4 ms·

> if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-val

by yunwal 4y ago

> if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here. Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model. If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    > non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies The same problem plagues all of these models: they're hierarchical and top-heavy. Having worked at traditional companies and having considered a career in academia; there's a reason these organizations get outboxed. Innovation requires risk and investment. How are any of these three an effective model of risk? Big companies will invest without taking risk, research organizations and academia will take risks without investing, and branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov). > The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want, but there are widely-known systemic issues with all of these alternative structures that makes them ineffective. > and will again Only if you create a walled garden where they are the only competitor. Obviously the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick. For rocketry, semiconductors, etc. (i.e., fields which require large upfront capital investment) these alternative investment models fare better.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      > Big companies will invest without taking risk Why do we think this is? Might it be because big companies would actually have to face consequences when big, dumb risks fail? > research organizations and academia will take risks without investing Not sure where you get this idea > branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov) I'm not sure if healthcare.gov is a great example, since IT for the site was almost entirely run by private contractors. Before corporate lobbying was able to handcuff essentially any public innovation effort, the government routinely funded massively successful innovation projects (civilian aviation, the internet, microchips, satellites, AI, barcodes, touch screens - including the company bought by apple, nearly all devices and drugs/vaccines used in modern medicine, list could go on forever basically). > Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want I will, since once again, we've seen all of the alternatives be successful without nearly as many downsides. > the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick I'm not convinced. Largely the current model wins because it sidesteps regulations and gets away with anticompetitive, antisocial behavior and risky financialization under the guise of innovation. If it was true innovation, the world wouldn't be becoming a worse place every day that SV was essentially handed the keys. Our kids wouldn't be more depressed, climate change would be addressed, public health crises would be solved. What we have is a bunch of people scrambling trying to impress upon people that they have all the answers, when they do not. I'm also not convinced that the answer to everything lies in the internet. Nearly all of our savings has gone to funding companies that do a thing that existed, but on the internet, rather than funding real innovation.

by yunwal 4y ago

nottathrowaway3 4y ago

> If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.

yunwal 4y ago
> Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  > non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies The same problem plagues all of these models: they're hierarchical and top-heavy. Having worked at traditional companies and having considered a career in academia; there's a reason these organizations get outboxed. Innovation requires risk and investment. How are any of these three an effective model of risk? Big companies will invest without taking risk, research organizations and academia will take risks without investing, and branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov). > The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want, but there are widely-known systemic issues with all of these alternative structures that makes them ineffective. > and will again Only if you create a walled garden where they are the only competitor. Obviously the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick. For rocketry, semiconductors, etc. (i.e., fields which require large upfront capital investment) these alternative investment models fare better.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > Big companies will invest without taking risk Why do we think this is? Might it be because big companies would actually have to face consequences when big, dumb risks fail? > research organizations and academia will take risks without investing Not sure where you get this idea > branches of government and political entities (in the U.S.) are famously bad at both (ex: healthcare.gov) I'm not sure if healthcare.gov is a great example, since IT for the site was almost entirely run by private contractors. Before corporate lobbying was able to handcuff essentially any public innovation effort, the government routinely funded massively successful innovation projects (civilian aviation, the internet, microchips, satellites, AI, barcodes, touch screens - including the company bought by apple, nearly all devices and drugs/vaccines used in modern medicine, list could go on forever basically). > Blame anticompetitive behavior all you want I will, since once again, we've seen all of the alternatives be successful without nearly as many downsides. > the current internet model favors VCs because R+D is cheap and quick I'm not convinced. Largely the current model wins because it sidesteps regulations and gets away with anticompetitive, antisocial behavior and risky financialization under the guise of innovation. If it was true innovation, the world wouldn't be becoming a worse place every day that SV was essentially handed the keys. Our kids wouldn't be more depressed, climate change would be addressed, public health crises would be solved. What we have is a bunch of people scrambling trying to impress upon people that they have all the answers, when they do not. I'm also not convinced that the answer to everything lies in the internet. Nearly all of our savings has gone to funding companies that do a thing that existed, but on the internet, rather than funding real innovation.