6 ms·

I assure you, it has not. Sometimes it's hard to look past TechCrunch and the endless SaaS/CRUD apps, but we're in the middle of a technological revolution rig

I assure you, it has not. Sometimes it's hard to look past TechCrunch and the endless SaaS/CRUD apps, but we're in the middle of a technological revolution right now. Platforms like Kickstarter are driving innovation like never before, pushing forward ideas that would have never seen the light of day otherwise. The new tech coming out of the machine is awe-inspiring. Even as a tiny, tiny sample of what's happening out there: Google's making self-driving cars, healthcare is advancing by leaps and bounds, and portable electronics have changed the way we live our lives over the course of but 5 years. Google Glass? Oculus Rift? Leap Motion? MYO? All tech that would simply blow your mind just 10 years ago, but we're practically taking it for granted today. I'm typing this on a thin glass slab, for Christ's sake, this is something out of Star Trek. If you're struggling to see innovation, you aren't looking hard enough.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Not just innovation, things like kickstarter are a part of a fundamental sea change in our economy. Away from the model of the "worker" manning an assembly line in a factory for life and towards a model of individual artists, craftsmen, makers, developers, etc. working independently as freelancers and in very small "indie" outfits. I think that the model of mega-corporations serving as the backbone of the economy is going to transition increasingly toward smaller, more autonomous organizations and individuals which typically work in a cooperative / collaborative fashion on major projects. We're already seeing that pattern play out in the arts, with more and more musicians, comedians, graphic artists, game makers, etc. working on their own.
tomjen3 14y ago
There is no inovation in health care. We can't grow organs, we are still dying of hearth diease and diabetes. Doctors know how important exercise is but keep turning out study after study on the subject instead of figuring out how to get the same effects in a pill. They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. You talk Star Trek, at this point I would be impressed with a goddamm hypospray. Tech companies have made it possible to get live video from the other side of the planet, it is about time the rest of the sectors step up.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  They don't even want to cure cancer If it's so easy to cure cancer, why haven't you done it yet?
- kiba 14y ago
  They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. CEOs and doctors die of cancer each year. You want to tell me that they don't want to cure cancer?
- artsrc 14y ago
  Certainly information technology products are advancing faster than some others. But in terms of health care, life expectancy is still increasing. For diabetes, I think that blood glucose monitors are more easily available than they were in the past, and I suspect that an implant that regulates glucose better can't be far away. 2 members of my family both had cancer and don't have it anymore due to medical intervention. I think transport is the one to pick on more.
- krapp 14y ago
  we are still dying of hearth diease and diabetes. We're dying of everything it's possible to die from. Nevertheless far fewer people are dying of heart disease and diabetes than ever. Doctors know how important exercise is but keep turning out study after study on the subject instead of figuring out how to get the same effects in a pill. Human biology is not subject to Moore's Law. There will never be a pill which encapsulates the effect of getting some exercise. They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. Or maybe cancer is complex and those ever more expensive treatments are as close to a cure as we can come right now, providing the very idea of 'a cure for cancer' isn't a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
  - spikels 14y ago
    I certainly do get the sense that medical progress has stalled. Perhaps all the "low hanging fruit" has been picked and future progress will be much harder. As the article mentions antibiotics were both a lot easier to develop and had a much bigger impact than genomic research - at least so far. It sure seems like we have made very little overall progress even on targeted diseases, such as cancer, despite vastly increased spending. Spending on both healthcare and healthcare research have roughly doubled in nominal dollars since 2000 with little overall impact. I understand that, at least in the US, healthcare is fundamentally broken - results have little connection to costs. But is this enough to be holding back the entire economy? Is tech's impact really just smaller than we think? And are other sectors, especially government activites, also lagging behind and thus dragging down overall performance?
victoro 14y ago
Mentioning "endless SaaS/CRUD" apps in a derogatory fashion and then singing the praises of Kickstarter a sentence later seems a bit hypocritical given that, aside from its large audience, Kickstarter is just a slightly more advanced CRUD app.
- robryan 14y ago
  If it enables a new class of innovation and investment who cares how simple or complicated it is.
  - simonh 14y ago
    I think that was the point. We're still in the early days of taking full advantage of basic internet technologies, at a whole population/full economy scale. Smartphones and tablets are still a novelty. Major media industries like TV, Cinema and big publishing are still locked up in business models that are becoming painfully outmoded, and have barely begun the painful process of reform that the music industry is only now emerging from. If simple technologies like basic web apps that have been around for well over a decade are still enabling revolutionary businesses that would previously have been impossible, how can anyone claim that innovation is dead?
sliverstorm 14y ago
I'm typing this on a thin glass slab, for Christ's sake It is certainly futuristic. You couldn't have done that twenty years ago. But the point of the article is, as whiz-bangy as posting to the internet from a thin glass slab is, it doesn't appear to have driven real growth (at least not yet).
- robryan 14y ago
  I would be very surprised if portable access to online anywhere you go hasn't driven growth. At very least we now have the app economy.
cpressey 14y ago
I'm struggling to see much innovation that directly addresses fundamental problems. Mostly I see gadgets. Your examples are mostly gadgets.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Not just innovation, things like kickstarter are a part of a fundamental sea change in our economy. Away from the model of the "worker" manning an assembly line in a factory for life and towards a model of individual artists, craftsmen, makers, developers, etc. working independently as freelancers and in very small "indie" outfits. I think that the model of mega-corporations serving as the backbone of the economy is going to transition increasingly toward smaller, more autonomous organizations and individuals which typically work in a cooperative / collaborative fashion on major projects. We're already seeing that pattern play out in the arts, with more and more musicians, comedians, graphic artists, game makers, etc. working on their own.

