Often I think we individual investors are getting talked into stocks by analysts for big investment firms, to their benefit, not ours. They sell us the stock itself as a product, independent of the company that the stock represents.
Of course there are companies that fall under "constantly innovating" category and yet some of the things they come up with fail. It's hard to tell, or if it was easy, there wouldn't be good or bad investors, but only good ones. That's the whole point of investment: you place your bets using your knowledge and intuition. It's a game in the end.
The price of the stock already reflects this as well (at least to the extent people in the market guess that it is true). When you buy the stock on the basis that the company will innovate more, what you're really betting is that it will innovate not just more, but more than other people thing it will.
That sounds like a better definition of gambling than investing.
To me, the whole point of investing is so that money I don't need at the moment will be worth more when I do need it. That's why I buy low-cost passive index funds and don't try to out analyze the analysts. By buying an index fund, I get the advantages of all of the best analysts out there - I'm effectively crowd-sourcing my investment strategy.
Furthermore you can't assume that a good product means that a company will do well. Plenty of companies launch "better" products that fail, and the technology sector has no lack of examples Betamax, Amiga, BeOS, etc.