Originally posted by Cuathon

In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.

2 is equal to 2. Well duh?

Originally posted by Magnum2103

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.

Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc. 

Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."

Originally posted by Magnum2103

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

Ding, ding , ding, ding, ding...we got a winner!

Innovation

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Cuathon

In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

 

Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

 

But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

You start out defining innovation as more successful and then make a thread called innovation = success.

That doesn't make sense. There is no argument there, its tautological.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.

2 is equal to 2. Well duh?

 

But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion. 

No ones opinion is fact.

In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine. 

So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?

---

Originally posted by Valua

Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different. 

---

in·no·vate? ?[in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Cuathon

In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

Sigh, I dunno what it is w/ these forums. I swear some of these discussions are worse than politics.

Innovation has very real, very specific definitions. There's not really that much wiggle room on that matter. Saying a word means something 'to you', personally, doesn't make your argument any more valid or credible.

I'm also sorry to say, but history has shown time and time again that innovation does NOT = success. It certaintly helps, but this is a way more complicated topic than just a 1 - 1 comparison. 'Success' is an extremely complex topic that many scholars, entreprenuers, and successes have produced mountains of info on, and still don't fully comprehend.

That said, some of your examples (like Apple) were not successful because of their innovation. Hell Apple was struggling for a long time inspite of its many innovations. It wasn't until Steve Jobs took the company by the helm and started getting really aggressive with marketting strategy did the company go anywhere.

Furthermore, how do you explain Call of Duty? That game hasn't been innovative for over a decade. And yet it's one of the most successful video games of all time. There are numerous cases throughout history that prove that people like 'new', but they don't necessarily like 'different'. People need to be convinced to like a new innovation, but they can easily be sold the same old thing. This is especially apparent when you start to take a closer look to the creative disciplines (arts, & science). For every successful innovation there are at least a dozen failed innovations, and many of the successful innovations barely even profited the creator. They were exploited by someone else, who then took that innovation and turned it into a formulaic model for success.

Originally posted by azmundai

 

---

Originally posted by Valua

 

Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different. 

---

 

in·no·vate? ?[in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate

Bigger is better!

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Magnum2103

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

 

I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.

 

Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc. 

 

Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."

Your ignorance is showing again. John Carter was around decades before Avatar. John Carter existed decades before James Cameron was even born. Avatar is the clone if anything. This was my whole point, how can you decide what is a clone when you don't actually know the history of any of the works being discussed?

More on topic, you still haven't addressed the real problem with your argument. If we accept your definition of innovation as being original, which isn't technically true, innovation DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. Based on the definition you used in the very post I quote, only 0.00001% of innovative projects are successful. In fact financially clones are more successful than innovation because most clones make 10-50% of the money that your innovators make and most innovative projects make less than .1% of the profits of those same "innovators".

I think you are unequivocally wrong that your selections represent significant innovation, but it doesn't matter because innovation is not success based on your definition.

Originally posted by Valua

I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.

 

Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc. 

 

Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."

So why is WoW considered innovative compared to EQ, or Avatar innovative compared to an older 3D movie using similar technology like Chicken Little, or the iPad compared to laptops?  In your examples one could agrue the differences between EQ to WoW and WoW to Rift are similar for example.

How is touch screens on mobile devices an innovation of Apple and not a direct rip of something that was done YEARS BEFORE in Asian countries.  How is Harry Potter not ripping monsters out directly from the D&D manual (which ripped from Tolkien, which ripped from Mythology before it) or the fundamental plot isn't really any different from say Star Wars Jedi Academies?

Where does one drawn the line in defining innovation?

More importantly back on topic, how does this equate to innovations = success when there are plenty of products that are innovative (more so than any example you've given) that have failed miserably and plenty of products that "don't really stand on their own legs" that have had great success?

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Cuathon

Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.

2 is equal to 2. Well duh?

 

But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion. 

 

No ones opinion is fact.

 

In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine. 

 

So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?

you definately need to remove financially successful from the equation, because as was earlier pointed out, accessible the majority factor in profitability.

For example; A $500 ACER notebook is very accessable, and they sell a crapload of them. Are they better? no Are they innovative? no. 

Another example: You can go to McDonalds and get a cheeseburger for a $1, and they sell a ton of them, making a substantial profit. Is it innovative or accessible?  You can go to a family restaraunt and have some extremely wonderful meals but they aren't multimillionaires. So does McDonalds get kudos for being innovative by making a burger?

So yeah, I would attempt to find a better reason for the innovation argument than profit.

The people you sited as innovated are indeed clones of something else, not really innovative at all. Apple got all it's ideas from Xerox palo=alto laboratories. Camaron's 'Noble Savage' theme is ripped right out of 18^th century sentimentalism, and my parents were going to 3D movies back in the 50s... so... nothing new there. Harry Potter, can it get more taken from other sources then Harry Potter? What did these people do? Did they create a new genre? Did they bravely break new ground? Explore the Taboo? No, they did not.

What they did do is something profoundly more interesting. They made the most money at something people had been doing all along, and made it very popular. How did they do that.. Take Mr. Heines (of Heines 57), who said, “If you want to become rich, don't do something uncommon, do something common uncommonly well! And this is the success of things like Apple, Avatar, Harry Potter, and WoW. They used the common clay, the portrait of which everyone's mind reflects, and did it in such a way, with such quality, that we couldn't resist.