tomjen3 14y ago

There is no inovation in health care. We can't grow organs, we are still dying of hearth diease and diabetes. Doctors know how important exercise is but keep turning out study after study on the subject instead of figuring out how to get the same effects in a pill. They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. You talk Star Trek, at this point I would be impressed with a goddamm hypospray. Tech companies have made it possible to get live video from the other side of the planet, it is about time the rest of the sectors step up.

sliverstorm 14y ago
They don't even want to cure cancer If it's so easy to cure cancer, why haven't you done it yet?
kiba 14y ago
They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. CEOs and doctors die of cancer each year. You want to tell me that they don't want to cure cancer?
artsrc 14y ago
Certainly information technology products are advancing faster than some others. But in terms of health care, life expectancy is still increasing. For diabetes, I think that blood glucose monitors are more easily available than they were in the past, and I suspect that an implant that regulates glucose better can't be far away. 2 members of my family both had cancer and don't have it anymore due to medical intervention. I think transport is the one to pick on more.
krapp 14y ago
we are still dying of hearth diease and diabetes. We're dying of everything it's possible to die from. Nevertheless far fewer people are dying of heart disease and diabetes than ever. Doctors know how important exercise is but keep turning out study after study on the subject instead of figuring out how to get the same effects in a pill. Human biology is not subject to Moore's Law. There will never be a pill which encapsulates the effect of getting some exercise. They don't even want to cure cancer, prefering ever more expensive treatments. Or maybe cancer is complex and those ever more expensive treatments are as close to a cure as we can come right now, providing the very idea of 'a cure for cancer' isn't a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
- spikels 14y ago
  I certainly do get the sense that medical progress has stalled. Perhaps all the "low hanging fruit" has been picked and future progress will be much harder. As the article mentions antibiotics were both a lot easier to develop and had a much bigger impact than genomic research - at least so far. It sure seems like we have made very little overall progress even on targeted diseases, such as cancer, despite vastly increased spending. Spending on both healthcare and healthcare research have roughly doubled in nominal dollars since 2000 with little overall impact. I understand that, at least in the US, healthcare is fundamentally broken - results have little connection to costs. But is this enough to be holding back the entire economy? Is tech's impact really just smaller than we think? And are other sectors, especially government activites, also lagging behind and thus dragging down overall performance?

victoro 14y ago

Mentioning "endless SaaS/CRUD" apps in a derogatory fashion and then singing the praises of Kickstarter a sentence later seems a bit hypocritical given that, aside from its large audience, Kickstarter is just a slightly more advanced CRUD app.

robryan 14y ago
If it enables a new class of innovation and investment who cares how simple or complicated it is.
- simonh 14y ago
  I think that was the point. We're still in the early days of taking full advantage of basic internet technologies, at a whole population/full economy scale. Smartphones and tablets are still a novelty. Major media industries like TV, Cinema and big publishing are still locked up in business models that are becoming painfully outmoded, and have barely begun the painful process of reform that the music industry is only now emerging from. If simple technologies like basic web apps that have been around for well over a decade are still enabling revolutionary businesses that would previously have been impossible, how can anyone claim that innovation is dead?

sliverstorm 14y ago

I'm typing this on a thin glass slab, for Christ's sake It is certainly futuristic. You couldn't have done that twenty years ago. But the point of the article is, as whiz-bangy as posting to the internet from a thin glass slab is, it doesn't appear to have driven real growth (at least not yet).

robryan 14y ago
I would be very surprised if portable access to online anywhere you go hasn't driven growth. At very least we now have the app economy.

cpressey 14y ago

I'm struggling to see much innovation that directly addresses fundamental problems. Mostly I see gadgets. Your examples are mostly gadgets.