[selectnull]

You might not like G+ but it IS innovation. Everything one does in slighly different way is innovation, if you don't want that, you would have to abandon pretty much everything except wheel and fire.

I also don't think that creator's ego is a factor in product's success. There are many egotistical entrepreneurs with successful products. People might not like creators, but they like the product.

So isn't the best strategy to let the market determine if something is worth it or not? I'm sure G+ has got its valuation...

[objclxt]

> Everything one does in slighly different way is innovation

No, it is not. If I decide to change the design of a bicycle to have square shaped wheels I have not innovated. I have instead made it objectively worse.

I think to innovate is generally accepted as meaning to improve upon something in some way. I don't think G+ improved anything, as its abject failure in the real world demonstrates.

[thetruthseeker1]

I disagree. Was Yahoo search innovative? Google search came later and just did the search in a better way, but people still called Google search innovative!

Yahoo search did make money with banner advertisements, and when that was doing well people called Yahoo search innovative. Innovation is used like a buzz word. Truly anything new, even if it is poorer than the previous product is innovation, it may not sell, but it is innovation!

[slantview]

Subjectively