>Just because it's an amazing thing which without life would be more difficult doesn't necessarily make it a good or amazing innovation.
Actually it does. That's the very definition of a "good or amazing innovation".
It might not be technically involved or some deep use of science and physics and such, but it's definitely a good AND amazing innovation.
Aside from the huge quality of life improvement it brought, it was also a huge productivity boost (all those wasted domestic hours plus also the boost to agriculture, and industrial uses) AND a huge quantity of life improvement (early "low hanging fruit" like running water saved millions of lives).
>But in terms of innovation or technical level they are far away from a cell phone.
Which is irrelevant.
We don't create stuff for the "innovation in technical level" alone, but for the improvement in our daily lives. And life was perfect livable (if not more so) 1992, before everybody had cellphones. Much less so before running water.
If "technical innovation" alone mattered, we'd be building ever more complex Rube Goldberg machines. That's for the people who appreciate an IoT washing machine because "it has more technology, man", even though functionality wise it's the same as a regular one (if not worse, due to more complex UI and failure points).
OP complained about that things don't move fast enough. It's like development has slowed down.
My argument is that developing a cell phone is way more difficult and complex than some other old inventions. Even though one can argue forever which innovation is most valuable.
Sure tap water is amazing and living without is hell. Food is amazing and living without is hell.
But in terms of innovation or technical level they are far away from a cell phone.