But that's sort of how most things work though. The positive, good outcomes are sort of incidental (though hopefully intentional) side effects of a complex system of incentives that are usually not perfectly aligned.
ie, why does Exxon Mobil drill oil? Because they sincerely truly love that black stuff? No because they want to make money.
The system could probably be improved with good economic analysis, but just because the incentives are misaligned does not mean they're broken.
I agree with most of the article. Android and Chrome OS are great products, I just don't see how Google is going to make money from them.
Not sure about Chrome, but I feel like Android is a defensive measure against a possible monopoly. If one company controlled mobile then Google might be locked out of whatever greater potential mobile could reach. So Android doesn't necessarily have to be financially awesome to be strategically successful.
The influence of Chrome and Android on web development are very probably part of what Google is aiming for. It's the anti-Facebook/Apple, in a way, which should help Google Search keep earning enough money to support all the other peripheral projects.
I think Chrome is useful for them for just this reason, rather than solely trying to cajole others, they can just do things. I imagine this will continue to accrue benefits to them for quite some time.
Because developers greatly benefit from participating in open source projects, designers usually don't. That said, developers also make more money than designers do and in a tech centric world, there are more needs for devs than designers. That's why.
Not unfair at all. The vast majority of developers get paid for their time. It's only in Open Source that you see people volunteering their time with no hope of monetary reward. Even within that tiny minority, most of them are doing it for some form of compensation, even if it's just to get their name attached to something and build a reputation.
If you're developing software for somebody else, they're not paying you, and you're not getting any benefit whatsoever, that's entirely your fault. It's certainly not unfair though.
Assuming this article is correct, I don't understand why any political leader would not 'fix' the growth calculations to be rosier. Surely there are great political incentives to do so, the Japanese parliament has really unpopular leaders basically all the time. Do the bureaucrats really have THIS much power that PMs are basically forced to sacrifice themselves for trade policy?
No ill will vs Dan, but this is not like Steve Jobs taking an academic project from Xerox and integrating it into his system. This is like Steve Jobs joining Xerox and presenting the same system to the Xerox manager under a different title.
There's nothing different btwn this and Zynga's cloneVille tactics which all other game companies universally hate.
> Are you saying that war increases technological growth? That's crappy pop-history that's largely been discredited.
That is not quite entirely true, war -- especially long-term -- results in huge funds being funnelled towards things that can blow up the other guy, which can then move into more peaceful realms. Not to mention the requirements for research safety and grants are often quite different.
Without WWII, would we have operational jets in the early 40s? What about rockets? All of rocket science from the late 40s and early 50s came from WWII germany. Likewise for fission and fusion research, how much longer would it have taken without Los Alamos?
> Competition invites advancement, blowing up your competitors does nothing.
That's crappy pop-history that's largely been discredited. Inventors generally don't need motivation, only funds (of time, of money, of equipment, of relations). And the reason for those funds and where they come from is the lowest of worry, as long as they are provided. Competition is irrelevant to invention and advancement.
I think you've both hit on and missed the point of the article at the same time. We think war = technological progress because that's how it happened in our civilization. We're biased toward that line of thinking because the evidence -- our history -- keeps us biased. The article is saying, it didn't have to be that way. Likewise, that isn't how it has to be in the future. So, yes, you are correct that funds provide progress, war provides funds, so war provides progress, but that's only one of many possible scenarios. It isn't a law of nature.
So what you're saying that intense competition between national armies is not the kind of competition that humans are willing to stake almost anything and commit endless resources on?
War itself may not increase technological growth. But preparations for war certainly do. And please show me another competition that has yielded lets say 50% of technological advances that various arms races have?
Sadly when human develops new kind of tech and is looking for money to get it widespread - the first and deciding question is: "Can it be used as a weapon?"
Wasn't low-cost sequencing of human genomes created by the competition generated by an X prize? Maybe we simply aren't harnessing gamification principles properly. Maybe really big games like wars aren't the only way.
If you re-read my comment you will notice that I haven't said that wars are only way to induce progress.
However I did say that I would like to see an example of a phenomena that produced at least 50% of technological advances that warfare has.
Low cost genome sequencing is all nice and dandy - but thus far worthless. I'm not saying it ain't got potential, but thus far it hasn't really impacted us in any meaningful way. And I'd be willing to bet that any future impacts on this field are going to be financed through military complex.
Even the renewable energy sources will probably come from military and not from enlightened corporations.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to pass judgment here. It's just an observation.
Not really. Unfortunately, while the Nazi doctors did a lot of stuff, it was almost all useless to the scientific community because they didn't really apply the scientific method. There are only a few citable results, in particular the Dachau hypothermia experiments (for example), and even those are rarely used for obvious political concerns. So actually, the Nazis have not advanced modern medicine very much at all.
Unlike the Nazi experiments these don't seem as well known in the west, though they've had a potentially greater effect. I say potentially because most of the doctors were pardoned (the ones that weren't captured by the Russians) and several rose to prominence in Japanese medical circles. The results of Unit 731 are mostly classified, and have been used to jumpstart biological weapons programs in both the USSR and the US (at least one Unit 731 doctor moved to the US to work on bioweapons).
True, but the hardware still needs to scale linearly with the number of concurrent connections, and it leaves them pretty susceptible to high traffic related problems, like at peak times when games are first released. What if someone decides to launch a DDoS? Virtualization also limits the type of games they can run - you can't run a dozen PS3 games without a dozen PS3s.
On top of that, they shoulder the cost of upgrading the hardware, along with the risk - another Dreamcast (high initial sales followed by a severe dropoff) would be disastrous. I'm not sure how they can pass those costs on to their customers at a price point that's attractive to anyone who doesn't play lots of games per month (also making it possibly a net loss), or that's competitive with the more scalable, more performant, and lower risk model of running the games on the client, whether it's a console or a PC.
AFAIcantell they only do PC games (or ports), so they don't have that problem. They probably won't deal in specialty hardware, that would be a nightmare. Just standard, out of the box hardware that can contribute to their overall processing power even 5-10 years later.
That would definitely mitigate some of the risk, but I'd imagine they'd have to steer clear of new games that push hardware too much - even if every system running the same game runs it from shared memory, it's still optimistically one processor per connection. They're also likely to run into the same problems that Netflix is having with ISPs, but even harder, without caching as an option. It's like they tried to conjure up the least scalable application imaginable... well, props to them if they pull it off.