2 ms·
> It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the
by dpcx 6y ago
> It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the first place.
By that virtue it seems that an awfully large number of "products" that came out of Bell Labs wouldn't be considered successful, unless I misunderstand.
- jacquesm 6y agoBell Labs was not created to be a stand alone company. It was created with the express purpose of being a laboratory, hence the name. Its main product was patents, and some copyrightable code. The fact that it led to useful products is the reason it was established in the first place: a very long term plan from a company that could easily afford it. And since it strengthened the company that decided to commit the resources it definitely can be considered a success. There are a few more examples of such institutions, some more successful, others less so but overall doing basic research in a time when tech is in a state of flux looks like it is a winning strategy.
- liability 6y agoBell Labs was a successful lab, not a successful company. It was eventually spun off as a company, Lucent, which failed.
- danielscrubs 6y agoI’d argue that the engineers where successful and the management and company was not. But for some reason managers never takes responsibility.
- liability 6y agoI did not blame the engineers, nor did I absolve management. In the case of Mozilla, it's clearly management who are to blame.