When evidence crops up that runs counter to your assertions, what do you do? Reevaluate your position and think maybe, just maybe, you were coming at it out of emotion rather than based on the evidence?
Haha. You are so adorably naïve.
No! Of course the thing to do is to double down!
Computerworld's Preston Gralla, you may recall, wrote a piece after this year's WWDC in which he said one of the indicators that Microsoft had all the innovation was this:
In the last few months Microsoft has committed to Android, allowing Nokia to manufacture and sell Android phones targeted at the developing world.
You know, the commitment that Satya Nadella killed last week.
"Apple-IBM deal fallout: The future of innovation is now with Microsoft" (tip o' the antlers to Daniel Cohen).
The deal will give Apple entrée into the enterprise in ways it's never had before for iOS devices. That sounds like a good thing. But it may not prove as fruitful as it sounds.
What could possibly be the evidence for that?
Management consultant Peter Cohan, writes in Forbes that ...
[a veritable cacophony of slide whistles and seltzer bottles]
The Macalope will refer you, Preston, to Cohan's collected works. Thank you for calling. Suffice it to say, however, that if you're counting on the mental flea circus that is the Forbes contributor network for proof then you really should be spending more time evaluating your belief system.
The move very clearly signals, though, that without Steve Jobs, Apple can't innovate.
Because Steve Jobs never blah, blah, blah. Hey, anyone remember the HP iPod? No? Well, it must not have happened, then.
Has Apple done anything truly innovative since he's been gone? No.
Has Microsoft done anything truly innovative ever?
Once again, the Mac Pro does not exist. That may sound like hyperbole, but if you go to Apple's website, you will find that there is, in fact, no product page for it at all.
LA-LA-LA-LA PRESTON GRALLA CANNOT HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
When it's tried to get into a new market, rather than develop something internally, it's tried to buy its way in, evidenced by the company's Beats Music buyout as a way to push its way into the digital music-streaming future.
Now, get your neck braces ready, because it's logical whiplash time!
I've covered Microsoft for a long time, and I can't remember the last time the company was in so much ferment. Steve Ballmer being replaced by Satya Nadella as CEO. Buying Nokia.
Ah. So, buying Beats to get into digital music streaming: not innovative. Buying Nokia to get into mobile: innovative. GOT IT.
Releasing Office for the iPad before the Windows 8 touch-based version is ready. Committing big-time to Android.
You've covered Microsoft for a long time. Did you stop covering it in the last week?
Microsoft's brief experiment with Android has been killed off, and the company is no longer interested in producing handsets unless they run Windows Phone.
Also, is any of this innovation? These are business decisions. Call the Macalope when they ship an actual product that's innovative enough that people really want it. (Rhetorical, please never actually call the Macalope.)
Even the bomb that was Windows 8 showed that the company was at least trying something new. ... Unfortunately, it lost the bet, and designed what is probably the worst operating system in the company's history.
Whoopsies! Well, you can't innovate an omelette without breaking a few eggs all over your face.
So, apparently, according to Gralla, innovation is just trying a bunch of random crap, even if it doesn't work out. Well, based on that definition, maybe he's right about Microsoft.