What if the new method in which it's done in itself is innovative? Theres other things to consider here.
That exact method has never been before done in any way shape or form.
That depends on how they word it. If they say it's "an innovative feature," they're wrong if it has been done before. If they say "an innovative new way of doing X," they could be right. No one knows unless they've seen source to prove otherwise.
It may be an innovative feature within a certain technology which has never been done before. There are plenty of ways to word it of course from all my MS browsing I havnt seen them use "innovation" on anything questionable in Vista. Whereas Apple hypes the spotlight which they stole from MS like there is no tomorrow.
Of course I think you'd be hard pressed to find where windows calls anything they havnt specifically invented innovative.
If it has been invented before its implementation, it is not innovative. That is a direct contradiction to innovation.
Well meaning that anything they've built a new innovative feature upon. For example let's take this.
OSA: Invents a Window
OSB: Invents a moveable Window
OSC: Invents a moveable Window with Double Buffering
OSA has innovation
OSB has innovation for building a new feature within OSA's innovation
OSC has innovation for building a new feature within OSB's innovation
They call them "new" features which is true since they are new to the OS.
There simply is no way around this.
Sure, it's great to call them "new" features, but they are not innovative. Innovation implies that the item in reference is new to everyone in the world.
When you have almost 100% market share, it is practically everyone. But that aside I havn't personally seen them advertise anything they didn't
wholly write themselves as innovative. Maybe as new to the OS yes.
I also think I've stated they could care less for competition and what they innovate is on them. When you own 90+% of the market I don't think you take anyone else into consideration. Of course that's just my thinking, they may for some strange reason think otherwise.
If they don't take anything else into consideration, why did Balmer throw a chair accross the room when he was told their CSO was quitting to take a job at Google? Why have they invested vast amounts of money in Apple?
Because Google is not in the OS department and Google IS a threat. They are the dominant search engine force right now.
Windows invested money in apple to see what everyone is yelling about. They mostly see how it performs under heavy situations and
with clustering of many PCs together. I'd think it would be to test their Sync features in Vista. Sort of to see where the other OS fails and what
they can improve upon.
What i meant by not caring for competition. Mac can boast how it thinks it's better than Windows all it wants, in the end MS will just sit back in their HQ and laugh at what a dumbass Jobs is.