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

The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 223 posts

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#51

Post by pbiggar »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #46
pbiggar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big innovations from those lists (which I call things that are - or are intended to be - life-changing for a reasonably large number of people): airbnb, asana, box, facebook, github, meteor, picloud, pinterest, skype, stripe, twitter, uber, yourmechanic, discourse, fundersclub, hoteltonight, mint, onekingslane, simple, square, taskrabbit, coursera, groupon, nest, spotify,

For many many people github introduced them to GIT and many of them would still don't know about it if it wasn't for it. Twitter is a more accessible version of RSS feed allowing way easier access to subjects of interest for non-tech-savvy people.

I think you're underselling twitter: its a completely new communication mechanism by which people can communicate short thoughts directly to their followers. It can be used as a better RSS, but that doesn't account for all the other ways it can be used, everything from celebrity gossip, to starting and managing violent revolutions.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#52

Post by gnosis »

NoPiece wrote: post #42

I think the critique would be more pointed if he could highlight a backlog of great ideas that Silicon Valley refused to fund. The money is available if you have a big idea. There is plenty going on in Silicon Valley outside photo sharing from biotech to microfinance to clean energy.

Well, you could start (for example) with these lists of unsolved problems in physics[1] and math[2]. I'm sure similar lists exist for every science.

Of course, private industry is interested in funding research in to next to none of them (at least not nearly to the extent that it is in problems that have immediate profitable applications).

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_mathemati...

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#53

Post by eurleif »

pbiggar wrote: post #51
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many many people github introduced them to GIT and many of them would still don't know about it if it wasn't for it. Twitter is a more accessible version of RSS feed allowing way easier access to subjects of interest for non-tech-savvy people.

I think you're underselling twitter: its a completely new communication mechanism by which people can communicate short thoughts directly to their followers. It can be used as a better RSS, but that doesn't account for all the other ways it can be used, everything from celebrity gossip, to starting and managing violent revolutions.

Huh? RSS couldn't be used to spread celebrity gossip, or news about a violent revolution?

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#55

Post by qdog »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #44

"But these aren't free market aberrations brought on by regulations. They're the invisible hand of capitalism itself: reaching out for quick gains while avoiding as much downside risk as possible." Oh boy. We've got political commentary trying to pose as analysis. Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation. If you look at this only in terms of money, you're…

"If you want to see big changes, create big rewards for solutions without constraint to how they are accpomplished. So let's see $50 Billion to anybody who can take us to a repeatable $10/kilo to low earth orbit. Or $10 Billion for the first 3D printer able to print an electric car."

Arguably that's what government grants do or should do. Taking 50 billion dollars in tax money and stoking the fire in an area we are interested in WITHOUT THE EXPECTATION OF A MONETARY RETURN is the kind of thing the government can and does do. Of course, some of that 50 billion gets eaten by graft, and that's where the problem a lot of people have with government programs. Although private companies don't seem to have any better levels of control (usually much worse control) over corruption, a lot of people seem to think only 100% success demonstrates "working" government.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#56

Post by pron »

pbiggar wrote: post #40
potatolicious wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Very strong" and "more to come"? Pray tell, what in the following lists qualify as the sort of "big innovations" we're talking about? [1] http://a16z.com/portfolio/ [2] http://firstround.com/companies/ [3] http://www.kpcb.com/companies Don't get me wrong, these lists contain a lot of great products that I'm happy exist - but big and world-changing they are not. The fact that the typical SV VC scene funds one or two…

Big innovations from those lists (which I call things that are - or are intended to be - life-changing for a reasonably large number of people): airbnb, asana, box, facebook, github, meteor, picloud, pinterest, skype, stripe, twitter, uber, yourmechanic, discourse, fundersclub, hoteltonight, mint, onekingslane, simple, square, taskrabbit, coursera, groupon, nest, spotify,

Many of these products may change the lives of a large number of people -- but not by much (though some may have a larger effect than others). So while they might be innovations, I wouldn't call them big. In fact, I think it might be a lot easier to change the lives of many by only a little, than to greatly impact the lives of even a few.

