5 ms·

Yes and no. I'm not sure Google's research into glucose-sensing contact lenses is motivated by R&D in any sense a Wall Street analyst would recognize. Likewise

Yes and no. I'm not sure Google's research into glucose-sensing contact lenses is motivated by R&D in any sense a Wall Street analyst would recognize. Likewise with their research into life extension science. These are decade long bets that do not slot into any commercial structure at the company. Sure, if they cure death, it'll be huge, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of urgency, or ability, to commercialize that research. More important than ROI are these two factors (IMO): + The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. + Doing crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest. Doing this kind of research also gives them a plausible potential growth story to sell to the Street. So it's not that commerce doesn't cross their mind, but it's not in the short-term sense that a lot of people think of it as. I'm not opposed to university research, I just think people underweight the corporate side's contributions.

speedplane 9y ago
Google can't just research glucose-sensing contact lenses, they have to publicize their research. They have to show that they are an innovator, either for recruitment as you say, or to impress Wall St, which is definitely all about ROI. I'm sure plenty in the company do care about technology and innovation, but they are still answerable to shareholders. This plays out plenty at Google. They make a big splash investing in a speculative technology, devote a huge team to it for a year or two, then dump it to move on to the next big thing. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it's not the same as academia.
jamesrcole 9y ago
I don't think anyone is saying it's impossible for that kind of research to happen within companies. Just that it's difficult to get adequate amounts of it done by companies, because of things like companies needing to be profitable. Not many companies are or can be like Google.
eecc 9y ago
Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring clean” all. I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as prominent today as it was? Why not?
- replicatorblog 9y ago
  That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    There is still a difference between Google and Stanford: one is not a for-profit institution, and therefore has access to public research funding such as from the NSF.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    >That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. Exactly! That's why we need to nationalize the Ivy League.
- dnautics 9y ago
  > I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Let me break to you the hard news: As a citizen you have basically zero influence over the research direction that the government TLAs engage in. Those decisions are made through elections which are determined by things like "who can we scare into thinking they'll cause abortions to happen across the land". If a candidate who had a proven track record of funding science wrote the Patriot act, you wouldn't vote for him, would you? (True story). It's even worse in the EU, since the commissioners are not elected. Oh and the kicker is that in the past three decades, those people who hate abortions and deny global warming have a better track record of funding science than the other tribe. If you really want to have agency, you would be donating to a nonprofit science research organization.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>+ The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. + Doing crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest. I once worked on a Google R&D project that got well-known in some circles. Google cut the funding without warning and I eventually had to find a new job.

speedplane 9y ago

Google can't just research glucose-sensing contact lenses, they have to publicize their research. They have to show that they are an innovator, either for recruitment as you say, or to impress Wall St, which is definitely all about ROI. I'm sure plenty in the company do care about technology and innovation, but they are still answerable to shareholders. This plays out plenty at Google. They make a big splash investing in a speculative technology, devote a huge team to it for a year or two, then dump it to move on to the next big thing. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it's not the same as academia.

jamesrcole 9y ago

I don't think anyone is saying it's impossible for that kind of research to happen within companies. Just that it's difficult to get adequate amounts of it done by companies, because of things like companies needing to be profitable. Not many companies are or can be like Google.

eecc 9y ago

Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring clean” all. I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as prominent today as it was? Why not?

replicatorblog 9y ago
That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  There is still a difference between Google and Stanford: one is not a for-profit institution, and therefore has access to public research funding such as from the NSF.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. Exactly! That's why we need to nationalize the Ivy League.
dnautics 9y ago
> I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Let me break to you the hard news: As a citizen you have basically zero influence over the research direction that the government TLAs engage in. Those decisions are made through elections which are determined by things like "who can we scare into thinking they'll cause abortions to happen across the land". If a candidate who had a proven track record of funding science wrote the Patriot act, you wouldn't vote for him, would you? (True story). It's even worse in the EU, since the commissioners are not elected. Oh and the kicker is that in the past three decades, those people who hate abortions and deny global warming have a better track record of funding science than the other tribe. If you really want to have agency, you would be donating to a nonprofit science research organization.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>+ The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. + Doing crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest. I once worked on a Google R&D project that got well-known in some circles. Google cut the funding without warning and I eventually had to find a new job.