Can you please quantify the "most consistently innovative large-cap around" comment? What Google did lately which was innovative?
I'm not trying to be anti-Google, I'm just honestly asking.
For example, can you compare innovations Google put forward in last couple of years and compare it with, lets say, MSFT?
Self driving cars. Glass. Google Now. Maps. Plus all the internal innovation such as new database technologies, custom routers, computer science research, and other technology.
Vaporware (Self driving cars. Glass.) is not what I'm considering innovative because these things are not in production. And IBM and MSFT are very very good at vaporware.
Maps are not innovative (they might be the best for some people but, on my iPhone, Nokia maps are actually better).
There are few places that compare to Google.
I'm not disputing that. Google is definitely a great company. But the claim was "the most consistently innovative large-cap around".
1) The self-driving cars are hardly vaporware - not only do they actually work, but Ford and other companies have large investments in the space too. Moreover, Nevada and California have already legalized robot cars.
2) Maps may no longer be the most innovative product in the space, but Google defined the tiled, online map, and they forced Apple to provide free turn-by-turn by doing so on Android.
Moreover, Google has made two press announcements (we made our own maps via StreetView, and then we made it free on Android) that destroyed the market cap of the major nav companies to the tune of double digit market cap percentage losses, which amounted to billions of dollars, in a day... twice.
3) As for Google Glass, I don't expect much from this project actually, but vaporware is not the right term for something that is already being worn and used.
1) & 3) Plenty of vaporware actually works and is invested in. Vaporware is defined loosely as stuff-we-talk-about-a-lot-but-you-can't-buy-today TM. When they release it, like Daikatana and Chinese Democracy, it ceases to be vaporware anymore.
And don't forget that vaporware does not imply non-innovation! Plenty of vaporware is innovative but fails for other reasons.
The iPhone actually uses TomTom maps, not Nokia. That said, no maps but Google maps has street view. Plus, they are moving into mapping shopping malls, parks, stores, and even tourist spots. On top of this, they use image recognition with their street view data to improve accuracy of their maps on several levels.
Don't forget the sheer amount of integrated information such as transit and traffic routes. Google maps has continually set the bar for mapping. They are so successful that people no longer even recognize that all these features were not commonplace prior to Google maps.
Edit: and if you define innovation to things in production, I straight up disagree. Innovation happens prior to production.
A similar feature to Streetview has existed in Bing Maps since 2009 [1]. Google was first, but others are chasing hard.
Plus, they are moving into mapping shopping malls, parks, stores, and even tourist spots
Bing Maps started adding malls and building maps in 2010. They also had birdeye view and 3D "photosynth" views predating Google's implementations [2] by 2 years.
"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released"
Self-driving google cars and google glasses nominally qualify.
I have two glass blocks tied to 6 pre-ordered glass units that say otherwise with regard to glass. Unless, nominally, something that is pre-ordered is vaporware until the minute it hits my hands.
There are also people outside of Google that already have Glass units.
Most of Google's special sauce in their datacenters isn't available to the general public. That doesn't mean its vaporware, nor does it mean it doesn't contribute to its business or consumer satisfaction.
In search alone, Google launches hundreds of improvements per year. Most people would call that innovation. The biggest recent example is the knowledge graph, and there was stuff like instant, but they're constantly doing algorithm changes behind the scenes that are not as visible.
They also do a lot of stuff for advertisers (their real customers) that you probably won't know about if you don't manage advertising campaigns.
Android has had lots of innovations, such as being the first NFC-enabled mobile OS, the first with turn by turn directions, voice actions and the quality of their speech recognition in general (which requires constant innovation), etc.
Google Translate.
Google Takeout.
Google Transparency Report.
The Google+ sharing model (circles), which forced Facebook to respond and implement something similar.
Seriously, Glass and the car projects are simply slightly more practical outputs of Google's research division. MS and IBM are doing a lot of research in areas that simply aren't as practical.
The reality is that IBM is no longer consumer facing, and neither is their research. MS still is and has to be (and losing), but IBM just abandoned being a household name a while ago, except with things like Watson.
Android is more like fast-following Apple and not innovative. If Android makes Google innovative, then they are not really more innovative than MSFT because MSFT did Windows Phone, Surface, Online Office (really surprisingly good - but still not innovative because Google Docs was the first), Outlook.com, etc. I think Xbox Kinect is innovative.
EDIT: Fixed formatting (was italicized by mistake).
Just because something is not the first to market doesn't make it not innovative[1]. Android is not a feature-by-feature copy of the iPhone, and I think various Android features (Google Now for one) are quite innovative. Furthermore, Apple also "copied" various Android features (notifications for instance). Similarly, while the Kinect is universally considered as innovative, I think Microsoft's Metro UI + OS is also quite innovative in that they came up with a refreshingly different and clean interface.
First to market may drive important metrics like adoption/success/profit, but doesn't define whether a product is innovative or not.
[1] sorry for the multiple negatives in that sentence.
I'm not trying to be anti-Google, I'm just honestly asking. For example, can you compare innovations Google put forward in last couple of years and compare it with, lets say, MSFT?