5 ms·

> people would be willing to pay thousands of dollars per year on. To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now

> people would be willing to pay thousands of dollars per year on. To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now, on skin care (for instance the SK-II lineup sells well, and it’s 100-250$ a bottle) My semi-cynical view would be that cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it and have top of the line products. Basically they’d only have issues with new players making bolstering entrances and disrupting their market with a revolutionary products they’re not ready to counter. And the gap between some process being validated, and a product with that process being on the market is so huge, it’s hard to see a non entranched company start investing on that without getting noticed. I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary. I kind of hate to say it, but isn't this why patents exist? The first company to make a product with this tech will have exclusivity for 20 years. Shouldn't that be a sufficient incentive?
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Patents only cover processes I think ? For instance Kodak was first on the ground with their digital camera, but we all know how it went. The same way pharmaceutical companies patent drugs but it doesn’t stop a rival company from doing their own development cycle and coming up with a competing drug based on the same molecule.
  - patmorgan23 5y ago
    Patents cover devices too. The cotton gen, dish washer, and toilet paper holder were a patented at one point.
- caslon 5y ago
  It's a demonstration that the modern patent system fails at that.
- sterlind 5y ago
  I think if patents worked like that, there'd be a thriving market for patents on emerging technologies. VCs would fund research groups to do basic science, and their deliverables would be successful experiments and prototypes, turned into patents. Instead, patents are used defensively, for obvious things and rent-seeking. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I can imagine a combination of: * You don't have to prove your invention works. * Patents can be vague and broad, and the non-obviousness bar is depressingly low. Low effort patents have more power than real advances. * It's hard to enforce patents on in-house processes and systems. * Workarounds can be found after you've done the hard work. * Basic research (e.g. algorithms) can't be patented, and basic research is the hardest part. We really do need a system that makes basic research with high eventual impact profitable. Brilliant scientists are getting paid peanuts.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    I'm trying not to show my ignorance by saying something terribly wrong, but my sense is that the patent system works better in pharma than in software. Pharma companies don't need to patent algorithms, but—this is where I hope I'm not saying something wrong—I think they can patent e.g. molecules? Certainly, the first company to the market with a drug is usually rewarded pretty heavily, until generics come online 20 years later.
    - sterlind 5y ago
      they can patent molecules and synthetic routes. but once one company shows that targeting a particular receptor works, or binding to some site on a protein, other companies can find drugs that so the same thing but look different. for instance, Prozac was a breakthrough (the first SSRI), but it was easy for other companies to make their own SSRIs.
ajross 5y ago
> cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it This is where the "competition" pillar of capitalism comes into play. All producers would naturally benefit from being a cartel, but in practice the benefit to the One Player Who Cheats (in this case, by developing better products) is so large that we end up advancing anyway.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  I see it as the same dynamic we have in bike races. There’s a peloton running ahead, and they want to keep a sane distance from the pack. They’ll watch and react to the pack getting closer, but won’t be sprinting their lungs off until any of them gets in reaching distance of the goal. Except when one of them decide to take the gamble (“cheat” as you say) and start sprinting. But we can agree it is extremely rare to have a sole sprinter leave the peloton mid-race and stay ahead until the end. When it comes to huge international companies with billions and billions on the line, I expect even less of them to make huge gambles and try escaping the peloton with no goal in sight for the next 15~20 years.
  - chasil 5y ago
    Do telomeres and telomerase play a role in this new discovery? Telomeres are the ultimate clock for cells that differentiate.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Using your peleton example, there was also that 2020(2021) Tokyo race where the woman just got out in front, maintained the same speed as the trailing peleton (slowed in the 2nd half) and just stayed out of sight the whole time. I guess there were 4 or 5 members of the break out group earlier, but all the others fell back at the halfway mark. Sometimes just getting out front and maintaining speed just works, especially if there's one giant gold everyone is competing for at the end.
ceeplusplus 5y ago
> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary I'm not so sure this was really true. For example when the mirrorless transition happened Sony had basically bet the farm on making it a reality and as a result they dominate the mirrorless space in marketshare. If a new product is sufficiently better than existing ones then it can overcome the capital advantages of existing players. Especially with modern day VC funds pumping billions into high growth startups. I also think you have to consider that very few people in legacy companies have cutting edge expertise. Walmart is not going to have the calibre of robotics, AI, or engineering personnel that Amazon does.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  I think Sony didn't gamble that much on mirrorless, and were already in a good position to make it happen. They had a CCD/CMOS group company since the 80s and started using them in video cameras. From there they also produced sensors for feature phone, smarphones, and mirrorless was more or less an extension of that
wolpoli 5y ago
> My semi-cynical view would be that cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it and have top of the line products I looked at the Linkedin information for a few cosmetic companies and found that most of the employees work in marketing and channels, followed by business administration, and followed by a handful of cosmetician. My guess is that either research and development are outsourced or they are primarily marketing companies, which means there might not be any research to begin with.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  They have found that it absolutely doesn't matter how well, or if, the products work. It suffices to suggest they might. If somebody came up with a product that actually did work, they know they would be in deep trouble.
  - ggm 5y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_with_Lichen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_with_Lichen by John Wyndham,1960
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I wouldn't go that far as say there is absolutely no research at all; however, I saw several articles debunking the claims by manufacturers regarding the efficiency of these products. Basically, there are the equivalent of vitamin supplements: by now everybody should know there is no benefit in taking them if you have no specific deficiency but the market is still huge and people seem to buy them indiscriminately. The reason for this is simply sad. Imagine you are a woman in your forties, fifties and so on. For your whole life the society was communicating to you in different ways, directly and indirectly, that a large share of your value lies in your beauty. Now it is fading away and there is no going back. So you do what you can to slow this process down. If you believe it works, you simply feel better. And when you tell it to your friends, of course they will support you ("This cream really works miracles, you look so much younger"). Same with cosmetic surgeries, for some people it verges on the bring of psychiatric disorder, with one operation after another turning you into a monster, but when you look into the mirror you perceive yourself as more beautiful than before.
lmarcos 5y ago
> To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now, on skin care (for instance the SK-II lineup sells well, and it’s 100-250$ a bottle) Side question: do these skin care products work? Is anyone here on HN using them and notice any difference?
- heymijo 5y ago
  Retionoids/retinols, sunscreen, vitamin c. Those are the big three that dermatologists will recommend that have evidence of efficacy for anti-aging.
  - moneywoes 5y ago
    Anywhere to find cheap versionsv
    - popinman322 5y ago
      Retinoids: your doctor Everything else: The Ordinary
- kingkawn 5y ago
  A lightly acidic lotion with sunscreen everyday since late teen years and my skin looks like my late twenties in my early 40s. Lotion in general does a huge amount to help skin stay healthy and accumulate less exposure damage over the decades.
jfoster 5y ago
Suppose a company that currently sees $0 from skincare market wants to have 90% marketshare in skincare in short order.
HWR_14 5y ago
> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready One of the biggest investors in digital photography was Kodak, because they recognized the threat to their film model. Now they used their patents to stall the conversion to digital instead of using their lead to dominate a new market, but it's not uncommon for companies to invest hard in their replacement to secure IP. That's why MS was getting paid $5/android phone for a while.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary. I kind of hate to say it, but isn't this why patents exist? The first company to make a product with this tech will have exclusivity for 20 years. Shouldn't that be a sufficient incentive?

