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

71–80 of 223 posts

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

#71

Post by erichocean »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #67
timr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 a…

Other than mentioning that Thiel tends to place the blame on the government (which he does), Not for the lack of innovation. In fact, he specifically decries the lack of innovation by the government as well as the private sector. Thiel seems to blame it on a cultural shift - he believes the US has moved from an optimistic-deterministic viewpoint to an optimistic-stochastic viewpoint. Go read his stanford lectures to…

Thiel [...] believes the US has moved from an optimistic-deterministic viewpoint to an optimistic-stochastic viewpoint.

The optimistic-deterministic viewpoint is the opposite of the "lean startup" movement and the MVP approach, which is an almost completely pure expression of the optimistic-stochastic viewpoint, i.e.:

    We're *optimistic* that innovation is possible,
    but we also believe we can't know in advance, so
    we'll use (controlled) chance to find out what 
    works (A/B testing, random trials, etc.).
IMO, the culture shift to an optimistic-stochastic viewpoint is also why people hate Apple -- not because Apple is unsuccessful, but precisely because Apple is successful – wildly successful – but Apple is using the wrong paradigm to achieve that success. In Thiel's terminology, Apple works from an optimistic-deterministic viewpoint, and to the culture today, that's just wrong somehow. Hence, the hate.

If you think about it, "minimum viable product" is practically the anti-thesis of innovation: let's create the least innovative thing we possibly can in the hopes that it might, someday, be successful after a lot of A/B testing to hack the buying and growth process and find a niche market. MVP is not about shooting for the stars, but it is about microscopic, incremental, improvement -- and a dramatic reduction in risk. That's the optimistic-stochastic viewpoint in action.

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

#72

Post by michaelochurch »

Silicon Valley used to be a place with cheap land where people went because the cost of living was low, and they could tinker with cool ideas whereas, in the expensive East Coast cities, they'd have to work themselves to death just to tread water. California was this place where you could come and do cool stuff and build on land the East Coast elite didn't want.

It's no longer cheap to live there. Tinkering with new ideas on some modest amount of savings and "odd jobs" or consulting is no longer possible. Expensive real estate leads to calcification and risk-aversion and cultural death. It's why urban ecosystems (including VC-istan, which is not a city per se) turn into hellholes shortly after their peak of greatness.

Enter VC, which connects people with the resources (funding) to try out their ideas and, better yet, enough resources that they have a "rocket fuel" advantage over any competitors. Over time, the VCs and "tech press" became king-makers. Then, the well-connected became a new, informal, executive suite who care more about protecting each other than genuine competition.

Hence, VC-istan. It's the first postmodern corporation, cleverly designed to look like a free market. Reputable investors are the executive suite. People with the authority to write welfare-checks-I-mean-acqhires at big companies are The Compensation Board because they decide on bonuses. "Tech press" are another part of the HR department that writes performance reviews. So-called startup "CEOs" are semi-independent PMs. Software engineers are peons who work long hours because they haven't figured out yet that they work at a big company and aren't actually going to getting investor contact and made founders in 7.35 months-- that was a degenerate empty promise.

VC-istan has clever marketing. It doesn't look like a stodgy corporate behemoth, but it is. That is why it has ceased to innovate.

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

#73

Post by jjsz »

fl3tch wrote: post #47

If you want to make a difference, quit trying to cash out as a 25 year old millionaire. Get a PhD and do research. That's the real risk in life, that you might work your ass off for little pay, spend 30 years chasing a dream, and fail in the end. But the people who succeed change the world. Interestingly, most Nobel Prize winners donate a large percentage of their prize money to charity or research. They weren't inte…

Really? I think you shouldn't come up in here telling people that cashing out at 25 doesn't make a 'real' difference. There are people who prefer life experience, over work and research experience.

There are people who rather invest in other people taking that risk, than taking the risk themselves. Everybody's different.

The millionaires are the ones paying for your research work. So when someone like you spends 30 years chasing their dreams after acquiring a PhD and fail-- they have more-or-less acquired a different way of thinking about things. Right? They gain a different self, a different sense of awareness. They gain a specialization of some niche topic. I get it. Researchers change the world theoretically.

The thing is doing research and influencing others to think differently is the same thing as influencing people with products or services. They all have the same goal, to change the way people think about a topic or way of doing things. It isn't tied down to one route.

Because interestingly, MOST millionaire's become philanthropists. And they are not interested in retiring either.

And like how the top comment said, it's not one big disruption that changes things, it's the succession of little bits of implementations or modrnizations of products, services, and ideals. All in harmony. One branch isn't worth worshiping more than the other branch.

I know you were targeting the people who retire and enjoy life, without investing or donating back but there's a world out there to see and not everybody gets bored with it at the same rate as you do.

Edit: Some people like to manage and become overseers, they get the thrill of life from that, you can't tell them they're doing it wrong, that they should quit and enjoy life. That will bring anarchy and chaos. The same thing with a whole bunch of people sitting in a laboratory. I remember reading a book that went over this topic, about people being programmed to work in the laboratory. There were different levels, and Level B's worked in the lab. The book isn't coming back to me..It was where one level were giving audios while they sleep to acknowledge their inferiority. What a book, if I find out what it was I have to re-read it.

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

#74

Post by ErikAugust »

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…

"You don't have a Facebook without an internet..."

