[potatoyogurt]

This is an odd redefinition of innovation. Is Snapchat more innovative than a proof of the Riemann hypothesis? Number of people who Snapchat: apparently at least 178 million. Number of people who want a proof of the Riemann hypothesis? Maybe a million? Out of which probably ten thousand will actually read it?

Yes, the Soviet Union had many problems, but

>how did they apply these technologies to create products the market actually want

is essentially just asking "why were they communist and not capitalist?"

[logfromblammo]

They're a lot easier to move, if you own the goalposts.

[AnimalMuppet]

"Creating [new/different] products the market actually wants" is a pretty reasonable definition of innovation.

The Riemann hypothesis? That's research, not innovation. It's still valuable, but it's not innovation. (Is it as valuable as innovation? Arguably yes, but it's still not innovation.)

[dvdhnt]

> "Creating [new/different] products the market actually wants" is a pretty reasonable definition of innovation.

No, it's at best cherry picking and at worst terrible redefinition of innovation. Innovation is defined as "the action or process of innovating" [1] and innovating is defined as "make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products" [2].

So, while creating new products is innovating, innovating is not necessarily creating new products. In fact, I'd argue that without new methods and ideas, you wouldn't be able to create new products. So, a new hypothesis, by definition, is absolutely innovation.

1. https://www.google.com/search?ei=ENJnWq_SO8zvzgKh8JOQAg&q=de...

2. https://www.google.com/search?ei=ENJnWq_SO8zvzgKh8JOQAg&q=de...