

Why so little innovation? - bootload
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/09/03/whySoLittleInnovation.html

======
bokonist
One interesting argument I came across recently is that most of the great
science and innovation of the world has been produced by institutionally
independent scientists and inventors:

\--------------------------

The university as an institution has approached irrelevance several times in
its history. Most of the new learning of the Renaissance, the great revival of
classical studies, took place amongst small groups of learned men and leisured
aristocrats outside the universities. They formed "academies" and learned
societies in which they could discuss the literature and philosophy that had
been rediscovered, not in the universities, but by men of letters like
Petrarch and by wealthy collectors of manuscripts like Cosimo di Medici. After
a century or so, the classics were finally co-opted by the universities, where
they soon ceased to be the province of readers for whom they contained living
wisdom, and fell into the hands of the gerund-grinders.

Early natural science was burgeoning at about the time the classics started to
be sapped of life by the university, and for a couple of blessed centuries the
sciences flourished in similar learned cenacles, like the Accademia dei Lincei
or the Royal Society, while the inmates of the colleges considered such mere
mechanical activities unworthy to soil their dainty fingers. Galileo, Boyle,
Huyghens, etc., were not university men; Newton's university appointment was
in mathematics, not the natural sciences. As late as the early nineteenth
century, most scientists were not of the university, but operated outside it,
e.g., Rumford, Davy, or Faraday. While there are isolated examples here and
there of university instruction in the sciences as early as the late 17th
century (e.g., Barchusen at Utrecht, Boerhaave at Leyden), Iaboratory
education in physics and chemistry at universities did not really gain
acceptance until after 1850. Independent scientist-inventors, e.g., Lammot du
Pont, the Maxim brothers, Edison, or Tesla, continued to be dominant in this
country until World War I gave the first government funding to
institutionalized research. (source: [http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-navr...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-navrozov-
moments.html#6782945122578382088))

\-----------------------------------

You can also add to the list above Darwin, the Wright Brothers, and Einstein.

Wholesale government funding of research worked well at first, as it
essentially put the independent thinkers of old on steroids. But overtime,
grant money started going to a new generation of scientists whose main ability
was to work the government grant system. By the present, the modern university
has essentially become a government bureaucracy where top scientists spend
most of their time hunting for grants and doing paperwork. Worse, because of
high taxes and the high costs of living in high IQ cities, the gentleman
scientist is going extinct, thus cutting off the flow of new innovation.

What do people think of this argument? There are thousands of professors
researching computer science, and tens of millions in grant money going into
the field. But does anyone know what they are working on? Has anything useful
come out of the computer science departments in the past twenty years? ( I'm
asking seriously - not rhetorically). Will modern independent scientists like
Trevor Blackwell and Jeff Hawkins by themselves out produce all the computer
science professors in the country combined?

~~~
felipe
I understand your argument, but at the same time I believe that in order to
bring the "big stuff" to reality that truly impacts people lives, it requires
heavy high-risk investment that only few organizations can absorb (normally
governments). For example, the Wright Brothers succeeded because the military
invested heavily in the first airplanes. Other examples are the Internet, the
space program, cars (highway investment), commercial airlines, etc... A lot of
the big stuff is initially subsidized with public money, and then thrown to
the private sector.

~~~
cousin_it
How about the previous generations of innovations? Railroads, electricity,
telephones? I understand those were mostly industry-funded, not government-
funded. For a modern day example, see mobile telephony.

~~~
felipe
True, but in all those industries public money was heavily used to remove risk
from the market, by either buying unproven technology (electricity, railroads)
or by creating a "protected" (i. e.: regulated) space for private companies to
operate.

In mobile, take Nokia for example: Until the 80s Nokia's major activity was
rubber-related products (seriously). That changed when they bought a state-
owned telecom company, and that's when Nokia really focused on mobile
telephony and made it popular. In other words, the government invested in the
technology and removed the risk, enough so a private company could take it to
the next level.

------
ryanwaggoner
It's easy to claim that society is going down the wrong path, especially if
you define that path somewhat nebulously (not enough innovation!) and don't
give any concrete examples.

Just what kinds of innovation are people looking for that they're not getting?
And further, what innovations from decades ago are we still relying on today
and not innovating through?

In so many areas, from medicine to biotech to clean energy to nanotechnology
to space exploration to the web, we are seeing new waves of progress and
research. Is our pace as fast as it could be? Probably not. But let's call it
what it is, instead of predicting gloom and doom.

