It struck me that it is increasingly difficult to tell whether something is truly innovative or not. In earlier times this was obvious. Trains were not only much faster than stagecoaches but they were also the first form of land transport not driven by animals. No method of long-distance communication that did not depend on the speed of the human (or animal carrier) which existed before the invention of the telegraph (such as mechanical telegraphy) could possibly compete with it in terms of speed and efficiency. People debate the extent to which anaesthetics could be said to have existed prior to chloroform and ether but it is certain that none were as widespread as these two became. Photography had no real parallel. Similar analogies can be made for countless other inventions of the 19th century such as electric lighting, telephones, typewriters as well as various innovations in healthcare. Almost all represent a qualitative change in some way of doing things.
On the other hand many of the supposedly innovative startups that attract attention and funding are not doing anything that is fundamentally changing the fabric of our existence. When Adam Smith wrote in the late 18th century he described the advantages of canals over carriages for transporting goods and he did not and probably could not have anticipated the existence and impact of railways. By contrast most of the inventions in our lives today were anticipated many years back (indeed people enjoy digging up some mid-century article that prophesied some modern technology) and often even existed in some simple but fully fledged form. There is much more to say on this matter and no doubt some aspects that I am overlooking so I will think more about this and elaborate on it at some point.