> There a many things wrong with what you wrote; the most glaring is: "haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001". Later you go on to say, "unless you count gmail". 1. gmail wasn't released until 2004 2. the whole thing called "ads" wasn't available until 2001. 3. Android copied iOS. Which copied Windows. Which copied MacOS. Which copied GEM. Which copied x/PARC. Someone once said "good artists copy, great artists steal". 4. I guess you keep missing the news about Google's moonshot project (loom, wing, self-driving cars).

Ironically you kind of reinforced his point... Ads was in 2001 - that's his claim of most recent innovation from Google unless you count gmail.

You point out gmail was released in 2004, but he's just said he's not counting gmail.

iOS didn't copy windows at all - it was innovative in that it was by far the best mobile operating system UI. Windows didn't have a mobile operating system at the time

Google's research projects aren't products yet - what happens if they cancel them because they're infeasible in 10 years time?

You could have mentioned chrome/android/chromebook/nexus

  Windows didn't have a mobile operating system at the time

I can only assume you're referring to Windows Phone, which was released after iOS. But you've omitted Windows Mobile, which was released in 2000.

Counting Google's unreleased moonshot products as innovation seems like counting one's chickens before they hatch. It is easy to innovate in the abstract, much harder to fully realize a vision in the form of a product.

Innovation is innovation. Just because an innovation isn't a success in the market place doesn't mean it was not innovative.

Correction:

> Just because an innovation is only a research project*

To which I will have to vehemently disagree with you. Otherwise we'll have to start celebrating science fiction authors for their "innovation."

Science fiction authors don't build things. The driverless cars are real, and they work. The Loon balloons are delivering Internet access to remote regions right now.

For some definition of "work." They are mostly fiction. Unless a "driverless car" is supposed to only really be driverless on the freeway.

The point is that actually shipping a successful product to consumers is the true mark of innovation. Anything else is research.

Providing your own definition of words is a poor way to argue.

This argument is about the definition of the word "innovation." Definitions of words are important, and worth arguing over.

"unreleased products" are definitionally neither successes nor failures in the marketplace.

I don't think iOS copied windows. It doesn't support sizeable overlapping windows. Sure, it displays text and images, but then that isn't really copying Windows is it?

Also, I don't think that the parent commenter said how visionary the products were. He/she merely highlighted the common responses to Apple's releases.

And before you label me a "shill" (is this Slashdot...?!??!!!!?!??!), I am a happy Windows/Mac/Android developer, and I don't have an iPhone.

So what part of our culture don't we buy?