I used to feel very strongly about this issue of aiming for truly big stuff, and I agree that increased government involvement (and increased trust of government) is necessary, but I think that doing something really big is just... hard, and very few people can do that. Even large government projects require those rare visionaries. But SV and the startup ecosystem have put the power to make a small change in the hands of many people, and that's quite an achievement. Now we only have to come up with a way to find the few out of those that are truly capable of doing the big things, and help them along.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#57

Post by sultezdukes »

rayiner wrote: post #12
dreamdu5t wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not true. There was no long view government plan to create what we now call the Internet.

The whole point of blue-sky R&D funding is that you can't plan exactly what you're going to get out of it. Today DARPA is a bit more focused on practical application than it used to be, but it's ethos is still: "let's throw $10-30 million at a bunch of smart people and see what happens." The "plan" is to fund fundamental R&D and hope something really useful comes out of it. In that sense, the development of the inter…

Maybe if government wasn't so massively wasteful, there'd be a few dollars to throw at blue-sky R&D funding these days, but there isn't.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#59

Post by timr »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #44

"But these aren't free market aberrations brought on by regulations. They're the invisible hand of capitalism itself: reaching out for quick gains while avoiding as much downside risk as possible." Oh boy. We've got political commentary trying to pose as analysis. Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation. If you look at this only in terms of money, you're…

"Oh boy. We've got political commentary trying to pose as analysis. Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation. If you look at this only in terms of money, you're missing the point."

Did you read anything else before you went into Political Strike Mode, or did you just skim it? From the previous section:

"most of Silicon Valley doesn't concern itself with aiming 'almost ridiculously high.' It concerns itself primarily with getting people to click on ads or buy slightly better gadgets than the ones they got last year....that's fine, that's capitalism - and these incremental improvements lead to slow productivity gains that at least quicken the pulse of economists. But maybe let's drop the pretense that we're curing cancer unless, you know, we're curing cancer."

The commentator has no problem with efficiency gains or capitalism. He's just saying that it's hypocritical to spend your life developing sheep-throwing software, while also complaining about how nobody aims for the stars anymore.

"If you want to see big changes, create big rewards for solutions without constraint to how they are accpomplished."

Right, like what the NIH and NSF do? Handing out money for research with no immediate commercial intent? Last I checked, that money (along with military spending) built the Valley. Government spending led to innovation.

You're looking for a political fight where none exists. Other than mentioning that Thiel tends to place the blame on the government (which he does), most of the essay is about the need for funding long-term research, not politics.

Re: The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation

#60

Post by zevets »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #44

"But these aren't free market aberrations brought on by regulations. They're the invisible hand of capitalism itself: reaching out for quick gains while avoiding as much downside risk as possible." Oh boy. We've got political commentary trying to pose as analysis. Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation. If you look at this only in terms of money, you're…

This notion that people can't pick winners is, in my opinion quite inaccurate. The need for light weight electronics for aerospace systems, and the view that semiconductors were 'the answer' to this problem led to a massive amount of government funding (50% of all R&D funding) and support (the government was far and away the largest customer for semiconductor devices) almost directly led to the creation of the Silicon Valley we are all so proud of [1].

Second, the notion that prizes can solve this problem is simply unreasonable. If a major goal (ie a cure for cancer) takes 20 years to develop, no organization can pursue the goal without intermediate funding. In order to provide intermediate funding with some semblance of accountability, you essentially create the existing R&D structure that exists in America today.

The other advantage to government funding is that with proper open access protocols, innovative ideas aren't trapped in the organizations that created them. There's no doubt that companies like SpaceX could have achieved what they have without the backbone of research done by NASA and published in NASA's amazing technical report series.

1. A nice article on the history of government support for the transistor industry. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~business/bhcweb/publications...

Post reply on HN