was Microsoft that announced the same “Microsoft Glass” 1.5 years ago, people will be already laughing out loud today. You see the picture!

    • boricuafrican

      i’m not sure if i even know where to begin Emily…

      – i don’t remember anyone ever saying Google “invented the search engine”. anyone alive in the 1990’s already knows that they didn’t invent it. but if you don’t think Google innovated searching the web with their algorithms, you’re smoking.

      – i’m not sure what you mean by iPhone “started something new” (that can be said for a whole bunch of things), there were plenty of devices that were basically computers in your hand already out. but yes, smartphones, as we know them today (virtual keyboards, fully touchscreen, apps, etc) can thank the iphone.

      – when Google bought Android, it was not the same OS as it is now, Google acquired Android in 2005, smartphones were not out then.

      – not sure what you mean by

      “Google did not develop its own operating system, it just took Linux and Java.”

      are you talking about OSs or programming languages? Apple did not build their own programming language to make iOS, they built it off of Objective C. Google created Android off of Java as we know it (see previous point).

      i would type more but i don’t want to…

      • You clearly don’t understand what innovation means. There were (are) plenty of search algorithms. How much Google’s algorithm is better is unclear. What is clear is that it was NOT revolutionary, it was merely better and only slightly better. Today, Google still has advantage on search; it is not because it has innovative technologies or better algorithms, it was just because of user habit and also because Google has indexed more contents than competitors. That’s not really technology innovation.

        You just pretended to be blind if you don’t understand the meaning of iPhone “started something new”.

        Using a public domain programming language is different from stealing copyrighted APIs of a private company. The fact is Google had no mobile technologies in 2007, it just blatantly stole patented technologies from other U.S. companies, and offer them for free to Asian companies – You can imagine this could be done by some Chinese companies. Google is indeed a traitor.

        • Edmund Charles

          Want to talk about computer ‘algorithms’ – please investigate Wolfram and the Mathematica application. Dr. Wolfram was wise enough to keep his small elite firm small, selective and very secretive.

        • boricuafrican

          i don’t understand what innovation means coming from the person who said Google innovated next to nothing?

          ok Emily.

          “started something new” can be applied to pretty much anything…

          – before Google Street View, how did people visit the world by sitting on their couch?

          – before Google Pigeon Ranking, nobody expected as much out of a web search than they do now…your algorithms need to be on a whole other level now.

          – ever seen a smartphone on someone’s head? Google Glass

          – think your cable provider’s internet connection is fast? Google Fiber will blow it away, cheaper.

          – ever seen self driving cars? Google Chauffeur


          nice try, goodbye Emily.

          • You have only selectively responded to my posts. Innovative or not, Google is an innovation killer. Please read my other post above.

            I didn’t want to discredit all Google’s innovation. But Google is not more innovative than Microsoft, Apple, or IBM. To compare which company is more innovative, you need to check how many patents they have, and how often they are being sued for patent infringements, esp. in their core products / services.

            The fact is Google did not invent such technologies. They just made it popular before others. That is why Microsoft can offer Bing.com with similar features.

            Speaking of Google Glass, it is now clearly a flop, you better not to mention it. It is clearly a joke in its current version. As I mentioned previously, if Microsoft announced it one and a half years ago, by now, people will be laughing out loud, see the difference?

          • boricuafrican

            kindly explain what Apple invented Emily…

            how is google glass a “joke”? please explain…

            “see the difference?” no, what’s funny?

          • You should check why Apple is suing Samsung, and why it has won so many times. You should also check what Google’s Android chief said: when they saw iPhone in 2007, they felt what they did with Android was totally wrong and they had to redesign pretty much the whole thing based on the iPhone design! And Apple invented multi-touch smartphone.

            Nobody will say anything bad about Google if it does not innovate. The evil of Google is it steals technologies, steals designs; the more evil part is it abuses its search monopoly and offers pirated stuff to Asian OEMs that directly compete with U.S. companies. If this is good, then U.S. should pass a new law that requires all technology companies to offer their technologies to the world!

          • boricuafrican

            kindly explain what Apple invented Emily…

          • Jake W.

            All Apple created was a universal UI that was created in 2007. They have changed literally nothing, except maybe the annoyingly brighter colors in iOS 7. Macs are no different, either. Google acquired Android and (I admit it) copied 1 thing: The app sorting. Except they ‘innovated’ it: They added widgets. A Facebook ‘latest/most popular post’ widget. Same with Google+. A digital clock on your homescreen. Apple doesn’t have that.
            All Apple REALLY innovated was that universal UI. I give them credit for that. But Google & its parteners, on the other hand..
            >other person implies that Apple innovates more
            <shows a list of Google innovations
            self driving cars
            google glass
            google plus, 4th largest social networking site
            widgets on android smartphones
            google fiber, cheaper internet
            google earth and maps, which Microsoft's Bing copied
            the greatest search engine of them all
            variety of tablets, but Apple on the other hand only has one kind – iPad, which gets a bit boring
            Nice try.

