Hmm,
Fall behind in search, spend billions on Bing.
Fall behind in mobile, spend billions on Nokia.
Fall behind in social media, spend billions on LinkedIn.
Hmm, so what was that definition of insanity again?
Fall behind in search, spend billions on Bing.
Fall behind in mobile, spend billions on Nokia.
Fall behind in social media, spend billions on LinkedIn.
Hmm, so what was that definition of insanity again?
p.s. Given what happened with the iPod / iTunes being behind isn't always a bad thing.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. When the iPod and then iTunes entered the scene, the MP3 player market was very small and immature. The product they put forth was untouchable because it didn't address one or two gripes with MP3 players of the time, it addressed almost all of them. The failed Microsoft products all entered mature markets with very strong incumbents.
When the iPod arrived on the scene it was half the size of the Creative HDD based MP3 players that here hot shit at the time and wasn't trying to look like futuristic discman. It featured a high speed interface (Firewire) so it didn't take weeks to load your music. The interface actually helped you quickly browse your gigabytes of sound files unlike everyone else whose UIs were d-pad based nightmares that made browsing more than a few hundred MP3s a hassle. It had a rechargeable battery that lasted longer than any other player of which most were still using AA as power. The most compelling alternative to the iPod was probably the iRiver H1xx series and it didn't arrive until 2 years later and still had a horribly crippled UI but equally high price.
All the incumbent tech giants including Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and Google entered the markets they dominate when those markets were very immature and relatively new. Their products had multiple advantages over the competition, if any, and quickly captured the market before anyone realized what happened.
My point is, I think if you asked most people "Who invented the MP3 player?" they'd say Apple. That's just not the case. Refined it? Yes, obviously. But they certainly weren't first.
Long to short, execution matters. There a tons of ideas sitting in the idea gravy yard, not because they were bad ideas, but because they were executed badly.
The Search, Social Network, and Mobile OS markets were very mature when Microsoft entered market and the products they offered weren't discernably better let alone substantially better.
Regardless, my point - which might be different than your point - is first isn't always best; and that Apple's reputation as a ground-breaker can be, at times, overstated.
They have a terrible record of leading the way into new territory, and a questionable one when the growth engine is acquisition.
Azure was another copycat product.
The question here was about copying: when you are after in an area, do you aquire something or lauch a large project to catch up. That doesn't even make sense for non-copycat products.