
Does Silicon Valley Face an Innovation Crisis? - terpua
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/does-silicon-valley-face-an-innovation-crisis/index.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
======
herdrick
No. On the web, innovation is happening so quickly few users can keep up. And
the tons of little companies making incremental improvements don't seem to be
hurting the shops working on big ideas either: <http://www.anybots.com/>

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Nobody cares about the web. Take an excursion into reality and notice the web
is a fraction of a percent of what's going on and is of minimal real life
impact for pretty much everybody.

~~~
comatose_kid
Most things are a 'fraction of a percent of what's going on', technology or
not. We have a finite attention span, so this shouldn't be surprising.

So, I have trouble following how this would relate to the impact that the web
(or anything else) has on people.

I'd be interested to hear examples of why the web has 'minimal real life
impact for pretty much everybody'.

------
sh1mmer
This is article is based on a new book "Closing the innovation Gap"
<http://www.theinnovationgap.com/> .

As far as I can see she is saying that VCs are too focused on short term
returns and are being too timid, causing the downturn in innovation.

This argument seems similar to the PG vs DHH debate.

------
dmix
_The technologies at the root of new products like Apple’s iPod or the
Facebook social networking service were actually developed several decades
ago._

Would people have bought an iPod when they were using CDs still and hard
drives were really expensive?

Just because the technology was created "decades ago" doesn't make those
current innovations any less valid. Both of those examples (ipod/fb) required
the technology to be applied effectively and have a market ready for them. It
took more then hard drives and web applications to make them successful.

They created the technology for personal computers long before it became
feasible for a market outside of the tech and academic community. After all
the other factors came into place (price, hardware manufacturing, market
demand etc) it was able to reach a mainstream market.

That sounds like a weak argument when saying there is an innovation crisis.
Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them.
Not just because they exist.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for
> them.

That's the whole complaint. Many markets were created by force of will and R&D
dollars, not simple natural progressions. That's the low hanging fruit and not
very innovative.

This guy does a decent job exploring the issue of abandoning innovation:
<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF18Dj01.html>

The poignant illustration is how in the 50s everybody expected robot vacuum
cleaners and appliances in the next 30 years. But nobody ever even tried to
build them. Instead, from the 70s through to today business leadership focused
on cost reduction rather than progress. So we have no robot vacuum cleaners.
This is the "innovation crisis."

~~~
Retric
What about the 130$ Roomba is not a "robot vacuum cleaner"?

Building a working airplane had a lot more to do with the availability of
light and high horse power engines than a new understanding of physics. AI is
held in check not by the lack of desire it's all about having enough CPU's at
enough GHz connected to enough high speed memory. For 25 billion we could
build a working fusion power plant that would be online in under 10 years.
Sometimes focusing on cheep is more important than you might think.

~~~
gaius
You're missing the point, which is that GE could and should have gotten there
first. It had absolute dominance in the domestic applicance industry, stemming
from bringing the technology to the market in the 1950s. It should have been
able to deliver domestic robots. But by treating the appliance business as a
"cash cow", extracting cash without reinvesting, GE missed the opportunity and
iRobot came out of nowhere to take it.

~~~
dmix
It's a little early to say that GE missed an opportunity. The robotic vacuums
market is still in its early stages. iRobot may be one of the first but they
will definitely face some competition in the future. GE could easily acquire
iRobot right now.

GE has thousands of products in a variety of industries. I'm sure they
evaluated robotic vacuums and decided not to pursue it right away, for their
own reasons. But they are still investing tons of capital in other areas. Big
companies enter new markets all the time and you can't expect them to always
get it right.

 _note_ I agree with the person above, read Innovators Dilemma. Big companies
are not the best at building disruptive technologies and lack of innovation is
only a small factor.

~~~
gaius
_It's a little early to say that GE missed an opportunity._

/me shrugs, well I was explaining the original article, not advancing a point
of my own.

