Those are not innovations, those are incremental improvements. (If you want to call all minor improvements innovation then, well, everyone's innovative.) Innovations are new products and new ideas.

Of course Android is following in Apple's footsteps; Apple came first, after all, and established everything that Android has since also implemented. Whatever Google is doing, it's an incremental improvement on that revolutionary approach to smartphones. Google Glass is innovative, possibly even revolutionary; but Android isn't.

> Google Maps recently added vector based maps

I doubt users notice that. (I'm a developer and I haven't noticed.) (Also, didn't Apple do this first, with the Maps app?) I'm sure there is lots of technical, low-visibility innovation happening at Google, but that's not what we are talking about here.

> Search has added countless quick results

Again, miniscule, evolutionary improvements.

> Gmail has litteraly changed web based mail and still continues to do so.

Gmail launched in 2004 and has hardly changed since then. Sure, it got priority inbox (a minor feature, hardly the revolutionary feature they claimed), GTalk and themes. Not really innovations in any meaningful sense. Gmail is possibly the worst example of all, since everything after 2004 has essentially been polish.

> Also, [Go] isn't an offcial Google product, so stomping Go to the ground really shows how you are just bashing away.

The parent was the one who mentioned Go, I merely responded.

I would argue that an open smartphone ecosystem is innovative. Not original, but innovative.

Google Now IS innovative.

Google's method for voice recognition is certainly innovative, as are the myriad ways in which they have implemented that core technology.

Google voice (grandcentral) was certainly innovative; the calling system and the text transcription in most specific.

My main problem with your exchange is my perception of you constantly moving the goalposts. I don't see how you can categorically reject 'technical, low-visibility innovation' unless your argument is presupposed.

Furthermore, most of these achievements are acquire/hires, and we have seen the big G push these purchased assets into new features or products. I would argue that this capability IS the basic facility to innovate the marketplace.

(gmail has indeed revolutionized webmail, both in size of free storage and in the mailbox organizational methods)

"Google voice (grandcentral) was certainly innovative; the calling system and the text transcription in most specific."

As an original GrandCentral user, I take this as a complete insult. Google bought GrandCentral and removed features. So chalk this one up to negative innovation.

Symbian was an open smartphone ecosystem. Google is just taking it a step further (to serve its own ends, of course).

I am not moving the goalposts. The original article was about Google web products such as Chrome and Reader. The only non-productized item mentioned was OpenID, which concerns integration with the rest of the web and could be considered a feature of their user-facing products. These things are the things that matter to people when they view Google as a company. Not whether Maps has vector graphics.

So, yeah, for the purposes of this discussion, I do discount technical, low-visibility innovation. If we are talking purely about technology, then sure, Google is probably an innovation leader.