4 ms·

Does Silicon Valley Face an Innovation Crisis?

14 points by terpua 18y ago

herdrick 18y ago
No. On the web, innovation is happening so quickly few users can keep up. And the tons of little companies making incremental improvements don't seem to be hurting the shops working on big ideas either: http://www.anybots.com/ http://www.anybots.com/
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  Nobody cares about the web. Take an excursion into reality and notice the web is a fraction of a percent of what's going on and is of minimal real life impact for pretty much everybody.
  - comatose_kid 18y ago
    Most things are a 'fraction of a percent of what's going on', technology or not. We have a finite attention span, so this shouldn't be surprising. So, I have trouble following how this would relate to the impact that the web (or anything else) has on people. I'd be interested to hear examples of why the web has 'minimal real life impact for pretty much everybody'.
sh1mmer 18y ago
This is article is based on a new book "Closing the innovation Gap" http://www.theinnovationgap.com/ http://www.theinnovationgap.com/ . As far as I can see she is saying that VCs are too focused on short term returns and are being too timid, causing the downturn in innovation. This argument seems similar to the PG vs DHH debate.
dmix 18y ago
The technologies at the root of new products like Apple’s iPod or the Facebook social networking service were actually developed several decades ago. Would people have bought an iPod when they were using CDs still and hard drives were really expensive? Just because the technology was created "decades ago" doesn't make those current innovations any less valid. Both of those examples (ipod/fb) required the technology to be applied effectively and have a market ready for them. It took more then hard drives and web applications to make them successful. They created the technology for personal computers long before it became feasible for a market outside of the tech and academic community. After all the other factors came into place (price, hardware manufacturing, market demand etc) it was able to reach a mainstream market. That sounds like a weak argument when saying there is an innovation crisis. Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them. Not just because they exist.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  > Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them. That's the whole complaint. Many markets were created by force of will and R&D dollars, not simple natural progressions. That's the low hanging fruit and not very innovative. This guy does a decent job exploring the issue of abandoning innovation: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF18Dj01.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF18Dj01.html The poignant illustration is how in the 50s everybody expected robot vacuum cleaners and appliances in the next 30 years. But nobody ever even tried to build them. Instead, from the 70s through to today business leadership focused on cost reduction rather than progress. So we have no robot vacuum cleaners. This is the "innovation crisis."
  - dmix 18y ago
    That's a fair point. But was it possible to create a robot vacuum in the 50s? Just because people wanted or expected something doesn't equal the means to build something. Theres so many factors at stake from the point of building a new technology and bringing it to market. Entrepeneurs and VCs look for opportunities to build businesses and make money. There is always a need for some short-term return otherwise they will die. Being the driving force behind a completely new technology is very expensive and the first mover advantage is usually not worth it. VCs are not in the business of pioneering a new technology, they look for trends and opportunities to get a return for their investors. If its not the VCs putting up the capital to support innovation, whos left? The government? I prefer letting the market do its work.
  - Retric 18y ago
    What about the 130$ Roomba is not a "robot vacuum cleaner"? Building a working airplane had a lot more to do with the availability of light and high horse power engines than a new understanding of physics. AI is held in check not by the lack of desire it's all about having enough CPU's at enough GHz connected to enough high speed memory. For 25 billion we could build a working fusion power plant that would be online in under 10 years. Sometimes focusing on cheep is more important than you might think.

14 points by terpua 18y ago

No. On the web, innovation is happening so quickly few users can keep up. And the tons of little companies making incremental improvements don't seem to be hurting the shops working on big ideas either: http://www.anybots.com/ http://www.anybots.com/

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Nobody cares about the web. Take an excursion into reality and notice the web is a fraction of a percent of what's going on and is of minimal real life impact for pretty much everybody.
- comatose_kid 18y ago
  Most things are a 'fraction of a percent of what's going on', technology or not. We have a finite attention span, so this shouldn't be surprising. So, I have trouble following how this would relate to the impact that the web (or anything else) has on people. I'd be interested to hear examples of why the web has 'minimal real life impact for pretty much everybody'.

sh1mmer 18y ago

This is article is based on a new book "Closing the innovation Gap" http://www.theinnovationgap.com/ http://www.theinnovationgap.com/ . As far as I can see she is saying that VCs are too focused on short term returns and are being too timid, causing the downturn in innovation. This argument seems similar to the PG vs DHH debate.

dmix 18y ago

The technologies at the root of new products like Apple’s iPod or the Facebook social networking service were actually developed several decades ago. Would people have bought an iPod when they were using CDs still and hard drives were really expensive? Just because the technology was created "decades ago" doesn't make those current innovations any less valid. Both of those examples (ipod/fb) required the technology to be applied effectively and have a market ready for them. It took more then hard drives and web applications to make them successful. They created the technology for personal computers long before it became feasible for a market outside of the tech and academic community. After all the other factors came into place (price, hardware manufacturing, market demand etc) it was able to reach a mainstream market. That sounds like a weak argument when saying there is an innovation crisis. Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them. Not just because they exist.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them. That's the whole complaint. Many markets were created by force of will and R&D dollars, not simple natural progressions. That's the low hanging fruit and not very innovative. This guy does a decent job exploring the issue of abandoning innovation: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF18Dj01.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF18Dj01.html The poignant illustration is how in the 50s everybody expected robot vacuum cleaners and appliances in the next 30 years. But nobody ever even tried to build them. Instead, from the 70s through to today business leadership focused on cost reduction rather than progress. So we have no robot vacuum cleaners. This is the "innovation crisis."
- dmix 18y ago
  That's a fair point. But was it possible to create a robot vacuum in the 50s? Just because people wanted or expected something doesn't equal the means to build something. Theres so many factors at stake from the point of building a new technology and bringing it to market. Entrepeneurs and VCs look for opportunities to build businesses and make money. There is always a need for some short-term return otherwise they will die. Being the driving force behind a completely new technology is very expensive and the first mover advantage is usually not worth it. VCs are not in the business of pioneering a new technology, they look for trends and opportunities to get a return for their investors. If its not the VCs putting up the capital to support innovation, whos left? The government? I prefer letting the market do its work.
- Retric 18y ago
  What about the 130$ Roomba is not a "robot vacuum cleaner"? Building a working airplane had a lot more to do with the availability of light and high horse power engines than a new understanding of physics. AI is held in check not by the lack of desire it's all about having enough CPU's at enough GHz connected to enough high speed memory. For 25 billion we could build a working fusion power plant that would be online in under 10 years. Sometimes focusing on cheep is more important than you might think.