4 ms·

Am I mistaken in my impression that the bulk of innovation actually happens outside of titans, which the titans then buy? So even hamstringing them wouldn't act

Am I mistaken in my impression that the bulk of innovation actually happens outside of titans, which the titans then buy? So even hamstringing them wouldn't actually stifle innovation?

jonathanyc 9y ago
It would seem like it. In terms of innovative research, it doesn’t seem like, say, Google Research is so much more productive than your average prestigious research university (albeit possessing perhaps a different set of focus areas). Similarly, when it comes to improvements on technical infrastructure, it seems Google plays a large role, but not an exceptionally large one, which makes sense by virtue of their massive deployments and having the capital to hire good engineers. Still, this doesn’t seem so outsized—Meltdown/Spectre weren’t discovered solely by Google, for example. On the other hand, when it comes to product innovation, it definitely seems like the bulk of it happens, as you said, outside titans. Again picking on Google (sorry), V8, Google Docs, Google Maps, YouTube, and Android were all acquisitions! And though Google acquiring them might certainly have given them large amounts of resources to expand (e.g. subsidizing YouTube), there is definitely the question of stifling innovation and competition. Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it. I think you can see the same dynamic with Facebook copying Snapchat features. It doesn’t seem like a healthy market. EDIT: V8 might be better characterized as the product of an acquihire, actually. It might not fit with the rest of the list, which were all literally acquisitions of products developed outside Google.
- ohtwenty 9y ago
  > Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it. I occasionally need to reverse-look-up images (mostly album covers without names) and tineye, in my personal experience, is vastly better. It finds matches for the exact image, with good context, etc. Google usually does pretty OK at finding similar images, but is less fantastic on matches, and if so those are joined in the noise of other 'close images'. To get back on topic: google is best at pretending they're the best. in my experience there's better reverse lookups. ddg is less 'fuzzy', but offers a much better experience with !bangs, and because of the non-fuzziness they're quite good at finding things when you know more or less what text you're looking for. OSM is often better at local details, especially in smaller/rural areas. Point being: google can throw whatever they want out there, and people will use it, and google says it's the best so people believe it. Because it's on their phones, because google suggests it, etc. I think the EU has a good point with their anti-trust/android business.
- TheHegemon 9y ago
  > Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it If Google's product was better, wouldn't that mean it increased competition and innovation?
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    I think it’s a comparable situation to dumping[1]. Google can attract users from TinEye by virtue of their brand alone and subsidize their own product even if it is unprofitable. The result is that in the long term TinEye is unable to compete and disappears, after which point Google has no incentive to improve their service. The only entities left that can compete are other titans. It also is a distortion in that it discourages investment into technical innovation if you are trying to make money as a non-titan—-why even bother if Google will just come along and copy your product then give it away for free (to drive traffic to Google search)? There is still the potential of innovation in this case from academic researchers, who might not care about commercialization. But such a situation where individuals cannot hope to compete and where research just feeds into titans would be pretty awful. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
- pqh 9y ago
  I think you're neglecting the effect corporate backing can have on encouraging research from people who are less startup-minded and more I-like-knowing-I'll-have-food-on-the-table-minded.
joshuamorton 9y ago
Depends, looking at Google specifically, Spanner is pretty cool, and Google Brain has been a huge source of innovation for a while. There's a thread about BeyondCorp on the frontpage right now. As far as I know, all of those things were not acquisitions. I personally find the whole "companies don't innovate, they acquire" argument weak at its core. You hear about the acquisitions obviously, and can see them develop into products. Sure, there are apparently 5 or 6 acquisitions involved with Google Docs, but the existence of an acquisition doesn't mean that the acquiring company wasn't able to innovate, or whatnot, it may mean that they had complimentary technology, or were working toward different goals, or its simply a buyout of a potential competitor.
- opportune 9y ago
  Buying out competitors is anti-competetive
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I made no comment on anything about competitiveness or lack-thereof. This is a non-sequitor.
    - opportune 9y ago
      I know, I am neither directly agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said - no need through the fallacy book at me. I just wanted to point out that the issue is deeper than just "innovate vs. acquire." The extra dimension is that we don't often get to see what the market would come up with in terms of competition because after a certain size, there is no competition.
trevyn 9y ago
If you hamstring them, they're less profitable, so they have less to spend on acquisitions, so the expected value of creating an innovative startup decreases.
syrrim 9y ago
In large part, those startups would never be profitable on their own, and so rely on the tech giants in order to pay back investors. The investors, in turn, only invest because they believe the startup will be bought out. The viability of the startup thereby relies on the giant.

