

Parc Fires Back at New Yorker, Claims Gladwell Misses How Innovation Works  - robertbud1
http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2011/05/13/parc-fires-back-at-new-yorker-claiming-old-apple-legend-misses-point-of-how-innovation-works-today/

======
ansy
Original from PARC: [http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2011/05/from-creation-myth-to-
the...](http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2011/05/from-creation-myth-to-the-reality-
of-innovation-today/)

For myself, this is part of why I'm not a big Malcolm Gladwell fan. Whether
it's his articles, his TED talks, or his books, I always feel like he's
abusing data rather than using data. It's like he flings a bunch of factual
snippets at the reader and then quickly segues into his conclusion like a
magician performing sleight of hand. There's no logical argument, just here's
some stuff and therefore the end. He's a great historian and storyteller; I
just could go without his analysis sometimes.

~~~
ikono
Just because he doesn't present all the data doesn't mean he didn't perform
thorough analysis prior to reaching his conclusion(I don't know for sure that
he does either).

You can't write best selling books that read like a paper in a scientific
journal. He presents interesting and thought provoking arguments with enough
data that you can't immediately disregard them. If afterwards you feel
compelled to dig deeper, I say it's a job well done.

~~~
timtadh
And you can't expect serious scholars to take books lacking through analysis,
data, and logical arguments at face value. It is entirely reasonable for
individuals to question such writing.

~~~
ikono
I wasn't really suggesting that you take his or anyone else's writing at face
value. Simply that I think a lot of what he writes is interesting and makes
you consider thinking in different ways. It's rare that any piece of writing,
even one published in a scientific journal, will be 100% convincing. You're
almost always going to need to do more research and make a decision for
yourself.

------
j_baker
_PARC sees itself as a very different place today from the one depicted in the
Apple legend_

It sees this as a good thing? I mean, say what you will, but most of modern
personal computing came from PARC. I don't think PARC's problem was lack of
innovation. Rather, it was short-sighted decisions made by Xerox execs who
were scared of PARC's idea of a paper-free office (Xerox of course making most
of its money off of paper).

~~~
akkartik
_"I don't think PARC's problem was lack of innovation."_

The way the terms are used in the article, I think you mean, "lack of
_invention_."

Both of you are in agreement that PARC of old was great at invention (building
new things), not so good at innovation (bringing ideas to market). PARC now
claims they're better at innovation. The external consensus is that they're
not nearly as good at invention as they used to be. I'm not holding my breath
to see what they come up with.

------
tedjdziuba
Gladwell is to science what homeopathy is to medicine.

~~~
dmazin
I can't believe I read two of his books and all of his New Yorker articles
before I realized that he was sputtering diarrhea.

