3 ms·

I agree. I wouldn't consider Twitter or Facebook or craigslist innovative. They are really simple technologies (ignoring the software scaling challenges) that

by tsuraan 18y ago

I agree. I wouldn't consider Twitter or Facebook or craigslist innovative. They are really simple technologies (ignoring the software scaling challenges) that have been marketed extremely effectively. I don't understand why you don't think that's innovative. The definition of innovative is to introduce something as though it was new (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate), which is a far cry from invention. Innovation isn't about creating new things, it's about taking established things and making them appeal to people in a new way.

jonmc12 18y ago
From wikipedia - "Invention that gets out in to the world is innovation." In that sense, a real innovation is something that is well understood, and tested for its benefit. The thing about craigslist, twitter, facebook, wikipedia, etc is that the real reason that they are so valuable is only a matter of speculation at this point. They are only the beginning of the experiment - not the final output. You can take a circuit level innovation, and re-apply it in several contexts. You can't take the magic of craigslist or facebook and incur the same value in another situation.. all you can do is speculate on why it worked, and be another iteration of a highly distributed experiment. What the author is calling innovation, is really just leveraging off the reduced costs of infrastructure to test new tools on consumers. When someone formalizes why the 'social engineering' approaches work, predictably, against this data set, they will then be able to improve, and re-apply with more certainty in the market. That's innovation. I'm not sure how rigorous 'social engineering' is at present, but maybe 'social experimenters' is a better name.
breck 18y ago
I consider them innovative, just mildly innovative, in terms of the affect their technologies are having on the macro economy. I think their value is grossly overestimated. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, I'd get over it (the downsides may even be outweighed by the time I no longer waste on the site). If Google disappeared tomorrow, it would seriously suck.

by tsuraan 18y ago

jonmc12 18y ago

From wikipedia - "Invention that gets out in to the world is innovation." In that sense, a real innovation is something that is well understood, and tested for its benefit. The thing about craigslist, twitter, facebook, wikipedia, etc is that the real reason that they are so valuable is only a matter of speculation at this point. They are only the beginning of the experiment - not the final output. You can take a circuit level innovation, and re-apply it in several contexts. You can't take the magic of craigslist or facebook and incur the same value in another situation.. all you can do is speculate on why it worked, and be another iteration of a highly distributed experiment. What the author is calling innovation, is really just leveraging off the reduced costs of infrastructure to test new tools on consumers. When someone formalizes why the 'social engineering' approaches work, predictably, against this data set, they will then be able to improve, and re-apply with more certainty in the market. That's innovation. I'm not sure how rigorous 'social engineering' is at present, but maybe 'social experimenters' is a better name.

breck 18y ago

I consider them innovative, just mildly innovative, in terms of the affect their technologies are having on the macro economy. I think their value is grossly overestimated. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, I'd get over it (the downsides may even be outweighed by the time I no longer waste on the site). If Google disappeared tomorrow, it would seriously suck.