
Why Experts Reject Creativity (2014) - noobermin
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-new-ideas-fail/381275/?utm_source=SFFB&amp;single_page=true
======
Lerc
The responses to the iPhone were interesting. This article makes me wonder how
many people like Ballmer and Balsillie had already been presented with similar
ideas and had rejected them.

When the iPhone came out, I felt that the clones weren't so much people
copying Apple but creative engineers being unshackled and being allowed to
make what they wanted.

~~~
keithpeter
In a way the experts were right, my recollection is that the first iPhones
were not _amazingly_ good at being phones. Where the experts got it wrong is
the assumption that people _wanted phones_.

What it turned out that people really wanted was a small portable computer
that had a camera, Web browser, music and video player built in. And that
could make phone calls and send sms messages. But they didn't know that is
what they wanted until Apple punted it out...

~~~
vardump
Nokia put a web browser in phone back in 1996. Phones already had all those
features you listed. They were just slow and clunky to use.

~~~
gregmac
But they were always phones, first.

You turn it on / open it, and it's at the phone screen. You could just dial
using the dedicated hardware numeric keypad, and it would place a call. To get
to the web browser, calendar, and other functions you had to go into a sub-
menu, because they were secondary, not-that-important functions of the device.

If it's a phone, this is a fine design. If it's a device who only happens to
have a phone feature (and personally, I barely use the "phone" part of my
phone anymore), then it's actually a very annoying design. It's about as
useful as if someone decided that upon startup or pressing the "home" button,
it should go to Angry Birds, and all other apps/features could be accessed via
a menu button after that.

It's a subtle, but important, difference in the mindset that goes into
designing both the hardware and software.

~~~
vardump
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator)

When you opened Nokia Communicator, it was more like PDA or a computer than a
phone. Home screen, calendar, message, etc. widgets, very much like Android
phones are nowadays.

It was like a phone only when closed. Made sense that way.

[http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_9000_communicator-16.php](http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_9000_communicator-16.php)

Note web browser and telnet client, that was pretty cool in 1996. gsmarena
mistakenly says it was introduced in 1998.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_E90_Communicator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_E90_Communicator)

In 2007, Nokia E90 had a display that was almost like "retina", 219 DPI. The
web browser was also usable at the time. It had even Flash player.

------
asgard1024
In my view, there are two sides of the coin.

Experts (people who have the experience) should always explain, we tried this
and this and that is why it have failed.

On the other hand, creative people should be able to justify why the situation
or their solution is now different compared to what was tried before.

The rejection seems to happen if this kind of communication doesn't happen.
And it cuts both ways - just like there are experts who reject creativity
there are creative people who reject expertise. (Typically this is a
generational conflict.)

------
r-w
I disagree with the conclusion of this article. The author conflates
familiarity with lack of creativity. In order for an idea to be sold, its
presentation must resonate with its audience. That means it must latch onto
their beliefs as well as those facts that have been proven to them, and it
must leverage those conceptual building blocks to bring them up to date with
this new logical composition. With no frame of reference, how should anyone
know where a product fits in? No one other than the innovator can be expected
to have such a vision—after all, how often is the next trend predicted? In
retrospect, analogies to past breakouts become apparent. Being analogous to
pre-existing innovations is not mutually exclusive with being novel and
creative; in this new age, we will soon find that all new developments are
built solely at a higher level, on the foundation comprising progress thus
far. We therefore cannot present this as a disrespect for knowledge, but
rather an impatience for those who create things before deciding their place
in this unfair, pragmatic world.

------
brianclements
This reminds me a bit of Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics". In it
he defines a concept about how innovation happens. He defines revolutionaries
into two categories: craftsmen, and seers. Craftsmen take current constructs
and raise the bar (his example: Newton), where seers create completely new
constructs that involve more imagination (his example: Einstein).

Jumping of his idea, I would say large institutions (business, academia) have
a bias toward creating craftsman, and thus the point in this article that
while it takes all kinds to innovate, sometimes it takes seers to really stir
the pot up.

------
poelzi
This is in science the same: You can adjust a common accepted theory a bit,
but putting everything upside down, even if it's logical and makes sense, will
not get accepted. Really sad :(