~~~
bootload
_"... Just what kinds of innovation are people looking for that they're not
getting? ..."_

\- Data storage: Ways for people, companies to store data for perpetuity

\- Power: cheap, pollution free way to generate personal power

\- Water: cheap, pollution free way to clean water for drinking

The list can go on.

 _"... And further, what innovations from decades ago are we still relying on
today and not innovating through? ..."_

Lets see: operating systems (Linux, Max OSX, Windows), GUI's (Windows),
keyboards and other input hardware. These are the tools we use each day and
would be recognisable to people who programmed at the cutting edge in say '76,
77. Transportation is another. Inefficient engines that emit noxious gasses.
Another practical example would be food storage around the world. In India for
example where a percentage say 5-10% is wasted simply because it cannot be
stored properly (a combination of cost & lack of expertise) and eaten by rats.

 _"... But let's call it what it is, instead of predicting gloom and doom.
..."_

I'd agree with this. So many negative stories come from angry middle-age
white-guys. Innovation comes in spurts which is never really acknowledged.
From what I see coming up things are looking up wrt Power generation, water
and recycling technologies.

~~~
froo
I want to provide a counter point to your argument, Sometimes innovating for
the sake of innovating can be an exercise in futility if current solutions are
adequate.

Let's take an old joke, which from what I understand is based on fiction,
however it illustrates the point well enough. It goes something like

 _NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pressurised pen that Astronauts
can use to write in space. The Russians use a pencil_

Innovation can also blatantly pointless. Take the fashion industry, at some
point the necktie was introduced into fashion for men, however it serves no
actual purpose - yet it is one of the cornerstones of formal attire.

EDIT - There was one last variation I guess I missed, sometimes people do
innovate and at those times, sometimes ideas just don't stick for whatever
reason.

Take the old phrase:

 _"Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door"_

Well I've definitely seen better mousetraps, yet whenever I notice them at the
supermarket, they always seem to be the old fashioned, crappy wood types -
sometimes the Market is just happy with subpar equipment? _cough_ Microsoft
_cough_

~~~
randrews
I realize this is off-topic, but I hate that joke, and it bugs me every time I
see it.

Sharpening a pencil is inadvisable in microgravity. Little wood shavings go
everywhere, they get inhaled, must be vacuumed up, et cetera.

And mechanical pencils require gravity to feed the lead; a mechanical pencil
that would work in micro-g is just as hard to develop as a ballpoint pen that
will.

~~~
bootload
_"... And mechanical pencils require gravity to feed the lead; a mechanical
pencil that would work in micro-g is just as hard to develop as a ballpoint
pen that will. ..."_

No, mechanical pencils with springs have no problems. All sorts of
pencils/pens where used in the space program but the Fisher AG7 and patent #
3,285,228 ~ <http://spacepen.com/about-us.aspx> proved to be a good solution
to the problems of FOD (foreign object damage), cost, availability, usability
and fire. Fisher also invented the "Universal refill" for pens.

~~~
froo
I guess the real question is... Has fisher innovated the technology behind the
universal refill and the spacepen even further, or has it stayed pretty much
where it is?

This is a serious question by the way, I'd be keen to know what the answer is.

~~~
bootload
_"... Has fisher innovated the technology behind the universal refill and the
spacepen even further, or has it stayed pretty much where it is? ..."_

From what I can tell from reading through fisher pens the only further
innovation is styling not the basic design ~ <http://spacepen.com/about-
us.aspx> The Space race really kicked innovation along for lots of things even
the simple pen. The engineering is pretty extreme. Imagine building a pen that
will work in high PT environments from -35 to 120 degrees C and life of about
100yrs for USD$6. ~ <http://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html> &
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen> This is the kind of advances great
challenges produce. It's still happening now in the US and the one area I know
basic research and innovation can be seen is the X-Prize. Think Bert Rutan ~
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3676312.stm> and Carmac ~
[http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?ne...](http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=359)

~~~
froo
Well then I guess that proves my initial first point of

 _Sometimes innovating for the sake of innovating can be an exercise in
futility if current solutions are adequate._

It's a shame that I can't get those pen's shipped to Australia.. I'd be keen
to get my hands on a couple. Must find another supplier.

