In recent centuries, the world of business has been replete with a two-faceted cycle of innovation and imitation. When a groundbreaking technology emerges, the idea gets some attention and other manufacturers take a look, then run off to make their own. This has largely been a necessity in the Technology Age. Automobiles began improving much faster once the innovator, Henry Ford, had some competition. Airplanes would have taken years longer to develop if other inventors and manufacturers hadn't gotten involved. Circling around a piece of innovation and the resulting imitators (and, in some cases, co-innovators) does society a lot of good.

One of the most interesting topics I encountered in MBA school was the concept of capitalizing on an original idea before competitors can seize the intellectual property and outsell you. Whether a company is too slow to file a patent, or too careless with how they discuss their future plans, any amount of poor planning in the midst of great ideas could lead to a firm's downfall.

In the high-tech age we now live in, there is a heavy amount of innovation and imitation, and there isn't a more prominent example of that than Apple. Setting aside the debate around the origin of the computer and the operating system, recent years have shown how Apple's innovation is the source of their consistent profitability and increasing popularity.

In my opinion, as a strong, resource-rich firm, Apple will dominate as long as they are on the side of the innovator. The iPod enjoys deep market penetration, yet how many iPod killers have we seen? The software behemoth Microsoft had every resource at their disposal and every reason to make the Zune a smashing hit. Why did it flop? Because Microsoft's imitation failed to have the core value of the model product, the iPod. In true Microsoft fashion, they latched on to "key" features that the iPod didn't have, in hopes that this would convert the market to a more feature-rich device. In the end, the core experience just wasn't there. Microsoft didn't innovate, they imitated.

All kinds of competitors are now emerging up against the greatest mobile phone the world has seen: Apple's iPhone. For me, the surest way to know if a competitive product is going to fail is to see how strong the arguments are around why it's going to destroy the iPhone (I'm looking at you, Samsung Instinct). I recently went to a private meeting at Verizon Wireless where they were showcasing their mobile devices and discussing their plans for the future. Verizon's staff was entirely confident that the Blackberry Thunder (due to come out this fall some time) is going to destroy the iPhone. But what are the stated arguments on how it's going to do this? Oddly, the forthcoming "killing" is based only on the fact that it does what the iPhone does. It has a touch screen, an accelerometer, a GPS chip, and all the productivity software you want. Well, great. You have successfully imitated. But where's the leap ahead? Where's the innovation? I don't think you can kill a product unless you innovate beyond it. Imitation is insufficient.

Another case arises with all the mobile phone app stores popping up on the roadmap. Google's Android will have one, T-Mobile is coming on board, and now Microsoft has introduced Skymarket to be available on Windows Mobile. Until significant improvements beyond the innovator arise, I see no reason why any of these replicates will win. I suspect users will choose a device based on the device, not on the app store available on it.

Domination requires innovation, not imitation.