That's the thing, novelty doesn't have to even be perceptible to the end-user.
Consider Google for example. When they came on the scene they introduced roughly 3 different novel things to the familiar search landscape: pagerank (crazy CS PhD level search result optimization crap), map-reduce running on sharded multi-host web-accessed supercomputers, and revolutionary heavily automated data center management.
These things were as different as what had come before to the same degree as if you opened a door in a library and stepped into an alien mothership. But they very much contributed to google's success. They meant that google produced better search results (pagerank) faster (map-reduce + sharding) and cheaper (IT ops) than competitors. And that would lead to their huge advantages in monetizing their search results (better, faster, cheaper means higher profit margin on lower cpms).
But for the end user, they did not have to grapple with any of that novelty. Google users didn't have to understand pagerank or map-reduce. They simply went to google.com and saw a familiar though even simpler search page than they were familiar with from google's many competitors and predecessors, they typed in their search query and pressed the search button. And then they were presented with a list of results, just as all other search engines before. The difference for them was that the results were better, the pages were easier to navigate due to a cleaner design, and the results were produced faster.
This sort of thing is common in technology. The process for riding an airplane is not terribly different from that of riding a bus, you walk through a door, you sit in a seat for some time, and then you get off at your destination. The process of building and flying planes is vastly different, of course, but air travel customers don't typically need to know how to fly or build planes.
Consider Google for example. When they came on the scene they introduced roughly 3 different novel things to the familiar search landscape: pagerank (crazy CS PhD level search result optimization crap), map-reduce running on sharded multi-host web-accessed supercomputers, and revolutionary heavily automated data center management.
These things were as different as what had come before to the same degree as if you opened a door in a library and stepped into an alien mothership. But they very much contributed to google's success. They meant that google produced better search results (pagerank) faster (map-reduce + sharding) and cheaper (IT ops) than competitors. And that would lead to their huge advantages in monetizing their search results (better, faster, cheaper means higher profit margin on lower cpms).
But for the end user, they did not have to grapple with any of that novelty. Google users didn't have to understand pagerank or map-reduce. They simply went to google.com and saw a familiar though even simpler search page than they were familiar with from google's many competitors and predecessors, they typed in their search query and pressed the search button. And then they were presented with a list of results, just as all other search engines before. The difference for them was that the results were better, the pages were easier to navigate due to a cleaner design, and the results were produced faster.
This sort of thing is common in technology. The process for riding an airplane is not terribly different from that of riding a bus, you walk through a door, you sit in a seat for some time, and then you get off at your destination. The process of building and flying planes is vastly different, of course, but air travel customers don't typically need to know how to fly or build planes.