------
makecheck
That post's conclusions aren't really universal for tech.

Yes, many companies take and don't give a lot back. But some big names
definitely contribute (Google, Yahoo, Apple to an extent...).

There is also plenty of innovation done by people in their spare time. So much
so, that software patents are a hot issue: who wants to be sued for making
something cool, only to find out that Microsoft claimed it a year ago?

It's also funny they don't mention Microsoft or other companies whose actions
alone were enough to freeze innovation in several areas. If your goal is to
make money, you can't compete with the establishment...you have to move on.

------
leoc
> I don't know what Silicon Valley will do when it runs out of Doug[
> Engelbart]'s ideas.

\- Alan Kay

------
felipe
It seems to me that most here actually did not watch the link to the original
blog with Judy Estrin's video interview:

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=301>

Her point is that too much focus on short-term / "this quarter" type of
mentality, associated with the declining of education and the lack of national
leadership is killing innovation in Silicon Valley.

This is not the first time that I hear this argument. The author of "Silicon
Dragon" says that the Valley is in a state of denial:

[http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/03/silicon-valley-if-we-
ignor...](http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/03/silicon-valley-if-we-ignore-china-
will-it-go-away/)

------
felipe
When I watch 2001, I somehow feel like our generation failed the previous one.
People at that time thought "well, we went to the moon, so 30 years from now
we should be going beyond Jupiter!", and here we are praising Twitter and
Google's latest browser.

~~~
jamesbritt
> and here we are praising Twitter and Google's latest browser.

Speak for yourself.

------
zby
The problem with todays innovations is that they are not visible yet. I can
imagine someone lamenting in similar sentiment 15 years ago not noticing that
this Internet is really such a great innovation.

------
vaksel
all the simple stuff has been innovated already, now innovation involves
millions of dollars.

As to why? Supply and demand, the truly innovative stuff has a very limited
use. The social network that tracks Britney Spears has a use to millions of
people.

Why bother coding something complicated, when you can copy paste some open
source code and make millions

~~~
noonespecial
_Why bother coding something complicated, when you can copy paste some open
source code and make millions_

Why climb a mountain when you could ride to the top in a helicopter? _Because
it makes us better._

Open source is actually the proof that innovation lives completely outside the
bounds of corporate influence. It may very well be human nature.

~~~
cousin_it
The corporate world produces much more innovation than the open source world.
Most major open source efforts are attempts to clone existing commercial
product lines. Linux, MySQL, KDE, OpenOffice. The only innovative open source
product I can think of right now is Git.

~~~
noonespecial
Umm, html, apache, perl, hell, even arc. All open source, massively
innovative, and allowing this conversation to happen. :)

Innovation can have roots in corporations as well as outside, but many
corporations do as much to stifle innovation as to further it. Also, in the
case of things like Linux and MySQL, don't confuse "clone" with "another path
to the same goal" which can be highly innovative and often clears a roadblock
to innovation forced by a monopoly.

~~~
cousin_it
Your thesis is wrong and your examples are bad. HTML isn't software. (Maybe
you meant NCSA Mosaic, a proprietary program that was free for non-commercial
use.) Apache came after several other web servers, e.g. Netscape's commercial
one. Whether Perl is innovative is at least a subject for debate. For fairness
compare best-of-breed open source projects to best-of breed commercial ones.
Which is more innovative, Linux or NeXTSTEP? Perl or Smalltalk? The gap is
huge.

------
sabat
Mainly because of whining, over-privileged, self-satisfied fucks like Dave
Whiner. Seriously.