makeitdouble 5y ago
Patents only cover processes I think ? For instance Kodak was first on the ground with their digital camera, but we all know how it went. The same way pharmaceutical companies patent drugs but it doesn’t stop a rival company from doing their own development cycle and coming up with a competing drug based on the same molecule.
- patmorgan23 5y ago
  Patents cover devices too. The cotton gen, dish washer, and toilet paper holder were a patented at one point.
caslon 5y ago
It's a demonstration that the modern patent system fails at that.
sterlind 5y ago
I think if patents worked like that, there'd be a thriving market for patents on emerging technologies. VCs would fund research groups to do basic science, and their deliverables would be successful experiments and prototypes, turned into patents. Instead, patents are used defensively, for obvious things and rent-seeking. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I can imagine a combination of: * You don't have to prove your invention works. * Patents can be vague and broad, and the non-obviousness bar is depressingly low. Low effort patents have more power than real advances. * It's hard to enforce patents on in-house processes and systems. * Workarounds can be found after you've done the hard work. * Basic research (e.g. algorithms) can't be patented, and basic research is the hardest part. We really do need a system that makes basic research with high eventual impact profitable. Brilliant scientists are getting paid peanuts.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  I'm trying not to show my ignorance by saying something terribly wrong, but my sense is that the patent system works better in pharma than in software. Pharma companies don't need to patent algorithms, but—this is where I hope I'm not saying something wrong—I think they can patent e.g. molecules? Certainly, the first company to the market with a drug is usually rewarded pretty heavily, until generics come online 20 years later.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    they can patent molecules and synthetic routes. but once one company shows that targeting a particular receptor works, or binding to some site on a protein, other companies can find drugs that so the same thing but look different. for instance, Prozac was a breakthrough (the first SSRI), but it was easy for other companies to make their own SSRIs.

