11–20 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SRI is Stanford Research Institute, which was established by the trustees of Stanford University in 1946 [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International
But, just as with IBM and NCR, “SRI” is now just a 3-letter non-acronym, that officially doesn’t stand for anything.
As a software engineer since the 1980s, of course I know (Xerox) PARC. But am I the only one for whom SRI does not ring any bells? I'm confident Wikipedia can tell me more, but if they don't tell in their press release I would claim they might overestimate their "brand".
The S used to stand for Stanford.
Just like RAND or Battelle or a half dozen others, it's nominally a non-profit organization that manages huge R&D projects, employs thousands of scientists and engineers, and manages government research facilities.
Will this mean that PARC will transition towards doing more government funded research? SRI is pretty heavily funded by the government as far as I know.
"As part of the donation, Xerox will enter into a preferred research agreement, called the Technology Exploration and Innovation Program, in which SRI will provide contracted research and development services to Xerox and its clients. Through the collaborative program, Xerox and SRI will identify topic areas relevant to Xerox’s core print, digital and IT Services business, with the final goal of creating proofs-of-concept and roadmaps to implementation. Xerox will also retain a branded Innovation Hub at PARC to host meetings, demonstrations and annual conferences for its clients."
It's unclear what the size of this revenue stream is compared to SRI's current revenues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SRI is Stanford Research Institute, which was established by the trustees of Stanford University in 1946 [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International
But, just as with IBM and NCR, “SRI” is now just a 3-letter non-acronym, that officially doesn’t stand for anything.
As a software engineer since the 1980s, of course I know (Xerox) PARC. But am I the only one for whom SRI does not ring any bells? I'm confident Wikipedia can tell me more, but if they don't tell in their press release I would claim they might overestimate their "brand".
SRI was one of the original nodes of the ARPAnet, and was one of the two nodes to first come online (the other was at UCLA). SRI is also where the “Mother of all Demos” came from.
As a software engineer since the 1980s, of course I know (Xerox) PARC. But am I the only one for whom SRI does not ring any bells? I'm confident Wikipedia can tell me more, but if they don't tell in their press release I would claim they might overestimate their "brand".
Over time Xerox has gone quite far from where it was when PARC was founded and I think internal support for it had weakened a lot.
The bigger problem both orgs have historically had is on compensation and retaining talent. A lot of people tend to leave or get poached by major companies and their R&D units - lots of former PARC folks at X, and lots of former SRI folks across various robotics companies.
As a software engineer since the 1980s, of course I know (Xerox) PARC. But am I the only one for whom SRI does not ring any bells? I'm confident Wikipedia can tell me more, but if they don't tell in their press release I would claim they might overestimate their "brand".
It was an SRI spinout, acquired by Apple in 2010. https://www.sri.com/hoi/siri/
Will this mean that PARC will transition towards doing more government funded research? SRI is pretty heavily funded by the government as far as I know.
As a software engineer since the 1980s, of course I know (Xerox) PARC. But am I the only one for whom SRI does not ring any bells? I'm confident Wikipedia can tell me more, but if they don't tell in their press release I would claim they might overestimate their "brand".