          • You don’t know how to read. Read my previous posts carefully. Google is an innovation killer, it does not matter if it innovates or not.

            And check your facts before you post. Google copied the map technology from companies like Mapquest; Google Earth was also acquired through acquisition; On the other hand, Microsoft had MSN Virtual Earth back in 2005!

            Google Glass is a joke. It will be a complete failure in the market.

            Google fiber is not an innovation on technology, it is all existing technology.

            Sure, 100s of Android tablets, but none of them have any innovations. On the other hand, iPad started this category and is still better than any Android tablets. Microsoft’s Surface tablets are also very innovative, both on hardware and software – Microsoft does not copy hardware or software design. Can Google and its Android partners claim the same?

          • boricuafrican

            kindly explain what Apple invented Emily…

          • “- ever seen a smartphone on someone’s head? Google Glass”

            Do you know what Google Glass is?

      • Scott Conti

        I’m a google fan but wasn’t Android really a Linux OS? Listen Google and Apple are going in two diffent directions. Google is trying to innovate or like Apple has done make what technology is already available into a more user friendly experience. ie..mp3 players/ipod slate/palm ipad/iphone. The biggest diffence with Google is that they are innovating in other areas of our life other than entertainment. The Google Lens was just presented at CES so no. It hasn’t gone to market yet. Of course once they can make it affordable I am sure they will. Just like Google glass and the self driving car. There are a lot of government hurdles you need to pass before those type of technologies go to public but it’s nice to know that it’s been created, working and coming.

      • So many errors. So little time:

        “- when Google bought Android, it was not the same OS as it is now, Google acquired Android in 2005, smartphones were not out then.”

        Really? Symbian? WinMo? BB? Android was a BB clone until Google saw the iPhone.

        • boricuafrican

          “there were plenty of devices that were basically computers in your hand already out. but yes, smartphones, AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY (virtual keyboards, fully touchscreen, apps, etc) can thank the iphone.”

          but thanks for showing us you can only comprehend under 2 points in a comment.

          • But your entire post, and your response, is in complete contradiction with itself:

            “- i’m not sure what you mean by iPhone “started something new” (that can be said for a whole bunch of things), there were plenty of devices that were basically computers in your hand already out.”

            The iPhone started something new. Or didn’t it? You really seem confused on that point. You want to give “thanks to the iPhone” but you really can’t bring yourself to do it by admitting it was anything really new.

            There is almost NO question the iPhone was an extremely unique design in its combination of software and hardware and without it, Android would still look like a BB clone. Yes, the iPhone started something “new”.

            Thanks for showing us you can’t write a simple post that does not completely contradict itself. And yes, “smartphones” were out long before 2005.

            As I said, so many errors so little time.

          • boricuafrican

            Steven, stop trying to sound smart. your post is borderline retarded.

    • Steve Jobs Soul

      Emily, you nailed it. Google’s copycat-at-all-cost strategy destroys innovation. They take advantage of the enforcement slowness of the US intellectual property law while at the same time hipocriticaly claiming that is “broken”. Google is led by a band of smoke-and-mirror tech con artists. Since they have the monopoly on search they can copy anybody’s technology and sell it with no profit. And lets not talk about privacy issues, when they sell your personal information to third parties.

    • martin lopez

      Well, please delete Google Maps, Chrome and any other Google Based apps on your lousy Iphone Please !!

      • You sounded like I care about them.

        Why don’t you ask Google to do it? Better, they can withdraw all their apps for iOS, and for Windows. Yes, Google can stop supporting search for iOS and Windows, and it can stop Chrome Browser for Windows – the world will still be the same world!

        Seriously, if Apple and Microsoft could ban Google’s apps and services from their platforms…

    • Edmund Charles


      Become too big and attractive and you know what happens? You become a object of envy and interest from people who you should not be courting and who are going to use your status to their own advantage! Read here ‘Big Government’ and this means European and Asian entities. Be careful of how big you become, a giant slayer will be awaiting you!