ajross 5y ago

> cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it This is where the "competition" pillar of capitalism comes into play. All producers would naturally benefit from being a cartel, but in practice the benefit to the One Player Who Cheats (in this case, by developing better products) is so large that we end up advancing anyway.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I see it as the same dynamic we have in bike races. There’s a peloton running ahead, and they want to keep a sane distance from the pack. They’ll watch and react to the pack getting closer, but won’t be sprinting their lungs off until any of them gets in reaching distance of the goal. Except when one of them decide to take the gamble (“cheat” as you say) and start sprinting. But we can agree it is extremely rare to have a sole sprinter leave the peloton mid-race and stay ahead until the end. When it comes to huge international companies with billions and billions on the line, I expect even less of them to make huge gambles and try escaping the peloton with no goal in sight for the next 15~20 years.
- chasil 5y ago
  Do telomeres and telomerase play a role in this new discovery? Telomeres are the ultimate clock for cells that differentiate.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Using your peleton example, there was also that 2020(2021) Tokyo race where the woman just got out in front, maintained the same speed as the trailing peleton (slowed in the 2nd half) and just stayed out of sight the whole time. I guess there were 4 or 5 members of the break out group earlier, but all the others fell back at the halfway mark. Sometimes just getting out front and maintaining speed just works, especially if there's one giant gold everyone is competing for at the end.

ceeplusplus 5y ago

> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready, and had no need to bet the farm on making it a reality sooner than necessary I'm not so sure this was really true. For example when the mirrorless transition happened Sony had basically bet the farm on making it a reality and as a result they dominate the mirrorless space in marketshare. If a new product is sufficiently better than existing ones then it can overcome the capital advantages of existing players. Especially with modern day VC funds pumping billions into high growth startups. I also think you have to consider that very few people in legacy companies have cutting edge expertise. Walmart is not going to have the calibre of robotics, AI, or engineering personnel that Amazon does.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I think Sony didn't gamble that much on mirrorless, and were already in a good position to make it happen. They had a CCD/CMOS group company since the 80s and started using them in video cameras. From there they also produced sensors for feature phone, smarphones, and mirrorless was more or less an extension of that

wolpoli 5y ago

> My semi-cynical view would be that cosmetics companies don’t have any specific incentive to accelerate the natural march of research as long as they stay on the forefront of it and have top of the line products I looked at the Linkedin information for a few cosmetic companies and found that most of the employees work in marketing and channels, followed by business administration, and followed by a handful of cosmetician. My guess is that either research and development are outsourced or they are primarily marketing companies, which means there might not be any research to begin with.

ncmncm 5y ago
They have found that it absolutely doesn't matter how well, or if, the products work. It suffices to suggest they might. If somebody came up with a product that actually did work, they know they would be in deep trouble.
- ggm 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_with_Lichen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_with_Lichen by John Wyndham,1960
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
I wouldn't go that far as say there is absolutely no research at all; however, I saw several articles debunking the claims by manufacturers regarding the efficiency of these products. Basically, there are the equivalent of vitamin supplements: by now everybody should know there is no benefit in taking them if you have no specific deficiency but the market is still huge and people seem to buy them indiscriminately. The reason for this is simply sad. Imagine you are a woman in your forties, fifties and so on. For your whole life the society was communicating to you in different ways, directly and indirectly, that a large share of your value lies in your beauty. Now it is fading away and there is no going back. So you do what you can to slow this process down. If you believe it works, you simply feel better. And when you tell it to your friends, of course they will support you ("This cream really works miracles, you look so much younger"). Same with cosmetic surgeries, for some people it verges on the bring of psychiatric disorder, with one operation after another turning you into a monster, but when you look into the mirror you perceive yourself as more beautiful than before.

lmarcos 5y ago

> To note, a huge market segment is are already paying thousands of dollars per yer, right now, on skin care (for instance the SK-II lineup sells well, and it’s 100-250$ a bottle) Side question: do these skin care products work? Is anyone here on HN using them and notice any difference?

heymijo 5y ago
Retionoids/retinols, sunscreen, vitamin c. Those are the big three that dermatologists will recommend that have evidence of efficacy for anti-aging.
- moneywoes 5y ago
  Anywhere to find cheap versionsv
  - popinman322 5y ago
    Retinoids: your doctor Everything else: The Ordinary
kingkawn 5y ago
A lightly acidic lotion with sunscreen everyday since late teen years and my skin looks like my late twenties in my early 40s. Lotion in general does a huge amount to help skin stay healthy and accumulate less exposure damage over the decades.

jfoster 5y ago

Suppose a company that currently sees $0 from skincare market wants to have 90% marketshare in skincare in short order.

HWR_14 5y ago

> I’d see it as the same situation as Camera makers when digital was coming at the horizon. They only needed to be there when the tech is ready One of the biggest investors in digital photography was Kodak, because they recognized the threat to their film model. Now they used their patents to stall the conversion to digital instead of using their lead to dominate a new market, but it's not uncommon for companies to invest hard in their replacement to secure IP. That's why MS was getting paid $5/android phone for a while.