Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 562 posts

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#231

Post by angio »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #7

I am always curious what people think about the following subject: Do you believe patents promote innovation or hamper it? Certainly some business models are dependent on patents and intellectual property restrictions, but do you think it actually promotes innovation? My own observation has been that with the 3D printer for example, innovation was stagnant for the 20 years that they were under patent. Once the patent…

Historically, from steam engines to 3D printing, innovation has been stifled by patents. The book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" [0] from Boldrin and Levine (two economists, Levine website has more work by other economists) gives an historical perspective on IP and offers answers to common (and less common) rebuttals ("Why would anyone invest in research if another company can just copy their work?").

[0] http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#232

Post by Aerroon »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #222
emsy wrote: post #195

Tangential, since this article is about the US and China. But if the US has dropped the ball, then Europe (or the EU specifically) didn't even bother to go to the game. The only thing we're innovative at is coming up with regulations. And I say this as someone who thinks the US tech sector should be under much heavier regulatory scrutiny.

What metric are you basing this determination on? Is it purely about “big tech”? It seems from my perspective that most European countries are pretty decently innovative, in particular with a variety of companies offering advanced engineering and technology services. Is there actually a lack of innovation, or is it specifically a lack of “innovation” in the “there is no Airbnb so Europe sucks” sense?

I think it's more of a case of "most electronics and everything that runs on it is not made in Europe". I'm a European posting on an American company's forum using a browser made in the US running on an operating system made by an American company running on a phone designed and built in China with components made in a variety of countries that aren't in Europe. The same goes for using a desktop PC. Even most of the websites you end up using aren't made in Europe.

And that's talking about the things that are already there. Looking into the future I don't see anything technology related on the horizon either.

The main technological thing that isn't like that is cars, but even there EVs from Tesla appear more innovative.

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#233

Post by m0zg »

Eric Schmidt is an overrated dumbass. The US is still a powerhouse of innovation and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Ripping off IP from US companies who outsource to China does not count as "innovation". Allowing this to happen on a massive scale is the sole reason why "China was able to catch up" so quickly.

AI is an interesting one. On the one hand, paper output from China (as opposed to just Chinese authors who live in the US) has grown tremendously over the past decade, and there are even some truly great papers. On the other hand, there's a huge gaping moat between the stuff you find on Arxiv and GitHub and a practical, working AI-based system like a self-driving car or a robot. This moat is typically a trade secret - you won't find any hint of it in the papers. Moreover, it's often also very engineering-heavy, meaning researchers alone are not able to bridge this gap, and it takes a ton of time and money to do so. On top of that there's also the data moat, though to be fair, China is better positioned in this regard due to the abundance of inexpensive labeling workforce. Be that as it may, though, I haven't seen a ton of academic datasets coming from there in my field. Maybe they're keeping them for themselves. Maybe they just don't have them - there's no way to know. And finally, there's the people moat. An established AI researcher who can also write code worth a damn can pull down a cool million dollars a year in the US today. As a direct consequence, most of them are already here, and will remain here unless incentives catch up.

Will China get a tactical win here and there? Sure. Will the US remain at the distant forefront of real, hard-ass, capital-intensive progress? No doubt in my mind.

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#234

Post by pldr1234 »

malka wrote: post #218
dfee wrote: post #72

Eric Schmidt is a household name around here. Doesn’t mean I give a damn about what he thinks. > Dr Schmidt, who is currently the Chair of the US Department of Defense's innovation board, said he thinks the US is still ahead of China in tech innovation, for now. “Invest in my next project now, before it’s too late!” is what I read it as. Edit: let me clarify. Innovation isn't zero-sum. I believe America is the most f…

US ? Ethics ? I just choked on my coffee.

Such tunnel-minded posters.

The GP clearly meant the US is ethical RELATIVE to other countries currently "innovating" i.e. China.

Even as stoutly anti-American as my country and people are, I still fervently hope it's the USA and NOT China who prevail in future techno/political battles.

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#235

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

swinglock wrote: post #198
thewarrior wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States balances innovation with ethics ? The people of Hiroshima or the victims of agent orange might have something to say about that.

Do you actually think damages caused in actual wars are somehow comparable to those in peace time technical development? What do you really mean by that?

WWII advanced nuclear research, computing, electronics, and aerospace by decades within a few years.

Was that a good thing? Was it a bad thing? Is there a definitive ethical answer to this question?

There probably is - but not for this culture.

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#236

Post by username90 »

lgleason wrote: post #69

"This high skills immigration is crucial to American competitiveness, global competitiveness, building these new companies and so forth," he said. "America does not have enough people with those skills." Translation -- US software engineer salaries are still too high for his liking, so he wants to dilute the market with more to lower the overall cost.

US software engineer salaries are high since they develop software the entire world uses. If you prevent companies from recruiting talent from the entire world then companies like Google or Facebook that has 70% immigrants on their payroll will have to move their big offices abroad likely reducing American salaries.

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#237

Post by gumby »

fvdessen wrote: post #217
emsy wrote: post #195

Tangential, since this article is about the US and China. But if the US has dropped the ball, then Europe (or the EU specifically) didn't even bother to go to the game. The only thing we're innovative at is coming up with regulations. And I say this as someone who thinks the US tech sector should be under much heavier regulatory scrutiny.

There was still not that long ago an incredible amount of innovative companies and products in Europe. But at that time companies were still built for their home markets first and on that regard the USA is big and unified. Since software is mostly winner takes all it means that when the USA companies came to Europe they had already won the USA and could steamroll the local competition There is for example no way a sw…

> There is for example no way a swedish mapping company could have competed with google maps

Not Swedish, but Danish founders, working in Australia. Google purchased the company and made it google maps

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#238

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

dayjobpork wrote: post #139
lgleason wrote: post #69

"This high skills immigration is crucial to American competitiveness, global competitiveness, building these new companies and so forth," he said. "America does not have enough people with those skills." Translation -- US software engineer salaries are still too high for his liking, so he wants to dilute the market with more to lower the overall cost.

Bingo It really annoys me when they bitch about not being able to bring in skilled workers from overseas because they can't find skilled people here... Hey, maybe they should fucking train someone! Usually when a tech boss is complaining about not having skilled staff locally it's code for "... I want to find someone cheaper overseas". It's like seeing a job ad that wants a wizard at everything but has terrible pay,…

"Innovation."

Re: Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt: US 'dropped the ball' on innovation

#239

Post by vin047 »

fvdessen wrote: post #217
emsy wrote: post #195

Tangential, since this article is about the US and China. But if the US has dropped the ball, then Europe (or the EU specifically) didn't even bother to go to the game. The only thing we're innovative at is coming up with regulations. And I say this as someone who thinks the US tech sector should be under much heavier regulatory scrutiny.

There was still not that long ago an incredible amount of innovative companies and products in Europe. But at that time companies were still built for their home markets first and on that regard the USA is big and unified. Since software is mostly winner takes all it means that when the USA companies came to Europe they had already won the USA and could steamroll the local competition There is for example no way a sw…

I think the arguments for Europe being less innovative or risk taking is because these companies seem to start first in the US and then come to Europe, not the other way round.
Post reply on HN