  • brian cork

    I don’t know… Google is kind of like a girl at a titty bar… She MIGHT be okay for your friends to watch, but you don’t get involved because you would never take her home to meet your Mother. I’m having fun experimenting with Android devices (I really like my MOTO-X), Chromebooks, and all that. But, I know my iMac and the Apple product road-map and eco-system is my baring-point.

  • jcarob

    Hobby shop is the term we used to attach to a company that endeavors to explore many disparate areas without apparent common thread. Now if the company that professes to do no evil would like to open its kimona and show that there is a master plan, then and only then might the accolade “world’s greatest innovator” be justified. Don’t expect that master plan to be divulged any time soon. Until then, Google is just a well-financed hobby shop, thanks to the clueless hypsters of Wall Street.

  • Dvoraak

    A little dose of reality to the comments….. Every great idea Apple had was with Steve Jobs at the helm. In Apple’s history, their darkest time was without him. Now, without him again, I’d suggest waiting for the “next big thing” before ascribing genius to the company without the man’s leadership.

    • Steve Jobs Soul

      Not true. The Knowledge Navigator (search for it, there is a video), the most futuristic vision of Apple ever, and that both the smartphone and the tablets are thriving for, was not a Steve Jobs idea.

      • Dvoraak

        Really? Gonna fall back on something as obscure as that? Point stands better than Apple did without Jobs. If he hadn’t been brought back, Apple might not even still be around now. Not bashing Apple. Their best days may still be ahead. But based on their own history…… they may not.

        • Steve Jobs Soul

          Haven’t seen the video, eh? Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYFEI6uLy0 Professional Apple bashers love to make the point you are making forgetting that Job’s first Mac was a disaster and was fixed after he left. Also, how about Next and the Mac cube of 2000. Those can hardly be called successes. So far, without Jobs, Apple is performing brilliantly.

          • Dvoraak

            Define “brilliantly”…. in the context of current innovation (what the article is about if you remember).
            I would define the iPhone and iPad as brilliant.

          • Edmund Charles

            ‘Brilliantly’ – a bombastic term all too liberally used by devoted, narcissistic people to show devotion and pay homage to a person or institution that cares little in return for the worshipper.

  • martin lopez

    Apple is copying everything Google Android/ htc/Samsumg are doing.
    I remember I had and old Android device that had a microphone on the keyboard and I was bragging and showing a friend the speech to text feature, and he said” I dont have a microphone on my iphone keyboard”. At the same time we had “voice commands”…and a year or 2 later “Siri ” came up. Nowadays Siri is well behind against Google Voice/NOW.
    Fingerprint scanner feature was first Introduced by and Android Based device Motorola Atrix back in 2011. iOS7 has all the same features and looks that Android’s Gingerbread had 3 years ago !!.
    Then,,, Phone size… Apple had to make a “bigger phone” because Androids giants were making big screens and they could not stay behind so The (still small) Iphone 5 came.
    Still… the Iphone lacks “too many to mention” features that Android phones can do that the iphone simply can not. I bet 2014 or sometime in this decade, Apple will launch a 4.7 or 5 inch display phone with at least 1080P high resolution display that currently none of the “Retina Display” iphones have, to catch up with Android.
    IMO Apple should stay on the computer field, the MACs are fantastic computers
    But on tablets and phones Android is superior.

    • Edmund Charles

      If Google was such an innovator they should have used in-house expertise to create a mobile OS from the ground up to produce a truly innovative OS; instead they take LINIX and spin it into a give-away OS; now they have problems differentiating their Motorola OS from all the other Linux based systems. Apple is right is tightly control and integrate its HW/SW or at least it offers an alternative to Android, which if universally adopted will make a system-wide hacking attack all the more catastrophic. Oh- BTW it is Samsung that is the Alpha Copycat, they are rumored to now be developing an upper-end metal case smartphone ala the iPhone. If some people have a ‘love affair’ with Apple, then the converse that others have a ‘love affair’ with Google/samsung is also true. Bottom Line: Don’t fall in love with intimate companies (or sports teams, politicians, etc) that do not give one hoot about you in return.

  • Gary Doan

    There is a big difference between hype and actual products. Google has leveraged open source software to create their empire. Where are the actual products? Motorola was a purchase, DoubleClick (their crown jewel) was a purchase and YouTube was a purchase, etc. There are the vaporware announcements like Glass (no actual product available), self driving cars (no actual product available), glucose monitoring contacts (no actual product available) that get plenty of press for their innovation, but haven’t even been productized and may never be.

    • Steve Jobs Soul

      Exactly, Google is just an advertisement company pretending to be an innovator by selling to the media useless tech vaporware.

      • So what does Apple do that’s innovative?

