2 ms·
I think having a fountain of money is certainly a good thing, but other companies today enjoy consistent funding and they're nothing like Bell Labs. For exampl
by crispyambulance 9y ago
I think having a fountain of money is certainly a good thing, but other companies today enjoy consistent funding and they're nothing like Bell Labs.
For example, Verizon and Comcast. Both rake in vast sums, but where is the fundamental research and contributions?? It appears that mostly gets folded into boring vertical business initiatives.
I suspect a key difference is that the old Bell Labs wasn't beholden to excessive Professional Project Management running the show and making sure everyone has their nose to the grindstone at all times.
- thesuitonym 9y agoAT&T was a legal monopoly, so they were bound by law to have research and I think a certain percentage of profits had to go to a development wing (Bell Labs) focused on improving technology. Neither Verizon nor Comcast have any such obligation.
- dasmoth 9y agoI suspect a key difference is that the old Bell Labs wasn't beholden to excessive Professional Project Management running the show and making sure everyone has their nose to the grindstone at all times. I think that's true, and was also true to a greater or lesser extent in many of the other hotbeds of 20th century research -- perhaps including those embedded in more conventional companies (IBM Research and Xerox PARC both come to mind). Short of being wealth enough to self-fund, are there any truly low-managerialism research places left today?