"In the United States, the development of the computer was underpinned by massive government investment in the technology for military applications during WWII and then the Cold War. The latter superpower confrontation made it possible for local manufacturers to transform their machines into commercially viable products. It was the same story in Europe, where adoption of computers began largely through proactive steps taken by national governments to stimulate development and deployment of the technology."
You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment -- particularly in the highest-risk, most capital-intensive stuff. And that's why Hyperloop doesn't get funded.
> You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment
I'm not sure about the history, but perhaps the internal combustion engine?
More generally, the line of reasoning in this thread assumes "this is how things have happened" to imply "this is the _only_ way things can happen". It is entirely conceivable that the private sector would, in the absense of government funding, step up and perform/fund fundamental research. But, in the current fiscal climate where there is still, generally speaking, copious government funding available (e.g., to the military), why would a private group spend money to do that when they can let someone else (the government) take the risk (with someone else's money).
Indeed. There were 3 of the largest wars in history during the 20th century (WWI, WWII, and the Cold War). That's going to necessarily skew the statistics on development of technology in recent history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware
You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment -- particularly in the highest-risk, most capital-intensive stuff. And that's why Hyperloop doesn't get funded.