Not to rain on anybody's love fest parade for apple and google but don't you think that apple is doing something with the ipod and itunes that is reminiscent of what companies like rogers and telus do with our cell phones...they lock your cell phone so you can only use it with their network..the same way apple locks their music so you can only listen to it with itunes and an ipod....i think that once you buy something it should be yours to do with what you please.... as for google... love its format and a bit freaked out by what it can learn from me and my random searches but whats more troubling would be if they were ever forced to use their technology for more than profit...makes you wonder how great thing in innovation always turn around to haunt us....

the correct answer is c.

Googles' self-proclaimed mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Take some time to really think about this... It's the formula all great conspiracies/coups are made of. It's also the perfect narrative for distopic science fiction. We’ve all heard that big brother would be watching... Whether we’re speaking of conspiracies or coups, Apple just can't compete with Google when it comes to taking over the world. Google in my assessment, is the more disruptive and revolutionary "technology". It think this also qualifies it as the more innovative company.

-Stephanie Sirant

Just like we talked about in class, google invent something that they think what user will like or use. and when they finally put infront of users, they will get the result that if it was a success or not. So it's us users to decide if we like it or not. however, Apply come up with something and tell users that they will like Apple's product. so whenever they come up with new product or new design users are kind of 'brainwashed' to 'love' the product. So they don't get to choose either it is successful or not it is already decided for them.

Apple's innovation factor is heavily dependent on factors that aren't immediately present in Google's map. Whereas Google maintains an innovative profile by encouraging pet projects amongst their employees, Apple employ individuals to evolve current hardware or software formats (with exception to the new iMovie, which was in itself a pet project by one of their premier developers) while keeping with aesthetics generated by their designers. What we've seen with Google is their passion for good ideas and bad ideas alike, and while the good ideas always have a place in Google's bubble, the bad ideas are always given second opportunities to become good products because their only sacrifice is time. It is quite a different story for Apple, who've become renown for their hardware offerings and thus we've come to expect the very best computer equipment money can buy. Physical equipment can't be virtualized, and prototyping extends the hands going into Apple's development and research money pool unlike Google's freewheeling convictions.

Both Apple and Google are the forefront leaders of innovative thinking at its best. Yet there are significant differences in the structure of innovation behind the two companies. Apple is all about the integrater approach which means that the company sees to everything - from the design of the operating systems to the product housing of a particular product. This has its pros and cons as the risk is maximized with each project that Apple undertakes. But the benefit is that, in the eyes of consumers, Apple is all about innovation and quality. As a result we see the polarization of Apple and its competitive products; it's line of gadgets and pc's are often considered to be more prestigeous than the rest. The company certainly does have its downfalls of continued focus on innovation. It is often the case that the innovators lead the trend into unexplored market niches, but competitors learn from mistakes of the past and take up a fare chunk of shares - as it is with the Apple and Microsoft PCs.

Google, on the other hand, believes more in the collective approach and leaves the decision making up to the end-users. This way minimizes the risks associated with each project, and the best initiatives are selected and honed out in the end. To me, the collective intellectual property that constitutes the basis of Google is key to its innovation. As opposed to Apple that prefers to keep its programs and systems in privacy, Google allows the collective whole to fix and improve its many initiatives. Furthermore, it lets the employees devote 20% of his/her time to the pet project. The end result is effective as employees also become shareholders of their own ideas. In the end, it is the innovative passion that drives the company.

Both companies succeed on effectively formulating the magic that constitutes a compelling user experience. The 'wow' factor is what keeps its customers wanting more.

It is true that Apple is innovative by revamping previous ideas. They have been successful doing so by not only improving already existing products but by selling a desirable lifestyle. They are traditionally innovative in that their mandate is produce a small amount of products and market them accordingly. I have read somewhere in an interview with Steve Jobs that they say NO to 1,000 ideas to get that one great idea. This is in contrast to Google who believes that if you are "not failing enough, it means you are not trying hard enough".

Both companies are innovative in their own manner. Whereas Apple is focused on innovative ideas, it is Google who believes in an innovative business model. Google's business model allows them to be more creative in their ideas process. Like we discussed in last weeks class, Google plays with the "there is no bad idea" concept. They believe in exploring every idea, because you never know the outcome.

If we measure success by innovation and creativity, it is Google who is victorious, in my opinion. This allows ideas to develop organically which is ideal for a creative environment.
Michelle P.

Apple and Google are two companies that are regarded as highly innovative. Though their approaches at generating innovation have been and are still questioned by many who believe that in order to be successful, economic gain is a true measure. It is not to say that Apple and Google have not gained financially, but maybe if their approaches to running their businesses were different then they would be even more successful in terms of profit gain.

The Apple approach has always been slow, steady and geared towards an elite market.
Steve Job’s decision to keep as much as possible in-house is so to provide quality and build a reputation that sets them apart from their competitors. As long as Apple aims to target a market aside from the consumer masses, then their profits will never be as high as their counterparts. The Ipod and Itunes Store are two examples of which Apple has approached the masses and been extremely profitable.

Google compared to Apple is extremely profitable. Whether or not they could be more profitable with more experienced and seasoned leaders is left to individual discretion. The “strategic mistake” in announcing Gmail and running test trials before its actual launch, in my opinion, was smart. By being exclusive in their testing of Gmail, it created a viral effect among the masses of email users. People were left with the desire of hopefully being chosen among an elite few to test Google’s new email service.

No doubt, Apple and Google companies successfully established the high reputation in world by their different ways. Also I think "Apple" and "Google" became the authoritative names in their fields nowadays.
First, in my opinion, Apple became an fashion icon in our daily life- their products have the obvious strong style and I believe nobody would deny its excellent design. In every Apple's products we can find out the perfection of aesthetic appear combine with the innovated concept, and this is Apple consistent way to creates products. Thus, here I totally agree with Selina's opinion above-"Apple builds upon what they created and extends it".Although there's some negative views about their products(e.g. the ipod not worth that long price because its quality), I think Apple still representative successful company in industrial design field.
Furthermore, Google also is a successful company for their unique treatment to their employees. As a design school student, I understand that having a great atmospere is important for working. Hence, Google is a good example to offers a free and comfortable office area to the employees. Therefore, I believe this is one of the reason that brings the company's successed and it's worth others company to learn from it.
Theresa, Shuyu Lu 2231546

Both Apple and Google have taped into what their customers want and filled that need. Not only did they fill the need, they created the need, the "desire" which wasn't necessarily in the mainstream at the time.

For Apple, their ideas are consistently being developed and improved upon; seeking perfection in their field. In many ways, they have perfected the "aesthetics" quality of their products and marketing which gives them great success. Apple builds upon what they already have and extends that.

Google on the other hand seem to be more of the company that always has new ideas being developed and whether they are successful or not, it's still offered and tested. Especially with how their employees are treated and encouraged to seek out their own "pet projects" it's not surprising that innovative and creative imagination comes through.

-Selina Ann Wong 2183994