"Google is in reaction mode at the moment. However, it has proven to be the best fast-follower of technology trends in recent memory. It’s time to see if the company can still live up to that track record or if it will become the next high-profile victim of the innovator’s dilemma." I'd respectfully argue Apple, at least in terms of which company has been most successful as a "fast-follower" e.g., Apple I & II, Mac, iPod, & especially the iPhone to name a few. Of course, one could also make the case for Microsoft and Windows!
There is some debate about whether Apple actually follows into markets or creates them. Granted, you can look at every market they have been in and point to a predecessor, but not always a successful predecessor that actually built the market.
Yes, there were home PCs before the Apple II, but Apple moved the market from experiment to real market. Same is true for the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Sure, Blackberry said they had a smartphone and maybe they were right. But, they didn't have a smartphone with rich graphics and a touch interface. The MacIntosh may have been wholly unique. I find it hard to call them a fast follower because in each case they really needed to build the market. I'm sure there are other examples where they were purely followers.
Google, by contrast, has historically entered markets that were already established and brought a better mousetrap and new levels of scale. Maybe, they are a slow follower, but Search, gmail, Android (yes, acquired but really accelerated after acquisition), cloud hosting, voice assistant (round 1 post Siri), Google Assistant (round 2 post Alexa), smart speakers, are all products that entered established markets. I'd give them first to market in some products such as TPU.
So, I understand the differences in definitions on this point and depending on the parameters, you may get a different answer. However, fundamentally, Apple was about inventing new user experiences and building markets, whereas Google was typically optimizing a flawed or suboptimal technical implementation, that generally grew the market but also led to capturing share from incumbents.
"Google is in reaction mode at the moment. However, it has proven to be the best fast-follower of technology trends in recent memory. It’s time to see if the company can still live up to that track record or if it will become the next high-profile victim of the innovator’s dilemma." I'd respectfully argue Apple, at least in terms of which company has been most successful as a "fast-follower" e.g., Apple I & II, Mac, iPod, & especially the iPhone to name a few. Of course, one could also make the case for Microsoft and Windows!
There is some debate about whether Apple actually follows into markets or creates them. Granted, you can look at every market they have been in and point to a predecessor, but not always a successful predecessor that actually built the market.
Yes, there were home PCs before the Apple II, but Apple moved the market from experiment to real market. Same is true for the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Sure, Blackberry said they had a smartphone and maybe they were right. But, they didn't have a smartphone with rich graphics and a touch interface. The MacIntosh may have been wholly unique. I find it hard to call them a fast follower because in each case they really needed to build the market. I'm sure there are other examples where they were purely followers.
Google, by contrast, has historically entered markets that were already established and brought a better mousetrap and new levels of scale. Maybe, they are a slow follower, but Search, gmail, Android (yes, acquired but really accelerated after acquisition), cloud hosting, voice assistant (round 1 post Siri), Google Assistant (round 2 post Alexa), smart speakers, are all products that entered established markets. I'd give them first to market in some products such as TPU.
So, I understand the differences in definitions on this point and depending on the parameters, you may get a different answer. However, fundamentally, Apple was about inventing new user experiences and building markets, whereas Google was typically optimizing a flawed or suboptimal technical implementation, that generally grew the market but also led to capturing share from incumbents.