        • Steve Jobs Soul

          The iPhone, Android and Google Play are just three examples of Apple’s innovation that was blatantly plagiarized by Google. Google is just an advertisement company that copies everything other companies invent and then claim they ate innovating by selling use-less vaporware to the tech media. Simple as that.

          • I’ll give you the real definition of innovation:

            “Making changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.”

            The iPhone wasn’t new, and Android was actually in development years before Google acquired it. I can easily say that there were actually several smartphones out there before the iPhone that still served their purpose well, such as the LG Prada, and the Samsung F700. Strangely, the iPhone actually looked almost identical to these smartphones, and even LG claimed so: “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.” Apple ended up implemeting multi-touch into their iPhone, but that’s because they had to buy a compny, FingerWorks, just to use that technology, also not to mention that multi-touch technology had been around for a long time. Here’s the thing though: They claimed that they “invented” it.

            Also, Apple wasn’t even the first to create an app store. Ubuntu already had an app store called the Ubuntu Software Centre for the OS. What’s weird though, is that you treat the App Store like no one else is ALLOWED to create a similar idea. And once again, that’s an example of Apple showing anti-competition. Have you seen Apple’s patents? They’ve been patenting unnecessary things such as the shape of icons, auto-correct, and even multitasking. If Apple is just protecting their patents, can you explain to me how they are actually patenting ideas that they didn’t even invent, much more sue the companies that made the idea FIRST?

            Honestly, I’ve had enough of these Apple fanboys claiming that Apple invents everything. They didn’t invent the PC, and even Steve Jobs said the famous quote: “Good artists copy, great arists steal” just to justify his action of stealing ideas of the personal computer from Xerox. The same thing goes for the iPhone, where he made a vow to “patent it all” after losing a court battle related to the patent infingement of the iPod. And if Apple is doing true innovation, how come their products, especialy the iPhone, is looking almost exactly the same every year? More yet, they’re already behind on screen resolution, camera quality, and UI features. At the same time, many smartwatches are being released with many features, yet they aren’t even getting any attention. I can already see the iWatch being released and hearing all the hype from those fanboys saying “Apple invented the smartwatch! This is is like Star Trek!!!”

            One last thing, and I am laughing at this, what makes Google NOT innovative? Larry Page and Sergey Brin reinvented the search engine by creating a formula that gives relevant search results called PageRank. Back then, search engines weren’t even that reliable. Now, all of a sudden, a lot of search engines, especially Bing, are copying Google’s search results just to keep up. At the same time, I’ve seen what Google’s been doing for a long time, and I’ll ask you this: Did Apple create a self-driving car? Did they create a solution for free internet for developing countries (Project Loon)? Did Apple work with NASA to create the first quantum computer (D-Wave)? Did Apple create a new idea of collecting glucose levels from diabetic patients?

            And I find it quite amusing. Now that Google owns Nest, an artificial intelligence company named DeepMind, and dozens of robotic companies, I can imagine what Google is going to do with that technology. Google may seem uninnovative, but that’s because they keep almost everything private at Google X. Also, that doesn’t make Apple any better than Google, since Apple just buys companies and puts tiny implements in their phone just for hype.

            Well, I wonder how DIFFERENT the world would be without Apple. Xerox would still be around, Microsoft would still be around, Android would still be around, but the only thing that wouldn’t be around would be the hundreds of useless patents, lawsuits, litigation, and suing over rectangles with curved edges, which is actually slowing down innovation. Yeah, that kind of stuff is definitley innovation compared to what Google does even though Google is working with new ideas and technology. Sure…

          • Steve Jobs Soul

            Total rubbish you just said. Android had a hard keyboard and was copying blackberry before the iPhone showed up. They had to scrap it and start all over using their multitouch copycat. Here is one of the few surviving pics (no wonder) on how Google/Android looked before the iPhone http://twitpic{dot}com/cb5bjn replace [dot] with period. The iPhone was the first multitouch portable device that combined all in one an Internet Communicator (with a full screen browser an industry first), an iPod, and a Cellular Phone. Nothing was even close in the market in those days. Get used to it. Regarding the “self driving Google car”. Don’t make me laugh. It’s just a glorified cruise control. Not even an airplane, a much more easier task to fully automate, is truly self driving. You will always need a pilot or driver, bright start. Imagine the lawsuits if there is an accident because of a glitch. Need driver always. So what is the big deal? A lacy driver that will eventually lose all reflexes and crash when things go wrong? SELF driving car… ROTFLOL!!! All Google’s “innovations” are smoke and mirrors. Totally useless technology that just makes big headlines.

