Agreed, Apple is a Chief of Innovation. They are hands down the leaders in this category. They develop their ideas by consistently being on the cutting edge of technology. They see validity in a certain technological advancement and it seems that new ideas for its use form naturally.

From the readings; it seems that there is no doubt that Apple adapts the integration method of innovation. This strict, controlled system has provided Apple with the ability to create such an aesthetically sound and recognized brand. Beyond that, their attention to detail in terms of the function and design of their products seem to have the user as their main focus.
One can see that by solely adopting the integrator model and their unwillingness to change, Apple has suffered financially over the years. Because “Apple does first what later becomes the norm”, it leaves the opportunity for competitors to capitalize on the (new) markets that they have created. Other companies (have the financial means to) offer similar technologies at a fraction of the price and for this reason, Apple remains at the top of the innovation chain but stand much lower on the profit side of things. So in terms of the balance between, Design and Emergence it seems that Apple has an extreme bias towards design.
However it is important to note that what “saved” Apple; was the introduction of so called business model innovation. This was something new for Apple, (the iTunes Music Store) and it worked. What’s interesting is that Jobs understood that they would not profit through the sales of music but instead the sale of iPods.

It is clear that Google adopts a different viewpoint on innovation. And who wouldn’t when you literally start from scratch. So what makes Google stand out in the context of business? Simply put, they are different. I say this because; being that it is a “founder” based company; the values of the company (like Apple) are based on innovation alone. The focus lies on long term benefits not on short term profits.
What also sets them apart from most big companies is the atmosphere in their offices; it seems playful and creative with innovation taking precedent over all.
Like Apple, Google’s main focus is the end-user. Where they differ (other than the fact that one is mostly product based and the latter service-based) is that Google bases their decisions through what I would say a trial and error methodology. Some ideas are successful and others fail, it all depends on context.
The major difference between the two companies is that Apple creates new markets and Google dives into existing (market) contexts and determines what does and doesn’t work. A ton of research goes into the use of its service. What happens is that new services created are based (indirectly) on user input. I feel that the reason that Google has been and will continue to be successful is because they provide a service that is exactly what people desire. The End (P.S. what is an IPO?)