Am I mistaken in my impression that the bulk of innovation actually happens outside of titans, which the titans then buy? So even hamstringing them wouldn't actually stifle innovation?

jonathanyc 9y ago

It would seem like it. In terms of innovative research, it doesn’t seem like, say, Google Research is so much more productive than your average prestigious research university (albeit possessing perhaps a different set of focus areas). Similarly, when it comes to improvements on technical infrastructure, it seems Google plays a large role, but not an exceptionally large one, which makes sense by virtue of their massive deployments and having the capital to hire good engineers. Still, this doesn’t seem so outsized—Meltdown/Spectre weren’t discovered solely by Google, for example. On the other hand, when it comes to product innovation, it definitely seems like the bulk of it happens, as you said, outside titans. Again picking on Google (sorry), V8, Google Docs, Google Maps, YouTube, and Android were all acquisitions! And though Google acquiring them might certainly have given them large amounts of resources to expand (e.g. subsidizing YouTube), there is definitely the question of stifling innovation and competition. Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it. I think you can see the same dynamic with Facebook copying Snapchat features. It doesn’t seem like a healthy market. EDIT: V8 might be better characterized as the product of an acquihire, actually. It might not fit with the rest of the list, which were all literally acquisitions of products developed outside Google.

ohtwenty 9y ago
> Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it. I occasionally need to reverse-look-up images (mostly album covers without names) and tineye, in my personal experience, is vastly better. It finds matches for the exact image, with good context, etc. Google usually does pretty OK at finding similar images, but is less fantastic on matches, and if so those are joined in the noise of other 'close images'. To get back on topic: google is best at pretending they're the best. in my experience there's better reverse lookups. ddg is less 'fuzzy', but offers a much better experience with !bangs, and because of the non-fuzziness they're quite good at finding things when you know more or less what text you're looking for. OSM is often better at local details, especially in smaller/rural areas. Point being: google can throw whatever they want out there, and people will use it, and google says it's the best so people believe it. Because it's on their phones, because google suggests it, etc. I think the EU has a good point with their anti-trust/android business.
TheHegemon 9y ago
> Consider TinEye, who first published reverse image search; later Google just poured engineers onto their own reverse image search platform and copied it If Google's product was better, wouldn't that mean it increased competition and innovation?
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  I think it’s a comparable situation to dumping[1]. Google can attract users from TinEye by virtue of their brand alone and subsidize their own product even if it is unprofitable. The result is that in the long term TinEye is unable to compete and disappears, after which point Google has no incentive to improve their service. The only entities left that can compete are other titans. It also is a distortion in that it discourages investment into technical innovation if you are trying to make money as a non-titan—-why even bother if Google will just come along and copy your product then give it away for free (to drive traffic to Google search)? There is still the potential of innovation in this case from academic researchers, who might not care about commercialization. But such a situation where individuals cannot hope to compete and where research just feeds into titans would be pretty awful. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
pqh 9y ago
I think you're neglecting the effect corporate backing can have on encouraging research from people who are less startup-minded and more I-like-knowing-I'll-have-food-on-the-table-minded.

joshuamorton 9y ago

Depends, looking at Google specifically, Spanner is pretty cool, and Google Brain has been a huge source of innovation for a while. There's a thread about BeyondCorp on the frontpage right now. As far as I know, all of those things were not acquisitions. I personally find the whole "companies don't innovate, they acquire" argument weak at its core. You hear about the acquisitions obviously, and can see them develop into products. Sure, there are apparently 5 or 6 acquisitions involved with Google Docs, but the existence of an acquisition doesn't mean that the acquiring company wasn't able to innovate, or whatnot, it may mean that they had complimentary technology, or were working toward different goals, or its simply a buyout of a potential competitor.

opportune 9y ago
Buying out competitors is anti-competetive
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I made no comment on anything about competitiveness or lack-thereof. This is a non-sequitor.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I know, I am neither directly agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said - no need through the fallacy book at me. I just wanted to point out that the issue is deeper than just "innovate vs. acquire." The extra dimension is that we don't often get to see what the market would come up with in terms of competition because after a certain size, there is no competition.

trevyn 9y ago

If you hamstring them, they're less profitable, so they have less to spend on acquisitions, so the expected value of creating an innovative startup decreases.

syrrim 9y ago

In large part, those startups would never be profitable on their own, and so rely on the tech giants in order to pay back investors. The investors, in turn, only invest because they believe the startup will be bought out. The viability of the startup thereby relies on the giant.