5 ms·
I think it's the opposite. I'm not talking about "Let's start a social media app for Aardvarks!" kind of ideas, but actual scientific research. We used to have
by Johnny555 4y ago
I think it's the opposite.
I'm not talking about "Let's start a social media app for Aardvarks!" kind of ideas, but actual scientific research. We used to have pure research orgs like Bell Labs, but companies aren't funding pure research any more, so we need more investment from government. Not every idea should have a path to monetization before it's funded.
- pedro2 4y agoIt has been read somewhere that's due to the possibility to gobble up/buy competitors with no blocking by the state of such behaviour, specially since state deregulation in the 70s. So there is the possibility the market can be made to care again.
- epicide 4y agoI should clarify, as I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. I don't equate "skunkworks" with high risk. To me, that's not "risk" as much as "I don't care about monetization in the first place", like you're saying. I agree that research without promise of a payout is sorely missing these days. When I say "maybe we should have less high risk", I'm thinking of fly-by-night companies that do make a social media app for aardvarks, spend a bunch of money on slick marketing so they can pump their IPO, and then pull the rug with them when they bail. But billionaires don't become billionaires by doing skunkworks projects. They often do the latter.