3 ms·

> The problem is most modern computing is driven by the single question: "How can I monetize this idea?" It's only hobbyists and academics that really try to im

> The problem is most modern computing is driven by the single question: "How can I monetize this idea?" It's only hobbyists and academics that really try to improve the state of computing, rather than having a primary focus on revenue. It's unfortunate that groundbreaking ideas are usually not the moneymakers, else we'd see innovation at a quicker rate. That is an absolute silly notion. Money is a token of value, so if you're creating value for someone, it shouldn't be too hard to get some money for it. Examples: The Internet, while initially a public research project, did not take off until it was commercialized. Personal computers and mobile phones - completely transformational technologies, the innovations of which went hand-in-hand with making tons of money. Google and Apple both innovates like crazy and they're two of the most valuable companies on the planet because of it. Much of the best open source software projects are off-shoots of commercial ventures.

Dn_Ab 13y ago
Exactly. Often it is not the innovators that end up benefiting from showing everyone the value of a new idea (1). Most innovative work is very long term and there are simply not many channels to fund such work. Innovation is often too far up the pipeline for the originators to reliably extract value. As you point out, the original innovators of the internet and desktop computing are not the ones that ended up with the bulk of the rewards. Douglas Engelbart and his team innovated, originated and practically invented all of modern computing paradigms and interactions. Engelbert died unable to garner interest in his grander vision of accelerative bootstrapping. I suspect he saw modern incarnations as bizarro implementations, outwardly similar imitations apart in spirit. Those like Bret Victor recognize that spirit. This list shows some of that spirit. I would argue RapGenius qualifies too. Here's hoping this picks up as a trend. Google and Apple both innovates like crazy I would dispute that Google and Apple innovate like crazy. They do more polishing and acquiring, with most of the innovative work in service of the product, a benefit but not a new paradigm. Voice recognition, self driving cars, heads up displays, multi-touch,internet blimps. For the dozens of researchers who devoted decades of their lives to this work, the recognition Google and Apple get for things on like that list is bittersweet. This is not to dispute the tremendous innovative thinking and work it takes to package research to a public ready state, I am merely pointing out that true bellwether innovations (2) often go disproportionately unrewarded. (1) With a negative income tax and library->hackerspaces, that would very often be perfectly ok. Such people are moved more by vision than by monetary rewards. (2) Which will themselves be combinations of existing things, the key is they should be the first to inspire with this combination, even if in very rough form. By this definition pagerank and the iphone are the key innovations of Google and Apple.
calibraxis 13y ago
The "absolute silly notion" you (unfortunately) rudely deride is also correct. For more information, you might be interested in: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r...) and (http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=nY9WKMS2-0&pg=PA193#v=onepage&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=...) The statement, "Money is a token of value, so if you're creating value for someone, it shouldn't be too hard to get some money for it," is ideological and doesn't withstand scrutiny. For example, a mansion would represent enormous value for someone in abject poverty, but they may have no serious ability to compensate you. (This is why we may have bizarre outcomes like roughly as many homeless people as empty hotel rooms and apartments. The allocation system is profoundly irrational.)
- icebraining 13y ago
  I don't see how does your example invalidates mseebach's claim. It wasn't that the compensation was proportional to the value gained, just that if you can provide value, it shouldn't be hard to get money for it. Clearly mansion sellers can get money for the value they provide, even if that means selling to people who have less to gain from the mansions.

Dn_Ab 13y ago

Exactly. Often it is not the innovators that end up benefiting from showing everyone the value of a new idea (1). Most innovative work is very long term and there are simply not many channels to fund such work. Innovation is often too far up the pipeline for the originators to reliably extract value. As you point out, the original innovators of the internet and desktop computing are not the ones that ended up with the bulk of the rewards. Douglas Engelbart and his team innovated, originated and practically invented all of modern computing paradigms and interactions. Engelbert died unable to garner interest in his grander vision of accelerative bootstrapping. I suspect he saw modern incarnations as bizarro implementations, outwardly similar imitations apart in spirit. Those like Bret Victor recognize that spirit. This list shows some of that spirit. I would argue RapGenius qualifies too. Here's hoping this picks up as a trend. Google and Apple both innovates like crazy I would dispute that Google and Apple innovate like crazy. They do more polishing and acquiring, with most of the innovative work in service of the product, a benefit but not a new paradigm. Voice recognition, self driving cars, heads up displays, multi-touch,internet blimps. For the dozens of researchers who devoted decades of their lives to this work, the recognition Google and Apple get for things on like that list is bittersweet. This is not to dispute the tremendous innovative thinking and work it takes to package research to a public ready state, I am merely pointing out that true bellwether innovations (2) often go disproportionately unrewarded. (1) With a negative income tax and library->hackerspaces, that would very often be perfectly ok. Such people are moved more by vision than by monetary rewards. (2) Which will themselves be combinations of existing things, the key is they should be the first to inspire with this combination, even if in very rough form. By this definition pagerank and the iphone are the key innovations of Google and Apple.

calibraxis 13y ago

The "absolute silly notion" you (unfortunately) rudely deride is also correct. For more information, you might be interested in: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r...) and (http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=nY9WKMS2-0&pg=PA193#v=onepage&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=...) The statement, "Money is a token of value, so if you're creating value for someone, it shouldn't be too hard to get some money for it," is ideological and doesn't withstand scrutiny. For example, a mansion would represent enormous value for someone in abject poverty, but they may have no serious ability to compensate you. (This is why we may have bizarre outcomes like roughly as many homeless people as empty hotel rooms and apartments. The allocation system is profoundly irrational.)

icebraining 13y ago
I don't see how does your example invalidates mseebach's claim. It wasn't that the compensation was proportional to the value gained, just that if you can provide value, it shouldn't be hard to get money for it. Clearly mansion sellers can get money for the value they provide, even if that means selling to people who have less to gain from the mansions.