So when you ask, do people need to innovate (to create something truly new), to take risks... absoultely not! In fact it's the sure way to fail (however, you're groundbreaking efforts might someday become all the rage... after your dead). It's to take something common and do it uncommonly well. Thank you Mr. Heines.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Cuathon

In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

Sigh, I dunno what it is w/ these forums. I swear some of these discussions are worse than politics.

Innovation has very real, very specific definitions. There's not really that much wiggle room on that matter. Saying a word means something 'to you', personally, doesn't make your argument any more valid or credible.

I'm also sorry to say, but history has shown time and time again that innovation does NOT = success. It certaintly helps, but this is a way more complicated topic than just a 1 - 1 comparison. 'Success' is an extremely complex topic that many scholars, entreprenuers, and successes have produced mountains of info on, and still don't fully comprehend.

That said, some of your examples (like Apple) were not successful because of their innovation. Hell Apple was struggling for a long time inspite of its many innovations. It wasn't until Steve Jobs took the company by the helm and started getting really aggressive with marketting strategy did the company go anywhere.

Furthermore, how do you explain Call of Duty? That game hasn't been innovative for over a decade. And yet it's one of the most successful video games of all time. There are numerous cases throughout history that prove that people like 'new', but they don't necessarily like 'different'. People need to be convinced to like a new innovation, but they can easily be sold the same old thing. This is especially apparent when you start to take a closer look to the creative disciplines (arts, & science). For every successful innovation there are at least a dozen failed innovations, and many of the successful innovations barely even profited the creator. They were exploited by someone else, who then took that innovation and turned it into a formulaic model for success.

Marketing can be innovtive! Steve Job did exactly that!

This is what many of my friends and I call great Marketing!

Why the Best Ad on the Internet Represents Real Innovation

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Cuathon

Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.

2 is equal to 2. Well duh?

 

But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion. 

 

No ones opinion is fact.

 

In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine. 

 

So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?

Most people don't really understand that not all opinions are equal. Even if we assert that you cannot have facts about entertainment media that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.

And again that wasn't my point. My point was that you defined INNOVATION AS SUCCESS and then made a thread saying innovation was equal to success. If you already decided that innovation was success without any actuall support for that claim, why did you then make a thread called innovation equals success? Do you understand why your claim is tautological?

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by Magnum2103

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

 

I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.

 

Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc. 

 

Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."

Your ignorance is showing again. John Carter was around decades before Avatar. John Carter existed decades before James Cameron was even born. Avatar is the clone if anything. This was my whole point, how can you decide what is a clone when you don't actually know the history of any of the works being discussed?

 

More on topic, you still haven't addressed the real problem with your argument. If we accept your definition of innovation as being original, which isn't technically true, innovation DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. Based on the definition you used in the very post I quote, only 0.00001% of innovative projects are successful. In fact financially clones are more successful than innovation because most clones make 10-50% of the money that your innovators make and most innovative projects make less than .1% of the profits of those same "innovators".

I think you are unequivocally wrong that your selections represent significant innovation, but it doesn't matter because innovation is not success based on your definition.

I was talking about John Carter the movie, which I know was based on the books you speak of, but the movie would not have been made if it wasn't for Avatar. It had very a similar story, and similar visuals, and similar 3D but didn't do as well.

Avatar might be considered innovative because James Cameron took the John Carter stories and changed them to his own style, enough so that Avatar could stand on its own and be called innovative. 

I realise now I've made a mistake, I wasn't talking about normal success when I mentioned it in my original post, I meant massive success comes from innovation. 

I know clones are probably more financially successful than most innovations, because most innovations are never successful, but the biggest successes in any form of media etc are innovations. Like Harry Potter, Avatar, WoW etc. 

I'll change my original post now though to clearly state that I meant massive successes (400million+ Harry Potter books sold, Avatar making 2.7 billion, WoW retaining 10+ million subscribers etc) not just small successes (Rift being able to stick to the sub payment model with it's small but enough players, or John Carter making 280 million, or Earthsea selling 3million copies.)

Originally posted by Magnum2103

Originally posted by StoneRoses

See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

Innovation is the pretty much the improvement of a product, or method of doing something or process. An invention is creating something brand new and never before seen. Human technology reached this point is mainly the result of innovation by making inventions better. But is OK, a lot of people don't know what innovation means and just like you, confuse it with invention.

Moving on:

Now in gaming innovation does != success unfortunately even in real life. If an innovative product comes out on the wrong time or has shitty marketing it might fail. Which is why companies tend to spend a significant amount of money marketing products. Have you ever said or hear someone said "WoW I did not know this game was even out, i saw it on sale and tried it and its really good." that is what happens when you don't have any marketing or bad marketing.

Other times the market just decides to bend you over and fuck you i.e look at the sege dreamcast, it was very innovative and some of the features were precusor to the current ps3 and 360 features, but unfortunately developers did no make games for it and it failed.

Innovation + solid art & design + polish + solid marketing + availability & solid pricing = success

Originally posted by wizyy

Innovation + solid art & design + polish + solid marketing + availability & solid pricing = success

Now, take out innovation from that equation.

It no longer seems like something I want.