The Internet wasn't created as a result of anyone "driving efficiency in the market". Get real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History

Also: do you think that perhaps it is wasteful for society's businesses to spend hundreds of billions on marketing and advertising differentiating products like soda, fast food and alcohol? Is that a good use of resources?

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

#75

Post by redwood »

This whole discussion boils down to whether the 'big' ideas can be considered to come from software or not. If they only come from hardware, e.g. infrastructure/energy/poverty-changing, then sure they take longer to create, and have higher risk. But we are making progress on them.

On the software side there is of course big innovation, admittedly hard to quantify. The internet has changed the human experience in more profound ways than many physical innovations ever did.

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

#76

Post by logjam »

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…

> Okay, let's get this straight: capitalism drives efficiencies in markets. Efficiencies drive innovation.

[citation needed] - please stop trying to argue from your own polemics you'd have us believe are axioms.

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

#77

Post by redwood »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #49

Edit: Seriously, I really want to know what people think about the question at the end. I worked with someone who works at cd2, and on a selfish note I'm just curious. I'm a "pasty scientist" paid by DARPA, in biotech. I work for someone who previously founded a brain-machine-interface company that had a small IPO (cyberkinetics). I would love nothing more than to see things I work on get turned into viable products.…

I'll be honest: I'm not clear on what the question at the end is. Are you saying: it's not easy to turn academic research concepts into commercial products? Well this is precisely what Silicon Valley has learned to do better than anywhere else.

If you're asking how we can make the process better, doesn't it boil down to having investors who see the value of these ideas? You need to frame the business case to them in their lingo.

If they don't want to invest in you because they think the can make more money on BS web investments, then we're all losing. But ultimately there will be a shakeout in web investments...and then there will be a shift back.

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

#78

Post by csomar »

There is a clear hostility toward digital products. If a physical product that shows up a screen in the air (holoscreen) to Skype another person, all people would suddenly scream: OH, that's innovation. Yet Skyping through an LCD screen gives the same result.

If BMW or Tesla design a futuristic looking key for a car, we call that innovation and cool. But a nice designed interface, is just another interface.

If some scientists burn a whole lot of money* to analyze DNA data, we call that innovation and science. However, when app ABC tries to connect people and do some social work, we call that another social app and a Facebook clone.

Please stop the hostility. Creating a new API library or writing code that does something new is indeed "Innovation". It's certainly not getting to the moon, but it's still a very little bit of innovation.

The new Internet enabled me, from a small third-world country to create a sizable income (at least comparing to my country per capita), learn a "LOT" and build a viable business.

Internet put aside, I have no chance of making even $1000/year in my country. That, and the fact that I started from exactly nothing (family computer) is for me this decade "miracle". The innovation in payments, digital products, advertising... have improved access to wealth and mobility.

I guess, the problem of the majority of people is access to wealth. There is too much wealth around (look at the majority of jobs, they are about moving wealth and not creating it e.g. doctors, lawyers, gov., traders, brokers, middle men...).

Access to wealth will improve the life of the average person more than accessing the moon. The Internet offers an unmatched opportunity to access wealth.

Please innovate in HTML, JavaScript and Servers.

* I'm not nitpicking on data scientists or any body, just to give an example.

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

#79

Post by jskonhovd »

zevets wrote: post #60
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 Silico…

I think everyone on this thread would agree that people can pick winners, but some would argue that the government has been inefficient about picking those winners in the past. I personally think that there is a lack of scientifically literate people in our government, outside of Steven Chu, compared to the VC community who can pick winners.

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

#80

Post by timr »

erichocean wrote: post #71
yummyfajitas wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than mentioning that Thiel tends to place the blame on the government (which he does), Not for the lack of innovation. In fact, he specifically decries the lack of innovation by the government as well as the private sector. Thiel seems to blame it on a cultural shift - he believes the US has moved from an optimistic-deterministic viewpoint to an optimistic-stochastic viewpoint. Go read his stanford lectures to…

Thiel [...] believes the US has moved from an optimistic-deterministic viewpoint to an optimistic-stochastic viewpoint. The optimistic-deterministic viewpoint is the opposite of the "lean startup" movement and the MVP approach, which is an almost completely pure expression of the optimistic-stochastic viewpoint, i.e.: We're *optimistic* that innovation is possible, but we also believe we can't know in advance, so we'…

The problem with "deterministic optimism" (other than the obvious silliness of attributing one mindset to the entire US), is that it doesn't change the nature of reality. You can invest more in certain areas and yield a return on that investment, but you can't reliably call your shots. Life doesn't work that way.

Nearly all of the fruits of government research have been as a result of "stochastic" investment (i.e. nearly everything done by the NIH and NSF and DARPA), or second-order effects from "deterministic" investment (e.g. the space program and velcro, or radar and military spending). Other than wars and (maybe, debatably) the space program, we have a pretty spotty record of saying "we're going to do $X amazing technological feat in $Y years", and then making that happen.

Where we have successfully called our shots (and I'm thinking mainly of the space program here), it's only happened after decades of stochastic progress got us to the point where a politician could reasonably say "let's go to the moon" without sounding like a lunatic, and have some realistic hope that it would happen during a four-year term. Politics, as a societal force, is not particularly forward-thinking.

If you're looking for something governmental to blame for lack of innovation, you don't need to assign the entire political system a mindset, or compose elaborate pseudo-philosophical lectures: you need only look at the number of science PhDs who can't work in their fields, or the declining number of smart kids who go into research. When you gut government (and industrial) research, you don't get any returns.

Post reply on HN