Some of it is just misapplied. Agile is a continuous improvement process, not an innovation process. If Apple had shipped an "MVP" smartphone in 2005, they never would have iterated their way to the iPhone we know.

But some of those buzzwords are perfectly appropriate for companies operating at a smaller scale. Apple has the ability to spend a huge amount of time and effort up-front to get the product right before it's ever announced. They're perfectly happy to spend 3 years on a product no one has seen.

Smaller companies [believe they] have to generate value faster, so they push out MVPs with the hope they can find product-market fit and iterate their way to success. For better or worse (often worse), that kind of post-launch iteration is just not in Apple's DNA. Look how little the Apple Watch software has changed in 8 years.

I don't think everyone should spend as long "perfecting" a product as Apple does, but I do think most companies could save a huge amount of time and money by doing more up-front research and design, to make sure they're building the right thing.

I don't think it is about research, design or experimentation to get product market fit but technical expertise. Just look at how Apple is organized compared to the competition - technical people lead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31052647

Proof: The majority of today's winning or great products were started by technical people. Yet the industry feels the need to systematically discover "the next Steve Jobs" with MBAs, PMs, methodologies and buzzwords to justify the success of the next innovations...

Not denying its usefulness, some of these might help but seems like too much buzz