          • You don’t see it, do you? Apple didn’t invent the smartphone. Dozens of smartphones before the iPhone already had all of those features. Apple just treated the iPhone like it was an entirely new invention.

            And you’re bashing Google’s self-driving car? There are Google self-driving cars all over the western part of the US now, and NONE of them have encountered an accident yet. In fact, due to the sensors that are implemented all over the car, autonomous driving could actually LOWER the amount of accidents. I bet that what you call smoke and mirrors for Google will be “invention” for Apple.

    • Edmund Charles

      ‘Open source’ = ‘open exploitation’?

    • Edmund Charles

      Do not over-estimate or under-estimate ‘hype’ – it is that element which sells mundane cereal at enormous profits, same thing with other consumer items. Yet this strategy goes only so far and in the area of technology, true product differentiation is more limited than selling cereal or mouthwash, a real viable product needs to actually exist. It is well that Google is doing more than net advertising, yet many of its products seem oriented to a small, select market. The Google-Glass has some viable use in making videos and pictures for certain type of video ‘how-to’ clips in which holding a camera is not practical, however, large scale usage seems a fad and somewhat dubious; I do not want eye distractions while driving or walking and I hated wearing glasses, I am sure others will feel the same way too.

  • Derrick

    So much Google hate in the comments. Saying they don’t innovate is just delusional at best.

    • Give real arguments, not just label other people Google haters. On the contrary, we have seen too many Google fans, that anything from Google is considered innovation, even the stupid Google Glass.

      More importantly, innovative or not, Google has clearly become a worse monopoly than the old bad Microsoft. To call it an innovation killer is not an overstatement. It has clearly abused its monopoly on search to drive out other software, hardware and cloud service businesses (because it does not need such revenue). It infringed many other U.S. companies patents and blatantly offers them for free to Asian companies that directly compete with U.S. companies. It is not that other U.S. companies cannot innovate, but they need to make money, Google destroyed their markets by offering software and service for free, and Google does not need to make money on hardware.

      • Derrick

        How is Google not an innovator? Google X is THE definition of innovation.

        • LOL. Google X? You might as well call Samsung and Huawei as innovator.

          • Derrick

            And now you just proved my first post. No point in continuing this circle of delusional and hating.

    • Not hate, just facts. For example:

      “Google also has created or is working on: self-driving cars, Google Glass, robots, balloons to bring”

      Are any of those the next big thing? There is a huge difference between talking about research projects and actually giving an actual product people lineup to buy. Google is all about talking about every little pie in the sky project while Apple talks about products ready to ship and purchase.

      Both companies are highly innovative.

      • Derrick

        Innovation =/= next big thing.

        I don’t get your argument when you end with Google is innovative. I’m not trying to go to the extreme on one is innovative and the other isn’t like most of these commentators here – I agree that they’re both innovative companies, most tech companies are.

        But those trying to deny Google is innovative? They’re hate, delusional, or don’t understand the term. Plain and simple.

        • What I am saying is Google is not the only one working on self driving cars. I worked on a sub-system 15 years ago. That product could drive off road (dirt roads) at speeds of 50 MPH. This is not new or innovative. Glasses based HUDs were on display at CES 3 years ago and a couple of them were much less conspicuous than Google Glass. They ALL have battery issues. This is not new or innovative. Balloons for WiFi? Interesting. I had a friend try to sell this idea to cell companies about 17 years ago. Again, not really new or innovative.

          These things buy lots of press but I don’t really see them as innovative. They are distractions. People are fascinated with them because they like Google (In the same way people become fascinated with new iPhones because they like Apple) and Google has resources most companies only dream about.

          Where Google innovates, IMO, is behind the scenes. They innovate in amazing ways on making graphical relationships behind massive amounts of data. They innovate at exciting new ways of parsing that graph and isolating relationships behind in data. They are the only company (outside “The Company”) that really understand big data and how to make use of it. The closest thing I have seen is Facebook’s Graph Search that almost wanted me to use Facebook just to see it in action. But I really don’t like the “social network” scene.

          • Derrick

            For the sake of comparison, what do you consider innovative? What companies?

  • Want to talk about computer ‘algorithms’ – please investigate Wolfram
    and the Mathematica application. Dr. Wolfram was wise enough to keep
    his small elite firm small, selective and very secretive.
    3D Wallpapers

  • James Brown

    The Apple vs Google innovation argument has been around since the dawn of time. In my opinion it will be the company which can adopt a non-internet based media network that will win.

    This article discusses this idea in reference to Apple and their patent applications: