Peter Thiel: "I Don’t Consider [The iPhone] To Be A Technological Breakthrough"(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Peter Thiel: "I Don’t Consider [The iPhone] To Be A Technological Breakthrough"
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/21/peter-thiel-new-yorker-grump/
29 comments
I disagree. The reason why the most innovation has occurred in this sector is because we're some of the best-funded. Look at the arms industry and you will see a similar pace of advancement - mostly due to the bottomless and nigh-unchallengeable defense spending of Uncle Sam.
Why this unprecedented level of funding? IMO this really is the heart of Thiel's argument: internet companies are capable of general obscene, absurd, ludicrous profit margins.
Think about a company like Facebook - employs a few thousand engineers, but generates revenue and impact far in excess of what you might expect from a crowd of that size.
And this is really Thiel's argument, the way I understand it. He's not saying that the iPhone isn't a "technological" breakthrough, but rather it's not a "societal" breakthrough. In the old days, when someone introduces a product, it creates new jobs across the board.
When Ford introduced a new car, it didn't just mean jobs for the people in the boardroom and drafting tables. It created jobs in their factories, and indeed tens of thousands of jobs across a wide supply chain necessary to build the product. It created new jobs in dealerships, and auto shops. The job-creation effects of a product were incredibly far-reaching.
Now, fast forward to today. What jobs are Facebook creating besides the ones inside their walls? There is no employment ecosystem, no supply chain. And in this way, while Facebook is extracting record revenue from their business, the rest of America is no better off.
It used to be that success in capitalism is the tide that floats all boats, but this is increasingly not true, especially in our sector.
Why this unprecedented level of funding? IMO this really is the heart of Thiel's argument: internet companies are capable of general obscene, absurd, ludicrous profit margins.
Think about a company like Facebook - employs a few thousand engineers, but generates revenue and impact far in excess of what you might expect from a crowd of that size.
And this is really Thiel's argument, the way I understand it. He's not saying that the iPhone isn't a "technological" breakthrough, but rather it's not a "societal" breakthrough. In the old days, when someone introduces a product, it creates new jobs across the board.
When Ford introduced a new car, it didn't just mean jobs for the people in the boardroom and drafting tables. It created jobs in their factories, and indeed tens of thousands of jobs across a wide supply chain necessary to build the product. It created new jobs in dealerships, and auto shops. The job-creation effects of a product were incredibly far-reaching.
Now, fast forward to today. What jobs are Facebook creating besides the ones inside their walls? There is no employment ecosystem, no supply chain. And in this way, while Facebook is extracting record revenue from their business, the rest of America is no better off.
It used to be that success in capitalism is the tide that floats all boats, but this is increasingly not true, especially in our sector.
Look at the arms industry and you will see a similar pace
of advancement - mostly due to the bottomless and nigh-
unchallengeable defense spending of Uncle Sam.
The DoD is a lot less squeamish than civilians about experimental projects that result in death. Leave aside the issue of whether this is good or bad. For them, they are going to be seeing dead bodies as a natural course of doing business, and they want fewer ones, and so they're (much) more willing to pursue riskier projects that may cost lives.
Soldiers can be ordered to run into enemy fire, so they can also be ordered to test drive automatic cars (funded by DARPA). Autonomous helicopters that could slice someone in two if the programming goes bad nevertheless get the green light because there are already people being sliced in two, and DoD wants to reduce that number.
DoD is really pushing robotics and cybernetics forward in particular because those two result in less dead soldiers and (in the future) soldiers who can function even after losing limbs and eyes[0].
Perhaps the most concrete example of this thesis is what happens when the priorities of DoD and FDA collide. Take a look at the Pathways to Innovation program that FDA just greenlit[1].
On a Tuesday afternoon call with reporters, Shuren said he
expects just one or two devices to be approved through the
new pathway each year.
The first device up for review under the new pathway comes
from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), the research arm of the Department of Defense.
The brain-controlled prosthetic is designed to restore
near-natural arm, hand, and finger function to patients
suffering from spinal cord injury, stroke, or amputation.
An implanted microchip on the surface of the brain records
neuronal activity, decodes the signals, and activates
motor neurons that control the prosthesis.
The first chip will be implanted in a patient within six
months, Geoffrey Ling, MD, PhD, program manager at DARPA,
told reporters.
This is my point: when lives are on the line, people will be willing to risk lives to innovate. If not, then not.
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW78wbN-WuU
[1] http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/FDAGeneral/24...
It might seem contradictory, but the DoD cares more about it's people than most organisations and at the same time is more than willing to risk lives for progress. Consider the initial proponent / researcher of car seat belts in the US was the Air Force which studied the issue in large part because car crashes where killing more pilots than airplane crashes (at the time). At the same time, they are vary willing to test new airplanes even though test pilots often die. And more than that they where willing to risk a pilot to recreate the conditions of a crash to find out why it happens.
If you run the numbers the DoD has directly saved more US lives since WWII in that same time period. Which is not to say it's worth the budget just more useful than you might think.
If you run the numbers the DoD has directly saved more US lives since WWII in that same time period. Which is not to say it's worth the budget just more useful than you might think.
How is the iPhone (and FB and Twitter) not a societal breakthrough? Each has developed entire ecosystems around their respective platforms. Hundreds of companies exist and thrive because of these technologies. Their impact on the global economy, and on job-creation, is much larger than the sum of the engineers within their walls.
Sam Peltzman's book "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" makes a statistical case that the FDA's "safe and effective" mandate has cost more lives than it has saved.
From the back cover: "The 1962 Amendments by Sam Peltzman concludes that the 1962 ("proof of efficacy") amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (1) have cut the number of new drugs (new chemical entities) brought to the market each year by half with no corresponding reduction in inefficacious drugs, (2) have doubled the costs of drug development, (3) have have increased drug prices by reducing competition among drugs (so that the sick pay $50 million more each year for drugs), and (4) have imposed substantial net social costs from death and illnesses that could have been prevented if the development of new drugs had not been hampered by the amendments. These conclusions are reached despite the fact that Professor Peltzman has assumed for the amendments benefits that cannot be proven and may not have taken place."
From the back cover: "The 1962 Amendments by Sam Peltzman concludes that the 1962 ("proof of efficacy") amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (1) have cut the number of new drugs (new chemical entities) brought to the market each year by half with no corresponding reduction in inefficacious drugs, (2) have doubled the costs of drug development, (3) have have increased drug prices by reducing competition among drugs (so that the sick pay $50 million more each year for drugs), and (4) have imposed substantial net social costs from death and illnesses that could have been prevented if the development of new drugs had not been hampered by the amendments. These conclusions are reached despite the fact that Professor Peltzman has assumed for the amendments benefits that cannot be proven and may not have taken place."
HIV has been cured for Simian monkeys for quite a while because we could invasively experiment on them; so, the FDA stopping us from invasively experimenting (including involuntary innoculation of disease free subjects) on humans may have "statistically" cost more lives than it saved, but you'd have to be a Nazi to advocate it.
That is not the thesis of Peltzman's book. Peltzman compares pharmaceutical innovation before the 1962 FDA amendments with after in the US, not with nazi germany.
Drug trials fail all the time though, and not only because of risk aversion.
If you look at the first 50 years or so of the pharmaceutical industry, there were wonder drugs being discovered every year. We may simply have exhausted a lot of the low hanging small molecule fruit.
Also, if risk aversion was slowing pharma innovation then we'd see a lot of potentially efficacious compounds failing safety trials. Instead what we see is that the cost to discover candidate compounds before they're ever tested on humans.
If you look at the first 50 years or so of the pharmaceutical industry, there were wonder drugs being discovered every year. We may simply have exhausted a lot of the low hanging small molecule fruit.
Also, if risk aversion was slowing pharma innovation then we'd see a lot of potentially efficacious compounds failing safety trials. Instead what we see is that the cost to discover candidate compounds before they're ever tested on humans.
It's absolutely true that risk aversion is not the only thing holding back drug trials. But it's definitely part of the problem.
Think about insulin. In 1921 Banting and Best had the idea. It was in a patient's arm by 1922. And they won the Nobel Prize by 1923.
The fundamental point there is that Banting and Best could do empirical human trials. You can't predict what a novel drug will do without humans who are willing to risk their lives. In computers these people are called early adopters.
So there is a very significant economic risk to "failing fast" in pharma. Over and above the hit to brand, if the PR fallout is bad enough the FDA has a number of tools with which to criminalize failure. The Park Doctrine[2] is what they do for "off-label marketing", and they would escalate considerably if they felt public opinion demanded it.
Anyway, this is why drug companies are doing all these simulations and iterating primarily around drug molecules that are known to be safe. No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no one ever got fired for trying molecules compliant with Lipinski's rule of five[3]. Sure, that's still a pretty wide class of molecules, but "radical innovation" in compounds is just not going to fly with the FDA.
After all, it took the FDA more than a decade to begin considering adaptive clinical trials[4] in lieu of the standard Phase I/II/III design. How long will it take them to agree that aging could be treated as a disease, or to allow the development of enhancing drugs?
These things probably won't happen until there's some sort of major conflict in which enhancing drugs become the difference between victory and defeat. Then the floodgates will open.
[0] http://blog.fdazilla.com/2011/09/fda-will-issue-10000-483s-i...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412
[2] http://www.gatewayfda.com/fda-regulations/under-park-doctrin...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druglikeness
[4] http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/16/1217.extract
Think about insulin. In 1921 Banting and Best had the idea. It was in a patient's arm by 1922. And they won the Nobel Prize by 1923.
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/insulin/discovery-insulin.html
Early in 1921, Banting took his idea to Professor John
Macleod at the University of Toronto, who was a leading
figure in the study of diabetes in Canada. Macleod didn't
think much of Banting's theories. Despite this, Banting
managed to convince him that his idea was worth trying.
Macleod gave Banting a laboratory with a minimum of
equipment and ten dogs. Banting also got an assistant, a
medical student by the name of Charles Best. The
experiment was set to start in the summer of 1921.
...
In January 1922 in Toronto, Canada, a 14-year-old boy,
Leonard Thompson, was chosen as the first person with
diabetes to receive insulin. The test was a success.
Leonard, who before the insulin shots was near death,
rapidly regained his strength and appetite. The team now
expanded their testing to other volunteer diabetics, who
reacted just as positively as Leonard to the insulin
extract.
The news of the successful treatment of diabetes with
insulin rapidly spread outside of Toronto, and in 1923 the
Nobel Committee decided to award Banting and Macleod the
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
The fundamental point there is that Banting and Best could do empirical human trials. You can't predict what a novel drug will do without humans who are willing to risk their lives. In computers these people are called early adopters.
If risk aversion was slowing pharma innovation then we'd
see a lot of potentially efficacious compounds failing
safety trials. Instead what we see is that the cost to
discover candidate compounds before they're ever tested on
humans.
So there is a very significant economic risk to "failing fast" in pharma. Over and above the hit to brand, if the PR fallout is bad enough the FDA has a number of tools with which to criminalize failure. The Park Doctrine[2] is what they do for "off-label marketing", and they would escalate considerably if they felt public opinion demanded it.
Anyway, this is why drug companies are doing all these simulations and iterating primarily around drug molecules that are known to be safe. No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no one ever got fired for trying molecules compliant with Lipinski's rule of five[3]. Sure, that's still a pretty wide class of molecules, but "radical innovation" in compounds is just not going to fly with the FDA.
After all, it took the FDA more than a decade to begin considering adaptive clinical trials[4] in lieu of the standard Phase I/II/III design. How long will it take them to agree that aging could be treated as a disease, or to allow the development of enhancing drugs?
These things probably won't happen until there's some sort of major conflict in which enhancing drugs become the difference between victory and defeat. Then the floodgates will open.
[0] http://blog.fdazilla.com/2011/09/fda-will-issue-10000-483s-i...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412
[2] http://www.gatewayfda.com/fda-regulations/under-park-doctrin...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druglikeness
[4] http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/16/1217.extract
> Nowadays that past is characterized as a time of patent medicines and scam artists.
What is more pertinent is that it was the time of the Tuskeegee syphilis trials.
What is more pertinent is that it was the time of the Tuskeegee syphilis trials.
I want to upvote your comment ten times, but there's only one of me. Thanks for the point of view, history, and references.
Why, do you think, are the pharma researchers not shifting cutting edge research to places where regulation is more pliable and inventing new treatments there. Surely Latin America or China (maybe even India, depending on bureaucracy) could provide the kind of market and test bed for new treatments that fast innovation would thrive in.
Why, do you think, are the pharma researchers not shifting cutting edge research to places where regulation is more pliable and inventing new treatments there. Surely Latin America or China (maybe even India, depending on bureaucracy) could provide the kind of market and test bed for new treatments that fast innovation would thrive in.
Good question. In theory this is possible, and there are a number of biotechs and medical device companies that are looking overseas.
Europe is the preferred place right now for traditional biotechs & medical device companies, as getting a CE Mark is a lot less onerous and much more predictable[0] than the increasingly random FDA process.
As for China (and India), they are very promising but will require entirely new business models, for a few reasons.
First, the current biotech industry is based around an artificial barrier to entry (namely FDA approval) and artificial scarcity (namely drug patents). Remove the former and you remove the rationale for the latter. This is their whole business model.
Second and more fundamentally, most existing pharma companies have now gone through almost 50 years with the FDA. The "fail fast" model was 2-3 human generations ago, and even really good scientists like Derek Lowe have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome. In the worldview of (most) modern pharma scientists, the FDA process is considered a law of nature, something on par with s and p orbitals.
Removing FDA approval and patents from the situation would suddenly make two of the most important departments in any pharma company (regulatory affairs and IP) completely useless.
A world without the FDA, where doctor, patient, and chemist made their own decisions without third party regulation would be painted as strange and worrisome. Like the TSA, the FDA has dozens of full time PR professionals[1,2] dedicated to convincing you that "your safety is their priority". Unlike the TSA, most people (even most in the industry) don't question whether the FDA is actually protecting people.
Without going into detail, then, successful business models for pharma/biotech/device companies in China/India would be based on validating products in a highly empirical fashion, getting them to market rapidly and protecting them from competitors via execution without any IP enforcement.
Think something more like the supplements market, where creatine, omega 3, and energy drinks rose to the fore over the last few decades...except with even smarter people doing the formulations.
No traditional pharma is culturally capable of doing this. Moreover, even if they were, the FDA would frown on this threat to their review authority. If this hypothetical rogue pharma had any desires of ever selling into the US market or not having their reputation destroyed by the FDA with a few press releases, they wouldn't try setting up this sort of low-regulation phenomenological branch overseas.
So, to really exploit the potential of true drug legalization, it'd have to be new companies.
[0] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/iti-fpa052311...
[1] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaContacts/default...
[2] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ContactFDA/FindanOfficeorStaffMe...
Europe is the preferred place right now for traditional biotechs & medical device companies, as getting a CE Mark is a lot less onerous and much more predictable[0] than the increasingly random FDA process.
As for China (and India), they are very promising but will require entirely new business models, for a few reasons.
First, the current biotech industry is based around an artificial barrier to entry (namely FDA approval) and artificial scarcity (namely drug patents). Remove the former and you remove the rationale for the latter. This is their whole business model.
Second and more fundamentally, most existing pharma companies have now gone through almost 50 years with the FDA. The "fail fast" model was 2-3 human generations ago, and even really good scientists like Derek Lowe have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome. In the worldview of (most) modern pharma scientists, the FDA process is considered a law of nature, something on par with s and p orbitals.
Removing FDA approval and patents from the situation would suddenly make two of the most important departments in any pharma company (regulatory affairs and IP) completely useless.
A world without the FDA, where doctor, patient, and chemist made their own decisions without third party regulation would be painted as strange and worrisome. Like the TSA, the FDA has dozens of full time PR professionals[1,2] dedicated to convincing you that "your safety is their priority". Unlike the TSA, most people (even most in the industry) don't question whether the FDA is actually protecting people.
Without going into detail, then, successful business models for pharma/biotech/device companies in China/India would be based on validating products in a highly empirical fashion, getting them to market rapidly and protecting them from competitors via execution without any IP enforcement.
Think something more like the supplements market, where creatine, omega 3, and energy drinks rose to the fore over the last few decades...except with even smarter people doing the formulations.
No traditional pharma is culturally capable of doing this. Moreover, even if they were, the FDA would frown on this threat to their review authority. If this hypothetical rogue pharma had any desires of ever selling into the US market or not having their reputation destroyed by the FDA with a few press releases, they wouldn't try setting up this sort of low-regulation phenomenological branch overseas.
So, to really exploit the potential of true drug legalization, it'd have to be new companies.
[0] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/iti-fpa052311...
[1] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaContacts/default...
[2] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ContactFDA/FindanOfficeorStaffMe...
Thank you for writing an informative reply to my question. It's a lot to think about.
According to Guns, Germs and Steel, necessity is not the mother of invention. In fact the opposite is true: inventions appear when the needs of the inventors are already met.
I really recommend the book, it's a great read.
I really recommend the book, it's a great read.
Jared Diamond notwithstanding, WW2 led directly or indirectly to:
Probably the biggest peacetime innovation since the end of the Cold War has been the sequencing of the human genome. But arguably that was also a computer science innovation, as it revolved around better assembly algorithms and required no test pilots, clinical trials, or atomic bomb detonations.
1. The atomic bomb
2. Jet aircraft
3. The digital computer
4. Modern rocketry
1. The internet
2. The space program
3. The interstate highway system
Probably the biggest peacetime innovation since the end of the Cold War has been the sequencing of the human genome. But arguably that was also a computer science innovation, as it revolved around better assembly algorithms and required no test pilots, clinical trials, or atomic bomb detonations.
The first flying jet aircraft was before WW2, the Heinkel He178 on August 27, 1939.
The first freeway network was in Germany before WW2.
Before the internet gained popularity, about everyone with more than one computer tried to connect them together. There were quite a proliferation of networks before the internet subsumed them all (after all, even the term "inter" net was derived from connecting disparate networks together, not computers). There was BIX, FidoNet, Compuserve, Prodigy, MCINet, just to name a few off the top of my head. Some students at Caltech in the 70's built their own ad-hoc network when I was there.
While the other networks have all been forgotten today, to suggest that without the ARPAnet networks wouldn't have happened is without foundation.
The first freeway network was in Germany before WW2.
Before the internet gained popularity, about everyone with more than one computer tried to connect them together. There were quite a proliferation of networks before the internet subsumed them all (after all, even the term "inter" net was derived from connecting disparate networks together, not computers). There was BIX, FidoNet, Compuserve, Prodigy, MCINet, just to name a few off the top of my head. Some students at Caltech in the 70's built their own ad-hoc network when I was there.
While the other networks have all been forgotten today, to suggest that without the ARPAnet networks wouldn't have happened is without foundation.
... you do know that germany was heavily militarising for years before WWII started on 1 Sep 1939, including heavy spending on military R&D?
Germany didn't just say "hey, first ever flight by a jet aircraft! let's celebrate by, I dunno, invading Poland in four days' time!"
Germany didn't just say "hey, first ever flight by a jet aircraft! let's celebrate by, I dunno, invading Poland in four days' time!"
The jet powered Heinkel was built with Ernst Heinkel's private funds, not government funds.
And I'm sure that Heinkel was so puritanical about the jet engine not being used for military purposes that he refused to consider the substantial profits he might make from using them in the multitude of bombers he was already making for the Luftwaffe, nor that he might be able to create a competitive fighter design (given that he'd lost out on that side). I'm sure his research was not at all motivated by the possibility of future government coin.
Of course Heinkel wanted to sell the jet to the government. But the fact remains that jet engines and jet aircraft were not developed with government research & development contract money.
Neither the US, British, nor German governments wanted anything to do with funding jet research until they saw flying jet airplanes.
Jet aircraft are a poor example of foresighted government research.
Neither the US, British, nor German governments wanted anything to do with funding jet research until they saw flying jet airplanes.
Jet aircraft are a poor example of foresighted government research.
How did we get onto government money? No-one was talking about government funding until your second-last comment. You were saying that the first jet engine was tested before WW2. I said 'sure, four days before WW2, but nevertheless was significantly influenced by the events directly leading up to WW2'. Not sure why it matters whether the money was public or private.
Hmmm. My point is that innovation speeds up dramatically during wars, in part because the involvement of dot.mil organizations can supersede the regulations imposed by dot.govs.
Taking your points in turn:
1. August 1939 in Nazi Germany wasn't exactly peacetime :) They were already planning to invade Poland. I believe it's pretty well established that aircraft development slowed between the wars but really got underway again with WW2 and then the Korean War.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/jethist.html
2. The Autobahn was arguably a peacetime development (though very useful for war), but it's inarguable that the US Interstate Highway System was developed for defense purposes.
3. Would computer networking have happened in some fashion? Probably, but DARPA saw it as a national security issue and cut through various kinds of red tape. Fiber could be laid across huge swaths of the country without environmental impact statements or FCC involvement. It's hard to say what would have happened without sponsorship from one part of the government.
Taking your points in turn:
1. August 1939 in Nazi Germany wasn't exactly peacetime :) They were already planning to invade Poland. I believe it's pretty well established that aircraft development slowed between the wars but really got underway again with WW2 and then the Korean War.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/jethist.html
2. The Autobahn was arguably a peacetime development (though very useful for war), but it's inarguable that the US Interstate Highway System was developed for defense purposes.
3. Would computer networking have happened in some fashion? Probably, but DARPA saw it as a national security issue and cut through various kinds of red tape. Fiber could be laid across huge swaths of the country without environmental impact statements or FCC involvement. It's hard to say what would have happened without sponsorship from one part of the government.
1. Heinkel's jet airplane development was not funded by the government, as the Nazi government saw no military purpose to jet aircraft. They only got interested after it was flying.
2. Both the German autobahn system and the US interstates were partially justified by military use, and both were done in peacetime.
3. Computer networking did happen independently from the ARPAnet, and it did cover the entire country, both with dedicated lines and piggybacking over the phone lines. All the networks I mentioned were national (and even international) in reach. Everyone with more than one computer wanted to connect them together.
2. Both the German autobahn system and the US interstates were partially justified by military use, and both were done in peacetime.
3. Computer networking did happen independently from the ARPAnet, and it did cover the entire country, both with dedicated lines and piggybacking over the phone lines. All the networks I mentioned were national (and even international) in reach. Everyone with more than one computer wanted to connect them together.
I should add that in Great Britain as well, the government did not begin funding of jet engines nor jet aircraft until after government officials saw flying jet aircraft.
In America during WW2, the government told Lockheed to halt their dev work on jet engines and concentrate on piston engines. Flying jet aircraft (from GB and Germany) again changed their mind.
In America during WW2, the government told Lockheed to halt their dev work on jet engines and concentrate on piston engines. Flying jet aircraft (from GB and Germany) again changed their mind.
Wow, what's with WWII and the Cold War lately? Everyone is trying to find silver linings in them. So I'll just whip out my previous comment about the broken window fallacy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3255480
The whole war = innovation thing never held much water for me.
First of all, there is no way to know what would have happened if there was no war. Some of those things might have been invented anyway. Maybe other more important things would have been invented.
Also, if you look at non-war years they too are full of innovation. The period just before WW1 brought us the light bulb, the telegraph, the phone, skyscrapers, the type writer, etc. etc. I mean, it was over a slightly longer period of time, but I don't think it would be outrageous to argue that the rate of innovation was just as high as during WW2.
First of all, there is no way to know what would have happened if there was no war. Some of those things might have been invented anyway. Maybe other more important things would have been invented.
Also, if you look at non-war years they too are full of innovation. The period just before WW1 brought us the light bulb, the telegraph, the phone, skyscrapers, the type writer, etc. etc. I mean, it was over a slightly longer period of time, but I don't think it would be outrageous to argue that the rate of innovation was just as high as during WW2.
Well, that's an entirely fair way of looking at it. Pshaw! A few years of war held less innovation than a hundred!
A working telegraph over 8 miles was invented in 1816.
typewriter 1829
telephone 1876
light bulb 1879
skyscrapers ~1890ish... but preceeded by buildings with similar number of stories from Roman times!
Yes, you're quite right. A hundred years (two thousand, if you include Roman precedent) does indeed hold more innovation than four.
And if you characterise ~98 years ('period just before WWI' with examples, 1816-1914) as 'slightly longer than WW2', which came in at 6 years (5 in earnest, 4 if you're American), perhaps you should pursue a career in archaeology, paleontology, or politics...
A working telegraph over 8 miles was invented in 1816.
typewriter 1829
telephone 1876
light bulb 1879
skyscrapers ~1890ish... but preceeded by buildings with similar number of stories from Roman times!
Yes, you're quite right. A hundred years (two thousand, if you include Roman precedent) does indeed hold more innovation than four.
And if you characterise ~98 years ('period just before WWI' with examples, 1816-1914) as 'slightly longer than WW2', which came in at 6 years (5 in earnest, 4 if you're American), perhaps you should pursue a career in archaeology, paleontology, or politics...
[deleted]
Don't know how to attribute it, but PCR's pretty amazing, too. Being able to sequence Neandertals...
Cold war wasn't a war.
Work on jet engine began long before WW2 (and it failed to accelerate during WW2).
So did the work on nuclear fission (if it wasn't for top scientists incl. Einstein convincing US President to fund it, there wouldn't be Manhattan Project at all. German scientists fortunately failed to persuade Nazis even though they were much closer to nuclear device.)
Work on jet engine began long before WW2 (and it failed to accelerate during WW2).
So did the work on nuclear fission (if it wasn't for top scientists incl. Einstein convincing US President to fund it, there wouldn't be Manhattan Project at all. German scientists fortunately failed to persuade Nazis even though they were much closer to nuclear device.)
Here is where the first footnote[0] links to:
http://progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/06.2011...
http://progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/06.2011...
We've had tremendous innovation in the medical field - just look at life expectancies over the last few decades. Thiel's argument on transportation is also weak - cars/planes haven't gotten faster but they've gotten much more efficient.
The biggest innovation failure lies with the government. And governments can certainly test things out and 'fail' as we can in consumer Internet. In fact these days, almost every government policy seems to fail!
This is probably due to the cumbersome nature of the democratic process - whereas entrepreneurs can quickly disrupt inefficient systems and rely on the market to validate them.
The biggest innovation failure lies with the government. And governments can certainly test things out and 'fail' as we can in consumer Internet. In fact these days, almost every government policy seems to fail!
This is probably due to the cumbersome nature of the democratic process - whereas entrepreneurs can quickly disrupt inefficient systems and rely on the market to validate them.
I would say it is because a) there is a lot of money to be made and b) Moore's law forces one to move fast to corner a market because one can almost guarantee that someone will disrupt it within a few years.
Early customers were knowledgeable about this. Because of that, they accepted (partial) failure of products in exchange for earlier delivery and/or lower prices. Those customers, in turn 'educated' the masses to accept crashing products.
Early customers were knowledgeable about this. Because of that, they accepted (partial) failure of products in exchange for earlier delivery and/or lower prices. Those customers, in turn 'educated' the masses to accept crashing products.
I think Thiel is frustrated that innovation in this country has shifted from science and technology to mobile phones and banner ads. The best and brightest are working in the wrong industry. Instead of researching alternative energy, space travel, health, etc, we're researching thinner smartphones with better battery life and more effective ways to sell ads.
Makes me wonder how far along we'd be, technologically, if YouTube and Facebook had never been invented... We're just too distracted now. Maybe Fermi's Paradox can be explained by alien civilisations becoming too busy posting cat videos on Twitter to invent inter-stellar travel.
Makes me wonder how far along we'd be, technologically, if YouTube and Facebook had never been invented... We're just too distracted now. Maybe Fermi's Paradox can be explained by alien civilisations becoming too busy posting cat videos on Twitter to invent inter-stellar travel.
The entire reason that SpaceX exists, along with Tesla Motors, is that Elon Musk worked hard to figure out new ways for people to send money over the internet. He made lots of money himself, and now he creates electric cars and builds spaceships. I wouldn't worry too much.
Edit: confused eBay and Paypal. Musk founded Paypal.
Edit: confused eBay and Paypal. Musk founded Paypal.
Thanks for this point.
The reason that so many intelligent and driven entrepreneurs are innovating on "less difficult" technologies is precisely because this low-hanging fruit offers a very high impact leverage right now. More people take the plunge because it costs less to start a company. Consequently, more people are working on more niche problems. This is a good thing.
I'd be more concerned with improving the technical abilities of the people entering the entrepreneurial pipeline than about where they are applying themselves. Getting more technical immigrants into the USA would be a decent first step.
The reason that so many intelligent and driven entrepreneurs are innovating on "less difficult" technologies is precisely because this low-hanging fruit offers a very high impact leverage right now. More people take the plunge because it costs less to start a company. Consequently, more people are working on more niche problems. This is a good thing.
I'd be more concerned with improving the technical abilities of the people entering the entrepreneurial pipeline than about where they are applying themselves. Getting more technical immigrants into the USA would be a decent first step.
Why do you think the best and brightest are all in the software/tech industry? I'm not convinced that this is true.
I think that's an overly reductive assessment to say 'mobile phones and banner ads.' Mobile computers are extremely sophisticated communication tools and platforms—stuff that used to be science fiction—the social, cultural, scientific benefits of which are immeasurable.
"I think Thiel is frustrated that innovation in this country has shifted from science and technology to mobile phones and banner ads. "
Mobile phones and banner ads? Try collateralized debt obligations, CDO-squared, and other financial chicanery.
Mobile phones and banner ads? Try collateralized debt obligations, CDO-squared, and other financial chicanery.
You really think that people aren't researching health, alternative energy, and space travel?
Ads aren't an end to themselves. Back in the day they made possible free TV and well funded newspapers. Now they make it possible for even better informational services to be free
In a sense I agree with you, but things are perhaps not quite so black and white.
YouTube (as a platform) may have given us Justin Bieber, but it also gave us the Khan Academy. And the latter has surely inspired this recent surge from the Stanford faculty.
Perhaps education needs disruption as a prerequisite for some of these bigger problems to be tackled.
YouTube (as a platform) may have given us Justin Bieber, but it also gave us the Khan Academy. And the latter has surely inspired this recent surge from the Stanford faculty.
Perhaps education needs disruption as a prerequisite for some of these bigger problems to be tackled.
the problems you listed aren't pressing at all. alternative energy? we have truly ridiculous thorium reactor designs that could supply power (and run desalination off the back end for free) for the next thousand years. Space travel? Canned primates is a blind alley and we're ignoring more efficient designs because people are afraid of the word nuclear. Health? We actively prevent the falling in cost that would make health care more widely affordable, and that's granting that health care is related to health outcomes, which isn't at all clear.
No one wants to hear that all of our problems are self imposed. It's too terrifying given the current state of affairs.
No one wants to hear that all of our problems are self imposed. It's too terrifying given the current state of affairs.
I find it reassuring to know that, for many of our most dire problems, there are solutions out there. The fact that we're not using them doesn't mean we won't if we get desperate enough.
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
This is a pretty well worn quote, but it really is a good thing to keep in mind anytime you hear people talking about how [whatever] is declining. If things were getting worse even 1% as often as people say they are, we would be extinct by now.
"Worse" is subjective and contextually dependent. Describing kids' manners as worse the previous generations' manners is entirely subjective. Bucking tradition, shaking things up - these are characteristics that create innovation and efficiency.
I would argue that a healthy contempt for authority keeps the world advancing positively. Why should I "respect" some supervisor that instructs me in methods that are inefficient at completing my work? That kind of contempt for authority is welcome.
I would argue that a healthy contempt for authority keeps the world advancing positively. Why should I "respect" some supervisor that instructs me in methods that are inefficient at completing my work? That kind of contempt for authority is welcome.
[deleted]
How many iconic, break-out products are ever "technological breakthroughs"? Behind virtually every iconic product is a string of lesser known antecedents with the same fundamentals but imperfect packaging, pricing, or timing.
Counterexamples? Would love to hear them.
Otherwise, this is an extremely banal observation on Thiel's part.
Counterexamples? Would love to hear them.
Otherwise, this is an extremely banal observation on Thiel's part.
> Counterexamples? Would love to hear them.
One example.
PCR helped catalyze the multi-billion dollar molecular biology industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
One example.
PCR helped catalyze the multi-billion dollar molecular biology industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
How many iconic, break-out products are ever "technological breakthroughs"? Behind virtually every iconic product is a string of lesser known antecedents with the same fundamentals but imperfect packaging, pricing, or timing.
Reminds me of one of the themes in the book "Blue Ocean Strategy": the importance of value innovation, where the stress is on both low cost and differentiation.
Reminds me of one of the themes in the book "Blue Ocean Strategy": the importance of value innovation, where the stress is on both low cost and differentiation.
>Counterexamples? Would love to hear them.
Penicillin
Penicillin
Along those lines, the smallpox vaccine and X-rays.
The smallpox vaccine that eliminated the disease certainly had lesser know and effective predecessor as early as 1770:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
Not really a product, though, so that doesn't count as a good example. Obviously a major discovery with high impact, though.
Penicillin is produced, distributed and sold. I've bought it more than once and consider it to be a product. What do you feel is the necessary criteria for something to called a product?
What I think you mean to say is that breakthroughs should be about discoveries leading to an expansion of mind, that has yet to be known by any individual.
It's about breaking through the known, and can occur in any field of endeavour and will lead to new information: with that information a product should be created - Steve was, and Peter is looking for those products. They are in the position to do so, but neither will have that initial expansion of mind.
Seems like extracting the financial wealth of a breakthrough is why investors seek them.
It's about breaking through the known, and can occur in any field of endeavour and will lead to new information: with that information a product should be created - Steve was, and Peter is looking for those products. They are in the position to do so, but neither will have that initial expansion of mind.
Seems like extracting the financial wealth of a breakthrough is why investors seek them.
Light bulb and vulcanization of rubber. I don't think the lesser known antecedents had the same fundamentals.
[deleted]
The Mac. Nobody is disputing that every product relies on previous products.
But the Mac is a good example of a technological break thru that had imperfect packaging, pricing AND timing.
The packaging was too restrictive for the time. Jobs' vision was right, but the industry hadn't developed far enough that you could ship a machine without internal slots and be successful.
The pricing was out of line with the rest of the market, and the rest of the market didn't recognize sufficient increase in value due to the GUI to make the pricing make sense.
And of course, both of those issues were issues of timing. The Mac took several years to be successful, and depending on how you measure things, some would say it has never become successful (still only being %23 of the market or something like that.)
But the Mac was a technology break thru. In fact, it contained many such breakthrus, both in hardware and software.
But the Mac is a good example of a technological break thru that had imperfect packaging, pricing AND timing.
The packaging was too restrictive for the time. Jobs' vision was right, but the industry hadn't developed far enough that you could ship a machine without internal slots and be successful.
The pricing was out of line with the rest of the market, and the rest of the market didn't recognize sufficient increase in value due to the GUI to make the pricing make sense.
And of course, both of those issues were issues of timing. The Mac took several years to be successful, and depending on how you measure things, some would say it has never become successful (still only being %23 of the market or something like that.)
But the Mac was a technology break thru. In fact, it contained many such breakthrus, both in hardware and software.
The Lisa would be a much better example than the Macintosh, considering the Mac came later but was still only like a Lisa 0.5.
Google. The search engine's algorithm really was a technological breakthrough in comparison to its antecedents which were better priced, packaged, timed, and marketed.
[deleted]
Sometimes, refinement is a breakthrough.
The AK-47 was not the first automatic rifle nor the most powerful or advanced. But because of its clean design and deployability, it is likely the most significant firearm in modern human history.
What about those statistics that show that a relative modest reduction in consumption would do more to save the environment and energy supplies than any foreseeable technological breakthrough in the next 50 years? Any refinement of technology today to reduce consumption would likely bore someone like Thiel; at the same time, they may also do more to save the world. Why is break-out innovation not to be respected?
The AK-47 was not the first automatic rifle nor the most powerful or advanced. But because of its clean design and deployability, it is likely the most significant firearm in modern human history.
What about those statistics that show that a relative modest reduction in consumption would do more to save the environment and energy supplies than any foreseeable technological breakthrough in the next 50 years? Any refinement of technology today to reduce consumption would likely bore someone like Thiel; at the same time, they may also do more to save the world. Why is break-out innovation not to be respected?
I'm part of the academic research community that focuses on mobile. My personal opinion is that both the iPhone and the iPad pushed the barrier of what was thought to be possible.
In the case of the iPhone, it redefined browsing on small form factor devices. Yes ... pinch to zoom was published before. But the specific implementation into the web browser was pretty unique. The state of the art device prior to the iPhone was the Nokia 770 tablet. Compare that to an iPhone.
W.r.t the iPad, when Jobs claimed it would last 8 hours (I think he said you could play movies the entire way on a long distance flight), I didn't believe it. Nor could other researchers I talked to. Apple's custom silicon for media playback didn't factor into people's imagination.
In the case of the iPhone, it redefined browsing on small form factor devices. Yes ... pinch to zoom was published before. But the specific implementation into the web browser was pretty unique. The state of the art device prior to the iPhone was the Nokia 770 tablet. Compare that to an iPhone.
W.r.t the iPad, when Jobs claimed it would last 8 hours (I think he said you could play movies the entire way on a long distance flight), I didn't believe it. Nor could other researchers I talked to. Apple's custom silicon for media playback didn't factor into people's imagination.
All those things are cool, but compare with airplanes, which made the world drastically smaller. Or with the Haber-Bosch process, which prevents us from starving. That's the kind of big breakthrough technology that Thiel is talking about. The iPhone, while really neat, doesn't quite measure up.
One of my history professors in college said something I found quite remarkable. Let me share it ... he said in the history of humanity, there have been very few revolutions. When humans figured out how to talk was one. You can suddenly communicate with others! The other big revolution was when people learned to write. Now, you ideas can span space or time. The advent of computers, telecommunications and the Internet was another such revolution. You can now instantly connect with anyone around the planet! While the iPhone can't take the credit for all this, perhaps you see why I disagree with Thiel :)
“Apple is an innovative company, but I think it’s mostly a design innovator.”
Which is really the crux of what Apple is (I came here to say it and saw Thiel beat me to it). Apple has always been a product innovator more then a technology innovator.
The iPhone was still, very much, a breakthrough device. So was the iPod but neither were "technological breakthroughs"
Which is really the crux of what Apple is (I came here to say it and saw Thiel beat me to it). Apple has always been a product innovator more then a technology innovator.
The iPhone was still, very much, a breakthrough device. So was the iPod but neither were "technological breakthroughs"
Think of all the app developers out there who are making a living off the iPhone. Think of all the web developers out there whose audience has now increased dramatically because of Facebook and iPhone getting more people to use the web. What Thiel is having a hard time with is the move to an information-centric economy. Outside of better renewable energy, we pretty much have all the bases covered for basic, comfortable human existence. It's all about the creation and dissemination of information, now.
Compare that to the previous century. Where is the equivalent of the airplane, radio transmission, space travel, television, antibiotics, the Internet? Those were breakthroughs, not just incremental advances. There s never 'enough progress'. One should be an optimist though, there s innovation incubated in the life sciences
Although I mostly side with Tiel on his observations, to be fair you're comparing a century to a decade. And in hindsight it is easy to tell what was a breakthrough. Remember that when computers were invented few thought that we would have them in the palms of our hands.
Hmm... I might be off by a year or two, but I think it's pretty #%!*^&% amazing that you can have a powerful computer that is a link to the world in your pocket. That was the deepest science fiction 20-30 years ago. Maybe it's due to cheap flash memory, or maybe flash memory itself. No matter, it's pretty amazing.
Yeah, it would be quite nice to have alternative energy sources that were inexpensive. It would also nice to have cures for all "popular" diseases. But, compared to mucking with computers, those things cost serious money and require serious hardware. Oh, and can't be solved by "release early and release often".
Yeah, it would be quite nice to have alternative energy sources that were inexpensive. It would also nice to have cures for all "popular" diseases. But, compared to mucking with computers, those things cost serious money and require serious hardware. Oh, and can't be solved by "release early and release often".
>Think of all the web developers out there whose audience has now increased dramatically because of Facebook and iPhone getting more people to use the web.
Do you have any data that backs this up? This seems dramatically counter-intuitive. I don't imagine a lot of people who would otherwise not be using the internet buying iPhones.
Facebook, perhaps, but not the iPhone.
Do you have any data that backs this up? This seems dramatically counter-intuitive. I don't imagine a lot of people who would otherwise not be using the internet buying iPhones.
Facebook, perhaps, but not the iPhone.
well for facebook..... Think about how they benefit small businesses.
Now pretty much every small business I know has a facebook page. Most of the one's I'm thinking of didn't have a webpage. Now they can reach their audience with give aways and draws.
More thank half of my wife's wall is company page postings. Before facebook, we'd never heard form these companies after we bought something from them because they lacked the technical sophistication or didn't think it was worth their time. Facebook small business pages have been a real boon to small businesses from my perspective.
As for cell phones, it's true that I don't visit new sites due to having a cell phone, but I do visit sites much more often now that I've got a cell phone with internet.
Now if I"ve got 10 free minutes I can check my espn fantasy hockey stats or read hacker news.
Now pretty much every small business I know has a facebook page. Most of the one's I'm thinking of didn't have a webpage. Now they can reach their audience with give aways and draws.
More thank half of my wife's wall is company page postings. Before facebook, we'd never heard form these companies after we bought something from them because they lacked the technical sophistication or didn't think it was worth their time. Facebook small business pages have been a real boon to small businesses from my perspective.
As for cell phones, it's true that I don't visit new sites due to having a cell phone, but I do visit sites much more often now that I've got a cell phone with internet.
Now if I"ve got 10 free minutes I can check my espn fantasy hockey stats or read hacker news.
Oh please, just look around you - people have their faces buried in their phones everywhere you go, and it spans all demographics. Go to any airport and count the number of people using iPads. I don't need to provide data to back this up, although I'm confident I could; it's all around us.
Technologically speaking, sure. I don't think we know how to build a society which provides those benefits of a basic, comfortable existence for everyone, yet.
Except for the little matter of dying from a heart attack or cancer. Or an asteroid impact. Or that I can't afford a my own 747, or spaceship. Peter Thiel is lamenting that we have set our sights so low.
What about the first full face transplant ever? (http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_usa_transplant_face)
Asteroid impacts and space travel? This is what keeps you up at night?
[deleted]
Thiel would have run out of karma if he had made the same observation on HN.
Good thing HN has a max of 11 downvotes (I know first hand), but I get your point, fanboyism here is strong.
Are you sure? I appeared to lose a lot more than 11 per post on this thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3248916.
The irony, of course, is that the person in this thread whose defending the iPhone is best on all sides by ignorant fanboys engaging in down votes... they've even managed to bury unrelated threads that I commented on, simply because I commented on them!
Hacker News is a rabidly anti-iPhone, anti-Apple, and anti-innovation, and anti-technology site. Or at least its overrun with ideologues with those characterisitcs.
Hacker News is a rabidly anti-iPhone, anti-Apple, and anti-innovation, and anti-technology site. Or at least its overrun with ideologues with those characterisitcs.
I never knew that! This opens up so many more opportunities to comment! Thanks!
Hah, here's the prof http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196443 (I don't think there's any more unpopular comment you can make here) see it's -4 that shows but realistically I think I had -11 downvotes (it might be -10).
-4 is the lowest score a comment can achieve. Downvotes past -4 won't reduce the post's score, but they will keep draining karma from the user. I don't think there's actually a limit on that.
Actually they will reduce the comment's score too, it just won't show. The difference is that if it is showing -4 and someone upvotes it, it won't neccesarily go to -3, because it's actual score could be much lower.
People are following the money and innovating in places where it's possible to build a business with limited capital in a short time. In other words, the consumer internet -- which is exactly where Thiel has made his money, and made investments.
Unlike the average entrepreneur however, Thiel has the ability to change that, by funding more startups like SpaceX and RoboteX, and fewer like Zynga and Spotify.
Unlike the average entrepreneur however, Thiel has the ability to change that, by funding more startups like SpaceX and RoboteX, and fewer like Zynga and Spotify.
Well Peter, you're part of the problem. The more you invest in e.g.: social networks the more entrepreneurs are going to follow that instead of, you know, what you call "innovation".
This. The best recent examples of (i) companies capturing multibillion dollar markets through timing and effective implementation of existing concepts and (ii)profit bandwagon-jumping companies with no redeeming features whatsoever I can think of are both in Thiel's portfolio. you probably know which companies I'm respectively referring to. The return that he's going to generate from Facebook and Zynga may be reinvested in exciting technologies, but in the mean time his successes offer several billion reasons for others to copy his smart bets on companies whose innovations probably won't be lauded in future centuries
“Five hundred people will have job security for the next decade, but how much value does it create for the entire economy ? It may not be enough to dramatically improve living standards in the U.S. over the next decade or two decades.”
It's strange that someone as successful as Peter Thiel has been in the startup world, a world built on providing value, would make such a statement. What does the number of permanent or semi-permanent jobs have to do with the amount of value being created by something like twitter? If it took 100,000 employees to run twitter as it exists today, would that make it more valuable to the economy? Of course not.
If it only took one guy to design, build, ship, and sell the iPhone, Apple would be far more valuable to the economy, not less. You'd free up all those talented people to go out and create even more value on their own.
Also, he seems to equate increased $$ with increased living standards. By and large that's been historically true, but it's a bit misleading. Even if twitter made 0 money and created 0 jobs, it would still improve living standards. Certainly not in the way indoor plumbing or electricity raised living standards, but it still makes people's lives easier, which, by definition, improves living standards.
It's strange that someone as successful as Peter Thiel has been in the startup world, a world built on providing value, would make such a statement. What does the number of permanent or semi-permanent jobs have to do with the amount of value being created by something like twitter? If it took 100,000 employees to run twitter as it exists today, would that make it more valuable to the economy? Of course not.
If it only took one guy to design, build, ship, and sell the iPhone, Apple would be far more valuable to the economy, not less. You'd free up all those talented people to go out and create even more value on their own.
Also, he seems to equate increased $$ with increased living standards. By and large that's been historically true, but it's a bit misleading. Even if twitter made 0 money and created 0 jobs, it would still improve living standards. Certainly not in the way indoor plumbing or electricity raised living standards, but it still makes people's lives easier, which, by definition, improves living standards.
> If it took 100,000 employees to run twitter as it exists today, would that make it more valuable to the economy? Of course not.
> If it only took one guy to design, build, ship, and sell the iPhone, Apple would be far more valuable to the economy, not less. You'd free up all those talented people to go out and create even more value on their own.
I think it depends, really. Historically, talented people have created new industries/companies that employed a lot of less talented people and allowed them to live a comfortable life. I suspect the focus of his worry is that these less talented people are nowadays less often reaping the benefits of the innovations talented people create.
I think it depends, really. Historically, talented people have created new industries/companies that employed a lot of less talented people and allowed them to live a comfortable life. I suspect the focus of his worry is that these less talented people are nowadays less often reaping the benefits of the innovations talented people create.
Historically, those industries required less talented people in order to stay in business. Somebody has to sell the product, answer the phones, sweep the floors, etc. If you created a company that could operate with out all of those less talented people, this would be a boon.
Even if you presume all those less talented employees are mindless drones, if you can provide the same service with fewer employees, you now have all the value created by that service, plus you have all those extra mindless drones to go produce value someplace else.
As to your second point, I can't imagine that's what he's really thinking. The few talented people who create the twitters, iphones, etcs, are far outnumbered by the millions of less-talented people who actually use those products.
Even if you presume all those less talented employees are mindless drones, if you can provide the same service with fewer employees, you now have all the value created by that service, plus you have all those extra mindless drones to go produce value someplace else.
As to your second point, I can't imagine that's what he's really thinking. The few talented people who create the twitters, iphones, etcs, are far outnumbered by the millions of less-talented people who actually use those products.
> Historically, those industries required less talented people in order to stay in business. Somebody has to sell the product, answer the phones, sweep the floors, etc. If you created a company that could operate with out all of those less talented people, this would be a boon.
> Even if you presume all those less talented employees are mindless drones, if you can provide the same service with fewer employees, you now have all the value created by that service, plus you have all those extra mindless drones to go produce value someplace else.
Right, but what about the time when there's nothing sufficiently valuable for those people to do? Historically, we've been very able to replace old jobs with new ones - technology simultaneously freed people up and created new job growth segments. The question is whether technology is still capable of creating enough new jobs.
Right, but what about the time when there's nothing sufficiently valuable for those people to do? Historically, we've been very able to replace old jobs with new ones - technology simultaneously freed people up and created new job growth segments. The question is whether technology is still capable of creating enough new jobs.
Providing value is nothing more than fulfilling someone else's desire, whether that desire is for a shiny new car that accelerates very quickly, or a new way to communicate, or something pretty to look at, or something delicious to eat, or etc., etc.
Luckily, human beings have essentially unlimited desires. For this reason, there will always be sufficiently valuable things for people to do.
If there is truly nothing valuable for an entire population to do, ie if machines can fulfill every desire we can dream up, it means humanity has finally created utopia.
Luckily, human beings have essentially unlimited desires. For this reason, there will always be sufficiently valuable things for people to do.
If there is truly nothing valuable for an entire population to do, ie if machines can fulfill every desire we can dream up, it means humanity has finally created utopia.
Unlimited desires is probably a stretch. Substantial, certainly.
The problem is not utopia, it's the situation where there's nothing useful for, say, 20% of the population to do. I think there's plenty for the highly intelligent and well educated to get on with, but for those without (and perhaps unable to achieve) that level of education, it's a tougher situation.
The problem is not utopia, it's the situation where there's nothing useful for, say, 20% of the population to do. I think there's plenty for the highly intelligent and well educated to get on with, but for those without (and perhaps unable to achieve) that level of education, it's a tougher situation.
> If it only took one guy to design, build, ship, and sell the iPhone, Apple would be far more valuable to the economy, not less. You'd free up all those talented people to go out and create even more value on their own.
I wonder what your plan is to gainfully employ 7 billion talented people that are freed up. Do you envision a world where 7 billion people come up each with a revolutionary change that improves some aspect of shelter/feed/transport/communicate/socialize/entertain/learn fundamental needs that people have?
I wonder what your plan is to gainfully employ 7 billion talented people that are freed up. Do you envision a world where 7 billion people come up each with a revolutionary change that improves some aspect of shelter/feed/transport/communicate/socialize/entertain/learn fundamental needs that people have?
> Having a fully functioning computer in your pocket opens up entirely new experiences—and markets. […] Social media, combined with mobile technologies, are powering protests and revolutions around the world and changing the way people consume information.
While I somewhat agree with this, I can't help but feel that much more is possible[1]. With current technology. If people actually owned their pocket computers, both in theory[2] and in practice[3], the changes would be much more profound.
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/2c/a_sense_that_more_is_possible
[2] http://freedomboxfoundation.org/
[3] http://vpri.org/ http://vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
While I somewhat agree with this, I can't help but feel that much more is possible[1]. With current technology. If people actually owned their pocket computers, both in theory[2] and in practice[3], the changes would be much more profound.
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/2c/a_sense_that_more_is_possible
[2] http://freedomboxfoundation.org/
[3] http://vpri.org/ http://vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf
"Innovation" is a glittering generality that tech companies and their admirers feel obliged to assume, but most successful companies are built on execution rather than innovation.
Apple is actually an exemplar of execution over innovation. Since Jobs returned, none of their genre-defining products have been fundamentally novel. Even the iPad represents a category people have been trying to get right for twenty years without success. Apple likes to identify markets with demand but immature products, so that they can learn from the mistakes of earlier entrants and launch with an extremely polished, market defining product.
I don't hold this approach against Apple. On the contrary, I wish there were more companies that obsessed about creating polished, highly-functional products that run a little behind the technological curve, rather than the slapped-together assemblages of new parts from Asian electronics manufacturers' supply catalog that typify the industry.
Apple is actually an exemplar of execution over innovation. Since Jobs returned, none of their genre-defining products have been fundamentally novel. Even the iPad represents a category people have been trying to get right for twenty years without success. Apple likes to identify markets with demand but immature products, so that they can learn from the mistakes of earlier entrants and launch with an extremely polished, market defining product.
I don't hold this approach against Apple. On the contrary, I wish there were more companies that obsessed about creating polished, highly-functional products that run a little behind the technological curve, rather than the slapped-together assemblages of new parts from Asian electronics manufacturers' supply catalog that typify the industry.
Comments like this from Peter provoke people to respond. Plain and simple. Rather than criticizing why he "thinks" the iPhone hasn't broken any boundaries, maybe he should "go-out" and stimulate more than "just 500 employees" at once (aka his reference to Twitter).
> "I Don’t Consider [The iPhone] To Be A Technological Breakthrough"
Isn't this essentially a strawman, since no one is claiming that the iPhone is a Technological Breakthrough?
At the time the iPhone came out, lots of people noted that it actually lagged technologically behind its smartphone peers (no 3G, subpar SMS functionality, etc), which was correct. And yet it won, it showed smartphone companies how to make a smartphone, and they have been copying that design/approach ever since.
The iPhone didn't win because it was a technological breakthrough, and everyone in tech knows this, so I'm not sure why Thiel's comment is that noteworthy.
Isn't this essentially a strawman, since no one is claiming that the iPhone is a Technological Breakthrough?
At the time the iPhone came out, lots of people noted that it actually lagged technologically behind its smartphone peers (no 3G, subpar SMS functionality, etc), which was correct. And yet it won, it showed smartphone companies how to make a smartphone, and they have been copying that design/approach ever since.
The iPhone didn't win because it was a technological breakthrough, and everyone in tech knows this, so I'm not sure why Thiel's comment is that noteworthy.
A lot of innovation we're seeing now is the result of miniaturization of older technologies, such as touchscreen, cell phones and computers. I'd say that the IPhone is rather an innovation in the lifestyle of their owners, more than a technological innovation per se.
I've been arguing this point for a few years now, that smartphones are cool devices, but rather fall in the gadget category than the civilization changing techs they are sometimes compared to.
I've been arguing this point for a few years now, that smartphones are cool devices, but rather fall in the gadget category than the civilization changing techs they are sometimes compared to.
I am totally disagree. Although the breakthroughs in the tech scene are not as groundbreaking as it seems, the implications for social interaction, commerce and education is astounding. I believe we are yet to see the fruits of internet and related technologies in the years ahead of us. Khan Academy, Stanford's online classes, and tons of other educational material available through internet I believe effecting a lot of people's lives.
So, if you d take a stab, in what sectors do you expect to see the real breakthroughs? My bet is on genetic medicine and the brain sciences.
Genetic engineering is going to be a tough sell with the masses. They won't touch GM corn, tomatoes, ... How the hell are they going to accept GM-mods to themselves?
A common characteristic of breakthroughs is that they are at first frightening
I remember reading a Wired article that predicated GM-augmented human engineering would first gain a foothold in professional sports, namely the NFL.
More likely something like Tour de France (O2 loading of blood)... And man, will the professional leagues have issues with this. "East German swimmers" will seem like nothing.
If they have to choose between a genetic engineering product and dying?
Nope. It's more of a "deployment of technology" breakthrough. Most of the individual technologies there have been around for a while.
That, and a very well designed user-interface are what make the iPhone exceptional. That's why many 'geeks' don't feel it's worth the praise, there are better phones out there in terms of technology, but hardly in terms of usability.
Pretty obvious though necessary statement it seems. None of the 'i' products have ever been about technology and Steve Jobs was never a innovator. It's all about design and consumer behavior, starting with iTunes and ending with iTunes.
The App Store and VoiceOver. The former shifted the power balance between devs and carriers (creating thousands of jobs) and the latter has changed the lives of many visually-impaired.
I understand the iPhone ref is a strawman, but not a very good one.
I understand the iPhone ref is a strawman, but not a very good one.
I agree that it was not a great technological breakthrough on it's own, but it is greatly responsible for a lot of folk's interest in new technology and programming among other things, which should not be understated.
Technological, no. UI/UX? Definitely.
The iPhone may not a technological breakthrough in that it changes the life of billions of people, no. In that vein, neither is Paypal, to be honest.
The part that annoys me is that Thiel drops this linkbait-worthy note, then doesn't qualify it by saying what would be a technological breakthrough (I did read the new yorker summary, too). Lot of hot air here.
The part that annoys me is that Thiel drops this linkbait-worthy note, then doesn't qualify it by saying what would be a technological breakthrough (I did read the new yorker summary, too). Lot of hot air here.
Lots of comments here defending Apple. I think the relevant question is: why don't we see more innovation in energy, transportation or medicine?
It's a design breakthrough. What's inside, the inexpensive, mass-produced components, is more or less the same as what's in all the competing devices. But the design, the packaging, is a breakthrough.
What's problematic about this Apple popularism and Apple's hermetically sealed approach to selling computing devices is that it does not encourage, let alone even permit, people to learn about what's on the inside and how it works. These are computing devices, not refrigerators.
And in the _grand scheme_ of things, that inhibits progress. It limits the potential pool of competitors and innovators.
Though it preserves the competitive advantage of businesses like Apple, Intel and others. Increased consumer uptake fueled by elegant design certainly furthers what they can do. But the incentives for them to innovate are limited. Do the minimum. Reap the maximum. That's just smart business.
What's problematic about this Apple popularism and Apple's hermetically sealed approach to selling computing devices is that it does not encourage, let alone even permit, people to learn about what's on the inside and how it works. These are computing devices, not refrigerators.
And in the _grand scheme_ of things, that inhibits progress. It limits the potential pool of competitors and innovators.
Though it preserves the competitive advantage of businesses like Apple, Intel and others. Increased consumer uptake fueled by elegant design certainly furthers what they can do. But the incentives for them to innovate are limited. Do the minimum. Reap the maximum. That's just smart business.
It's easy to think that it does limit progress, but it likely does not. Any company that can get people to excited about technology will positively contribute to the future of the industry.
It is probably an extremely controversial thought, but Apple might be responsable for pushing more people into development/engineer jobs than Linux. I know I found my passion for technology through Apple, which eventually led me to Linux. I bet I'm not alone.
It is probably an extremely controversial thought, but Apple might be responsable for pushing more people into development/engineer jobs than Linux. I know I found my passion for technology through Apple, which eventually led me to Linux. I bet I'm not alone.
I anticipated this response. That is why I emphasize _grand scheme_. Short term, I agree with you. Long term, I do not.
Smartphones affordable enough for the third world, and pervasive wireless internet access will almost definitely have a larger impact on the world than space travel ever will.
Ever? That's an incredibly strong statement. Ever is a very long time. Do you think smartphones will be more important than space travel in 300 years? What will the word "smartphone" mean then?
I should've added 'for the foreseeable future'. Although it gives us "feel good" vibes, having a small number of people in space does not significantly improve the lives of many people.
The iPhone contains a key invention, and several innovations. This is the simple fact of reality.
The reason these stories are constantly appearing on HN, nearly 4 years since the iPhone was introduced, is because those who want to diminish the invention of multi-touch, like everyone else, sat awed at the iPhone when it was first introduced. That was a very magical moment, and if the iPhone hadn't been a radical departure, then it would have been just another cell phone introduction. It's not often you get to see a new technology that seems magical for the first time.
Theil is talking in terms of making a dent in society. Obviously his standards for a "dent in the universe" are different than Steve Jobs. That's fine for him, but don't confuse it for support for your ideology.
There were no multi-touch devices before the iPhone. (and every time I bring this up, some one posts a link to thin-plastic keyboards from the 1970s, or the screens of the automated ticket stand at movie theaters as if they were the same.) The technology for understanding the shape of the finger when in contact with a touch sensitive display, and being able to reduce that amorphous blob down to a single pixel-- and get the pixel the user intended to touch, instead of the one at the center, or whatever, had never been done, let alone, tracking multiple fingers at the same time, a non-trivial problem. This invention enabled a raft of innovations that Apple spent 7 years developing that resulted in only the second new user interface paradigm in my lifetime- touch UI. (The first being the GUI, which was also developed under Steve Jobs.)
There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here. One manifestation of that ideology is support for things like welfare, etc, because they believe that it's just chance that separates Steve Jobs from you and me. (and not hard work.) Another manifestation of it is to pretend like the products of the mind have no value at all, and one way they like to do this is to pretend like its only "good marketing" that made the iPhone successful because it was just a random collection of parts that had been invented before.
Sure, LCD screens, Mac OS X, ARM CPUs, RAM, Flash memory and lithium polymer batteries existed before, and with the exception of OS X, all had appeared in other phones. To them, that means that there's nothing innovative about the iPhone. Innovation doesn't exist in their ideology, in fact, it demolishes their ideology, so they have to pretend like nothing was invented for the iPhone. Inevitably, when anyone expresses any defense of innovation you get a lot of nonsense claims about touch panel displays int he 1970s as if that were "prior art" for multi-touch. I've even seen people on Hacker News insist that Xerox invented the GUI. (showing either they don't know what a GUI is, or they don't care.)
To the extent that this ideology has succeeded in america, we have an economic depression, little growth in industry, a great shrinking in american manufacturing jobs (because this ideology has regulated them out of being competitive with the world market) etc.
This ideology might even succeed to the point where a major institution of this country, enshrined in the constitution itself, is destroyed, simply because Google wants to make a competitive phone without bothering to spend 7 years coming up with something innovative itself.
That would be a real shame... because the place that road leads is one where the president has a "kill switch" for the internet, things like SOPA are the law of the land, and startups have to get permission from government to operate their businesses, just like manufacturers do now, and said permission isn't going to come unless you have a lot of pull. We've seen what government control over the purse strings in an "innovative" area results in: Democratic contributors getting $500M loans from government for "green energy" only to go bust a few years later... its just a looting of the public for the direct benefit of politicians and their friends. This is the aristocracy of "pull".
It's instructive to remember that Theil is a prominent libertarian, and thus very clearly not a proponent of this ideology.
All this has happened before, and repeatedly. The USA is the last remaining beacon of innovation in the world. I understand that Hacker News is frequented by a lot of college age or early 20s hackers. Don't fall for the anti-innovation, anti-mind, anti-science, anti-intellectual ideology that says Apple is evil for inventing new things or putting the product and customer first, and those who just ship ripoff products are to be commended.
Don't fall for the claims that inventing is useless, and that america is destined to just be like china (Where everything we make is a ripoff of something invented somewhere else.)
To paraphrase Margarat Thatcher: The problem with not inventing anything yourself is, eventually you run out of other people's inventions to rip off.
In fact you can see this now: The android market is commoditized. Nobody is innovating, and nobody is making any money. In fact, Apples commanding %56 of the entire phone industries profits with only %5 of the smartphones, while most phones still aren't even smartphones. (this is why android marketshare is surging, its becoming the new feature phone).
This is a significant lesson for people who want to do startups. I learned it by trying to sell things on ebay when I was young:
If you don't have anything unique or innovative, you can only compete on price. And that's a race to the bottom.
To the extent that innovative companies can succeed, it is good for the startup economy. To the extent that anything innovative is ripped off, with no recourse, then the larger companies will maintain dominance because newer companies have nothing to compete with, and can't compete on economies of scale. The more things go that way, the less viable startups become and the less innovation society will have from which to benefit.
The reason these stories are constantly appearing on HN, nearly 4 years since the iPhone was introduced, is because those who want to diminish the invention of multi-touch, like everyone else, sat awed at the iPhone when it was first introduced. That was a very magical moment, and if the iPhone hadn't been a radical departure, then it would have been just another cell phone introduction. It's not often you get to see a new technology that seems magical for the first time.
Theil is talking in terms of making a dent in society. Obviously his standards for a "dent in the universe" are different than Steve Jobs. That's fine for him, but don't confuse it for support for your ideology.
There were no multi-touch devices before the iPhone. (and every time I bring this up, some one posts a link to thin-plastic keyboards from the 1970s, or the screens of the automated ticket stand at movie theaters as if they were the same.) The technology for understanding the shape of the finger when in contact with a touch sensitive display, and being able to reduce that amorphous blob down to a single pixel-- and get the pixel the user intended to touch, instead of the one at the center, or whatever, had never been done, let alone, tracking multiple fingers at the same time, a non-trivial problem. This invention enabled a raft of innovations that Apple spent 7 years developing that resulted in only the second new user interface paradigm in my lifetime- touch UI. (The first being the GUI, which was also developed under Steve Jobs.)
There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here. One manifestation of that ideology is support for things like welfare, etc, because they believe that it's just chance that separates Steve Jobs from you and me. (and not hard work.) Another manifestation of it is to pretend like the products of the mind have no value at all, and one way they like to do this is to pretend like its only "good marketing" that made the iPhone successful because it was just a random collection of parts that had been invented before.
Sure, LCD screens, Mac OS X, ARM CPUs, RAM, Flash memory and lithium polymer batteries existed before, and with the exception of OS X, all had appeared in other phones. To them, that means that there's nothing innovative about the iPhone. Innovation doesn't exist in their ideology, in fact, it demolishes their ideology, so they have to pretend like nothing was invented for the iPhone. Inevitably, when anyone expresses any defense of innovation you get a lot of nonsense claims about touch panel displays int he 1970s as if that were "prior art" for multi-touch. I've even seen people on Hacker News insist that Xerox invented the GUI. (showing either they don't know what a GUI is, or they don't care.)
To the extent that this ideology has succeeded in america, we have an economic depression, little growth in industry, a great shrinking in american manufacturing jobs (because this ideology has regulated them out of being competitive with the world market) etc.
This ideology might even succeed to the point where a major institution of this country, enshrined in the constitution itself, is destroyed, simply because Google wants to make a competitive phone without bothering to spend 7 years coming up with something innovative itself.
That would be a real shame... because the place that road leads is one where the president has a "kill switch" for the internet, things like SOPA are the law of the land, and startups have to get permission from government to operate their businesses, just like manufacturers do now, and said permission isn't going to come unless you have a lot of pull. We've seen what government control over the purse strings in an "innovative" area results in: Democratic contributors getting $500M loans from government for "green energy" only to go bust a few years later... its just a looting of the public for the direct benefit of politicians and their friends. This is the aristocracy of "pull".
It's instructive to remember that Theil is a prominent libertarian, and thus very clearly not a proponent of this ideology.
All this has happened before, and repeatedly. The USA is the last remaining beacon of innovation in the world. I understand that Hacker News is frequented by a lot of college age or early 20s hackers. Don't fall for the anti-innovation, anti-mind, anti-science, anti-intellectual ideology that says Apple is evil for inventing new things or putting the product and customer first, and those who just ship ripoff products are to be commended.
Don't fall for the claims that inventing is useless, and that america is destined to just be like china (Where everything we make is a ripoff of something invented somewhere else.)
To paraphrase Margarat Thatcher: The problem with not inventing anything yourself is, eventually you run out of other people's inventions to rip off.
In fact you can see this now: The android market is commoditized. Nobody is innovating, and nobody is making any money. In fact, Apples commanding %56 of the entire phone industries profits with only %5 of the smartphones, while most phones still aren't even smartphones. (this is why android marketshare is surging, its becoming the new feature phone).
This is a significant lesson for people who want to do startups. I learned it by trying to sell things on ebay when I was young:
If you don't have anything unique or innovative, you can only compete on price. And that's a race to the bottom.
To the extent that innovative companies can succeed, it is good for the startup economy. To the extent that anything innovative is ripped off, with no recourse, then the larger companies will maintain dominance because newer companies have nothing to compete with, and can't compete on economies of scale. The more things go that way, the less viable startups become and the less innovation society will have from which to benefit.
The multi-touch interface was developed by Microsoft Research in 2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface
>There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here. One manifestation of that ideology is support for things like welfare, etc, because they believe that it's just chance that separates Steve Jobs from you and me. (and not hard work.)
Actually it's well demonstrated that you need to have money to make money. The few cases you can site as exceptions are exceptions, and for every exception I can point to a thousand (maybe a million?) people who work hard and are barely making ends meet. And each and every one of those exception stories contains a lot of luck. Claiming that hard work == success is insulting to all of the smart people who have failed, and truly insulting to the millions who work hard in ways that you're discounting as "work."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface
>There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here. One manifestation of that ideology is support for things like welfare, etc, because they believe that it's just chance that separates Steve Jobs from you and me. (and not hard work.)
Actually it's well demonstrated that you need to have money to make money. The few cases you can site as exceptions are exceptions, and for every exception I can point to a thousand (maybe a million?) people who work hard and are barely making ends meet. And each and every one of those exception stories contains a lot of luck. Claiming that hard work == success is insulting to all of the smart people who have failed, and truly insulting to the millions who work hard in ways that you're discounting as "work."
"The multi-touch interface was developed by Microsoft Research in 2001"
It's much older. Multi-touch was invented in 1982, at the University of Toronto [1]. After that, it took quite a bit more research until an actual product was made that consumers could buy: in 1998, FingerWorks' launched its line of multi-touch keyboards [2]. FingerWorks was later bought by Apple, in 2005.
As an aside: Microsoft's Surface was announced in 2007 [1] and works with cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen.
[1] http://billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html (author works at Microsoft, should be convincing enough to you)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks
It's much older. Multi-touch was invented in 1982, at the University of Toronto [1]. After that, it took quite a bit more research until an actual product was made that consumers could buy: in 1998, FingerWorks' launched its line of multi-touch keyboards [2]. FingerWorks was later bought by Apple, in 2005.
As an aside: Microsoft's Surface was announced in 2007 [1] and works with cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen.
[1] http://billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html (author works at Microsoft, should be convincing enough to you)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks
Your argument is akin to claiming that whoever invented magnetic audio recording on tapes didn't do anything innovative because Edison had already invented the gramophone.
The paper you cite claims that people were working on multitouch at University of Toronto. It is also true that touch panels (not multitouch) predate even that, going as far back as the 1970s.
But none of this is relevant, and the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun.
Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone.
Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology.
I think the problem is that you guys have believed your own propaganda that patents just cover ideas. They do not. Patents cover specific technological inventions, methods and processes.
Thus, 1970 era touch panels, the displays at your movie theater, the surface and everything driven with a stylus is as relevant to the invention of multitouch as the gramophone is to the invention of magnetic recording. That is to say, in the same broad field, but not examples of "prior art".
The paper you cite claims that people were working on multitouch at University of Toronto. It is also true that touch panels (not multitouch) predate even that, going as far back as the 1970s.
But none of this is relevant, and the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun.
Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone.
Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology.
I think the problem is that you guys have believed your own propaganda that patents just cover ideas. They do not. Patents cover specific technological inventions, methods and processes.
Thus, 1970 era touch panels, the displays at your movie theater, the surface and everything driven with a stylus is as relevant to the invention of multitouch as the gramophone is to the invention of magnetic recording. That is to say, in the same broad field, but not examples of "prior art".
"the fact that the Surface uses cameras instead of a capacitive touchscreen is not an "aside", its the smoking gun."
I think you're confusing 'multi-touch' with 'multi-touch on a small capacitive LCD touchscreen'.
The fact that other companies chose to use cameras or other screen technologies instead of capacitive LCD touchscreen doesn't mean they weren't employing multi-touch. 'Multi-touch' simply means that the system registers multiple touches simultaneously.
Multi-touch existed long before FingerWorks got into the game, but they were the first to actually use it in a mass market product and they invented a lot of the multi-touch gestures that we now use on a daily basis.
"Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone."
If FingerWorks invented multi-touch, Apple buying the company would not mean that suddenly Apple becomes the inventor of multi-touch, just that it holds those patents.
And the FingerWorks patents cite earlier multi-touch patents (even calling it that), so it's clear they're not claiming to have invented the entire thing.
"Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology."
Em, how about FingerWorks' own products, before they were acquired by Apple?
I think you're confusing 'multi-touch' with 'multi-touch on a small capacitive LCD touchscreen'.
The fact that other companies chose to use cameras or other screen technologies instead of capacitive LCD touchscreen doesn't mean they weren't employing multi-touch. 'Multi-touch' simply means that the system registers multiple touches simultaneously.
Multi-touch existed long before FingerWorks got into the game, but they were the first to actually use it in a mass market product and they invented a lot of the multi-touch gestures that we now use on a daily basis.
"Apple (aka Fingerworks) invented multi-touch, which is the method detailed in its patents and used in the iPhone."
If FingerWorks invented multi-touch, Apple buying the company would not mean that suddenly Apple becomes the inventor of multi-touch, just that it holds those patents.
And the FingerWorks patents cite earlier multi-touch patents (even calling it that), so it's clear they're not claiming to have invented the entire thing.
"Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology."
Em, how about FingerWorks' own products, before they were acquired by Apple?
>Nobody, that I've seen, has provided an example of a product predating the iPhone that uses this multi-touch technology.
What about this one? Forward to about 2:30 if you're impatient. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=884017118027634444
What about this one? Forward to about 2:30 if you're impatient. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=884017118027634444
You linked to a TED tech demo. The actual product didn't come out [1] until after the iPhone was in stores, and it cost $100,000.
That's not to say there weren't any multi-touch products before the iPhone, just that this wasn't one of them.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/07/nieman-marcus-to-sell-per...
That's not to say there weren't any multi-touch products before the iPhone, just that this wasn't one of them.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/07/nieman-marcus-to-sell-per...
Different technology, different operating mechanism, doesn't do the same thing as apple's multi-touch (which I've explained a number of times already.) This detects a fingers location in gross space, not the pixel the finger is intending to touch. Pixel level accuracy is one of the key components of Apple's solution.
Notice that, just like all the others in this thread, you're liking to something that is not using the same mechanism and doesn't conflict with any of the claims in Apple's multi-touch patent.
Your ideology tells you that anything having to do with touch makes Apple's multi-touch invention irrelevant.
This is like saying that there was no invention in magnetic audio recording because the phonograph had already been invented.
I know this won't convince you, of course. One of the saddest things about this topic is not that so many people are ignorant of the nature of Apple's invention, but that their ideology compels them to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, and so they have no interest in learning. And, of course, rather than address the thesis of my article, I'm getting rampantly down voted and comments that are irrelevant.
Notice that, just like all the others in this thread, you're liking to something that is not using the same mechanism and doesn't conflict with any of the claims in Apple's multi-touch patent.
Your ideology tells you that anything having to do with touch makes Apple's multi-touch invention irrelevant.
This is like saying that there was no invention in magnetic audio recording because the phonograph had already been invented.
I know this won't convince you, of course. One of the saddest things about this topic is not that so many people are ignorant of the nature of Apple's invention, but that their ideology compels them to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, and so they have no interest in learning. And, of course, rather than address the thesis of my article, I'm getting rampantly down voted and comments that are irrelevant.
The Microsoft Surface is not "multi-touch"[1]. It uses a completely different technology.
Further that wikipedia article shows that the someone had the idea in 2001. Good for them. The movie Minority Report came out in 2002, and was in pre-production for years before that. Thus the IDEA was not new. Nobody has claimed that the iPhone invented the IDEA.
That you make no distinction between someone expressing an idea, and an actual invention of a technology, shows that you're just reaching for excuses to rationalize your ideology.
Your attempt to insult my be claiming I denigrated people who work hard is also ... missing the mark.
Finally, the surface uses a completely different technology, which is driven by cameras, to the iPhone, and does not have the same capabilities as the iPhone.
So, even if the Surface itself had been invented in 2001 (rather than just the idea) it still wouldn't be applicable to this discussion.
This comment is exactly why I hesitate to post on Hacker News in the first place, and rarely respond to comments to my posts.
[1] this is a precise technological term trademarked by Apple whereby the impact area of a finger is resolved down to a single pixel, and multiple such fingers can be tracked simultaneously. The surface does not do this.
Further that wikipedia article shows that the someone had the idea in 2001. Good for them. The movie Minority Report came out in 2002, and was in pre-production for years before that. Thus the IDEA was not new. Nobody has claimed that the iPhone invented the IDEA.
That you make no distinction between someone expressing an idea, and an actual invention of a technology, shows that you're just reaching for excuses to rationalize your ideology.
Your attempt to insult my be claiming I denigrated people who work hard is also ... missing the mark.
Finally, the surface uses a completely different technology, which is driven by cameras, to the iPhone, and does not have the same capabilities as the iPhone.
So, even if the Surface itself had been invented in 2001 (rather than just the idea) it still wouldn't be applicable to this discussion.
This comment is exactly why I hesitate to post on Hacker News in the first place, and rarely respond to comments to my posts.
[1] this is a precise technological term trademarked by Apple whereby the impact area of a finger is resolved down to a single pixel, and multiple such fingers can be tracked simultaneously. The surface does not do this.
And they showed off a working version of the product, with multi-touch, at the All Things Digital conference before the iPhone released.
For the record, comments to your posts are almost universally pointing out blatant inaccuracies, so I'm not surprised you don't respond.
For the record, comments to your posts are almost universally pointing out blatant inaccuracies, so I'm not surprised you don't respond.
Between the time the iPhone was announced and released, Microsoft did whip up a quick demo... as anyone could have in the 1990s if they'd wanted to.
Frankly, your claim about the Microsoft Surface false. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And actually supports my hypothesis that those who wish to diminish the inventiveness of the iPhone do so out of ideological reasons, not out of an understanding of the underlying technology.
The Surface uses a technology whereby an image of the user is captured. It is not a touch screen at all. It does not directly measure touch.
If people aren't even addressing the actual technology in question, I find that having a discussion is ... problematic. Plus the preponderance of down votes against my well reasoned points tells me that that a lot of you don't care about accurate or inaccurate, but whether something agrees with your ideology.
Which lends credence to my hypothesis that this is ideologically driven.
Frankly, your claim about the Microsoft Surface false. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And actually supports my hypothesis that those who wish to diminish the inventiveness of the iPhone do so out of ideological reasons, not out of an understanding of the underlying technology.
The Surface uses a technology whereby an image of the user is captured. It is not a touch screen at all. It does not directly measure touch.
If people aren't even addressing the actual technology in question, I find that having a discussion is ... problematic. Plus the preponderance of down votes against my well reasoned points tells me that that a lot of you don't care about accurate or inaccurate, but whether something agrees with your ideology.
Which lends credence to my hypothesis that this is ideologically driven.
You're bandying around the term 'multi-touch', and shooting down responses that don't reference multi-touch using a capacitive screen. Multi-touch is a technology-neutral term that simply means a system with the ability to respond to multiple touches at the same time, and the Surface clearly qualifies. MSR did a load of useful UI research on multi-touch devices, and deserve credit for that.
Apple released the first commercial device with a capacitive multi-touch screen (that I'm aware of), and it was absolutely a leap forward - the technology the surface used wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Apple deserve a lot credit for making an interesting, accurate, and responsive UI using new screen hardware (which, it should be pointed out, was not created by Apple). Surely this distinction isn't too hard to understand.
Apple released the first commercial device with a capacitive multi-touch screen (that I'm aware of), and it was absolutely a leap forward - the technology the surface used wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Apple deserve a lot credit for making an interesting, accurate, and responsive UI using new screen hardware (which, it should be pointed out, was not created by Apple). Surely this distinction isn't too hard to understand.
The key problem here is that people are conflating technologies that work on a completely different principle and don't have the same capabilities with the iPhone touch technology, and saying that their existence proves that nothing was invented for the iPhone. However, this is obviously false, as the technologies work using different methods and have different capabilities.
Multi-touch is a trademarked term[1] Apple uses to describe its technology for resolving the amorphous blob a finger makes when in contact with a screen into a single pixel.
Notice that the surface doesn't do this. It just detects a finger, but it can also detect a stylus or anything else. Its accuracy is that of an object, maybe a finger, not a pixel somewhere under the finger that is much smaller than the finger.
I'm not discounting Microsoft's work, it its just not relevant to this discussion.
When doing the trademark search just now, I found that some one else used it to talk about a switch based technology, invented around 1990.[2]
Again, "touch screens" whereby finger pressure closes a circuit by bending one trace into another has been around since the 1970s. These are almost alway single touch, but even when they can detect two fingers, they are not solving the same problem Apple did.
Apple resolved a finger down to a pixel, these things just detect fingers. There's a huge difference.
Thus, people bringing up these other technologies that do not even do the same thing, as if they are "prior art" are being dishonest.
[1]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Handheld mobile digital electronic devices with electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions. FIRST USE: 20070109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20070629 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 77219819 Filing Date June 30, 2007
[2]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: switches, switch panels, and communication circuits. FIRST USE: 19900202. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900202 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74438236 Filing Date September 21, 1993
Multi-touch is a trademarked term[1] Apple uses to describe its technology for resolving the amorphous blob a finger makes when in contact with a screen into a single pixel.
Notice that the surface doesn't do this. It just detects a finger, but it can also detect a stylus or anything else. Its accuracy is that of an object, maybe a finger, not a pixel somewhere under the finger that is much smaller than the finger.
I'm not discounting Microsoft's work, it its just not relevant to this discussion.
When doing the trademark search just now, I found that some one else used it to talk about a switch based technology, invented around 1990.[2]
Again, "touch screens" whereby finger pressure closes a circuit by bending one trace into another has been around since the 1970s. These are almost alway single touch, but even when they can detect two fingers, they are not solving the same problem Apple did.
Apple resolved a finger down to a pixel, these things just detect fingers. There's a huge difference.
Thus, people bringing up these other technologies that do not even do the same thing, as if they are "prior art" are being dishonest.
[1]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Handheld mobile digital electronic devices with electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions. FIRST USE: 20070109. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20070629 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 77219819 Filing Date June 30, 2007
[2]Word Mark MULTI-TOUCH Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: switches, switch panels, and communication circuits. FIRST USE: 19900202. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900202 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74438236 Filing Date September 21, 1993
Apple's trademark application got denied because the term multi-touch is generic ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/66447722/Multi-Touch-Trademark )
Additionally, there's a load of research referencing the term 'multi-touch' a long time prior to the iPhone - a quick google scholar search, for example: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&...
Apple did not invent capacitive multi-touch capable screens, and they did not invent the common UI metaphors used in multi-touch screens. Apple's software did make for a very precise capacitive touch screens, but their improvements were incremental.
This is not to downplay their achievement in the iPhone - I think it was a marvellous device, and the first truly usable smartphone - I just don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of those who came before, and the long history of research into multi-touch screens.
Additionally, there's a load of research referencing the term 'multi-touch' a long time prior to the iPhone - a quick google scholar search, for example: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=multi-touch&hl=en&...
Apple did not invent capacitive multi-touch capable screens, and they did not invent the common UI metaphors used in multi-touch screens. Apple's software did make for a very precise capacitive touch screens, but their improvements were incremental.
This is not to downplay their achievement in the iPhone - I think it was a marvellous device, and the first truly usable smartphone - I just don't think it's fair to ignore the contributions of those who came before, and the long history of research into multi-touch screens.
You shifted the goalposts. The trademark is listed on the USPTO.gov site, as being live and owned by Apple. They don't provide the ability to link to it directly, which is why I quoted it with enough info for you to do your own search.
I'm not ignoring the contributions that came before, I'm refuting the claim that Apple didn't invent it, specifically when people cite other methodologies.
I'm not ignoring the contributions that came before, I'm refuting the claim that Apple didn't invent it, specifically when people cite other methodologies.
Here's a link to the trademark claim in question: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=7...
Note the status:
> Current Status: An appeal of a final refusal to register the mark is pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page.
Their trademark claim is basically dead in the water. Multi-touch is a generic term. I leave it to the other reply in this thread to deal with the debate about the novel work Apple/Fingerworks did.
edit: You probably owe other posters in this thread an apology for accusations of lying, based on your own misconception of what multi-touch actually means.
Note the status:
> Current Status: An appeal of a final refusal to register the mark is pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page.
Their trademark claim is basically dead in the water. Multi-touch is a generic term. I leave it to the other reply in this thread to deal with the debate about the novel work Apple/Fingerworks did.
edit: You probably owe other posters in this thread an apology for accusations of lying, based on your own misconception of what multi-touch actually means.
Here are two papers which thoroughly describe capacitive multitouch interfaces years before Apple released products based on the technology:
A Multi-touch Three Dimensional Touch-Sensitive Tablet: http://www.billbuxton.com/leebuxtonsmith.pdf
Applying Electric Field Sensing to Human-Computer Interfaces: http://www.media.mit.edu/~jrs/jrs_EFS_HCI.pdf
If you go through the references you'll find dozens of other papers on the subject. Academics in the HCI field have been working toward this kind of technology since the late 70s.
Fingerworks/Apple did not invent the technology, can we put this to rest?
A Multi-touch Three Dimensional Touch-Sensitive Tablet: http://www.billbuxton.com/leebuxtonsmith.pdf
Applying Electric Field Sensing to Human-Computer Interfaces: http://www.media.mit.edu/~jrs/jrs_EFS_HCI.pdf
If you go through the references you'll find dozens of other papers on the subject. Academics in the HCI field have been working toward this kind of technology since the late 70s.
Fingerworks/Apple did not invent the technology, can we put this to rest?
Neither of those papers describe capacitive multitouch interfaces, nor do they describe the technology Apple invented for multi-touch. The first describes a multi-point interface that does not do what Apple does, and the second doesn't even describe a touch interface at all.
This would be obvious if you'd taken a few minutes to read their abstracts, and were aware of the nature of Apple's multi-touch invention.
The issue has been laid to rest, but I can't stop you and others from continuing to link to increasingly irrelevant claims.
The real question, to my mind, is why are you so desperate to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, such that you'd disparage yourself by being as dishonest as you have been here?
This would be obvious if you'd taken a few minutes to read their abstracts, and were aware of the nature of Apple's multi-touch invention.
The issue has been laid to rest, but I can't stop you and others from continuing to link to increasingly irrelevant claims.
The real question, to my mind, is why are you so desperate to believe that Apple didn't invent anything, such that you'd disparage yourself by being as dishonest as you have been here?
The first paper describes a multitouch capacitive touch tablet in 1985. It is absolutely identical to the core technology of an iPad. Apple may have improved things but the core ideas are layed out right here two decades before the iPad.
> A prototype touch-sensitive tablet Is presented. The tablet's main innovation is that It Is capable of sensing mare than one point of contact at a time. In addition to being able to provide position coor- dinates, the tablet also gives a measure of degree of contact, independently for each point of contact. In order to enable mutU- touch sensing [...]
What's more the author of the paper, Bill Buxton, is widely cited in the literature as inventing the capactive multitouch display. Wayne Westerman, one of the cofounders of Fingerworks dissertation has dozens of references to his work. But even in his own words:
> What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."
It's all clear as day if you do your research, unless of course you're already made up your mind... then maybe it's not so clear.
> A prototype touch-sensitive tablet Is presented. The tablet's main innovation is that It Is capable of sensing mare than one point of contact at a time. In addition to being able to provide position coor- dinates, the tablet also gives a measure of degree of contact, independently for each point of contact. In order to enable mutU- touch sensing [...]
What's more the author of the paper, Bill Buxton, is widely cited in the literature as inventing the capactive multitouch display. Wayne Westerman, one of the cofounders of Fingerworks dissertation has dozens of references to his work. But even in his own words:
> What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation."
It's all clear as day if you do your research, unless of course you're already made up your mind... then maybe it's not so clear.
Yep, Xerox never invented the GUI. This entire product and all promotional videos and memories of it existing are a complete fabrication:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4vC80Pv6Q
You've made similar posts in the past, and they've been similarly filled with rambling inaccuracies. I'll just leave it at that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4vC80Pv6Q
You've made similar posts in the past, and they've been similarly filled with rambling inaccuracies. I'll just leave it at that.
I never said this video was a fabrication, or that Xerox never invented any key technologies, like, for instance, the Mouse.
Pretending that I did, is a bald faced lie on your part. You should consider the fact that, if you have to rely on outright fabrication about the position of your opponent, you don't have a very strong position to stand on yourself.
At best you're knocking down a strawman.
Either you're too ignorant of the history of computer science to understand what a GUI is, or you're simply being dishonest. Either way, I find the tendency of people such as yourself to post lies and then links to "supporting evidence" that don't even address the issue, while down voting everyone you disagree with to be... less than compatible with useful discussion.
The thing I learned a long time ago about liars is this: It doesn't matter how many time you prove them wrong, they'll just make up another lie!
Pretending that I did, is a bald faced lie on your part. You should consider the fact that, if you have to rely on outright fabrication about the position of your opponent, you don't have a very strong position to stand on yourself.
At best you're knocking down a strawman.
Either you're too ignorant of the history of computer science to understand what a GUI is, or you're simply being dishonest. Either way, I find the tendency of people such as yourself to post lies and then links to "supporting evidence" that don't even address the issue, while down voting everyone you disagree with to be... less than compatible with useful discussion.
The thing I learned a long time ago about liars is this: It doesn't matter how many time you prove them wrong, they'll just make up another lie!
So are you disputing the part that the Xerox product was graphical? Or that it was a user interface? In what possible definition that you've contrived in your mind does what I just linked you not qualify as a GUI?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not.
The Apple II came with video built in. It also had a user interface in the form of a command line. Thus, when people used the computer, graphics were drawn on the screen, sometimes in the form of pictures (such as for games) and sometimes in the form of glyphs and even icons, to represent concepts to the user of the command line. Your position implies you believe this to be a "Graphical User Interface".
The problem here is that you're discounting that these things are incremntal in nature and saying the invention happened at Apple.
Where does the GUI start? At the ncurses-like menu-driven interface? At the point where this interface gains more than two colors? At the point where there are icons? When there is a menu? When there is a paint-like drawing tool? When there is an apple logo on it?
Some draw that line at Xerox, you draw that line a bit later and attribute the "ground-breaking invention" of a GUI to Apple.
I don't see it either way, they are all refinements along the continuim from the command-line to the GUIs we have today.
Apple happened to hit the mix that a large number of people grew to embrace and some attribute all that came before as garbage and the win to Apple. Which I think is extremely misguided, but what can you do but shrug it off.
Where does the GUI start? At the ncurses-like menu-driven interface? At the point where this interface gains more than two colors? At the point where there are icons? When there is a menu? When there is a paint-like drawing tool? When there is an apple logo on it?
Some draw that line at Xerox, you draw that line a bit later and attribute the "ground-breaking invention" of a GUI to Apple.
I don't see it either way, they are all refinements along the continuim from the command-line to the GUIs we have today.
Apple happened to hit the mix that a large number of people grew to embrace and some attribute all that came before as garbage and the win to Apple. Which I think is extremely misguided, but what can you do but shrug it off.
I don't pretend to understand what "welfare" (a program that has not existed for more than a decade) has to do with iPhones, but Peter Thiel is an ultra-libertarian who probably agrees with you and Hayek about the destructive effects of government social projects.
You also seem to simultaneously believe that there has been a great shrinking of American manufacturing jobs because this ideology has made the USA uncompetitive relative to the world market and that the USA is the last remaining beacon of innovation in the world. Well, which is it?
Anyway, American manufacturing jobs have disappeared mostly because of advances in automation technology - A great product of American and German cleverness and innovation.
For all that, the United States in the last two decades of the 20th and the first of the 21st centuries is more pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship than it ever had been before. The US at the height of its manufacturing heyday (when there were still many jobs in it) was a much more redistributionist society than it is now, marginal tax rates of more than 70%, anyone?
I do actually agree with you about the iPhone being an important innovation. The fact that crude versions of the technologies involved existed isn't really that relevant, implementation is everything. Let's be realistic, most innovative products combine existing ideas. That's how real innovation works, combining technologies that already exist in new ways.
BTW, the United States used British industrial innovations to kick start its own industrial revolution (before international patent treaties). Once Americans started making industrial machinery of course, they swiftly gained enough hands on experience to start tinkering and innovating. It was common wisdom in the early 19th century that American manufactured goods were inferior to British. After all, weren't they just copies? Then in the 1970s when the first Japanese cars were imported into the US, Americans believed that these were just copies of American ideas (which they were of course, Americans developed the assembly line made car) and that the Japanese could only ever compete on price.
Now of course, people assume that the Chinese will never start innovating and only copy American or Japanese products.
You also seem to simultaneously believe that there has been a great shrinking of American manufacturing jobs because this ideology has made the USA uncompetitive relative to the world market and that the USA is the last remaining beacon of innovation in the world. Well, which is it?
Anyway, American manufacturing jobs have disappeared mostly because of advances in automation technology - A great product of American and German cleverness and innovation.
For all that, the United States in the last two decades of the 20th and the first of the 21st centuries is more pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship than it ever had been before. The US at the height of its manufacturing heyday (when there were still many jobs in it) was a much more redistributionist society than it is now, marginal tax rates of more than 70%, anyone?
I do actually agree with you about the iPhone being an important innovation. The fact that crude versions of the technologies involved existed isn't really that relevant, implementation is everything. Let's be realistic, most innovative products combine existing ideas. That's how real innovation works, combining technologies that already exist in new ways.
BTW, the United States used British industrial innovations to kick start its own industrial revolution (before international patent treaties). Once Americans started making industrial machinery of course, they swiftly gained enough hands on experience to start tinkering and innovating. It was common wisdom in the early 19th century that American manufactured goods were inferior to British. After all, weren't they just copies? Then in the 1970s when the first Japanese cars were imported into the US, Americans believed that these were just copies of American ideas (which they were of course, Americans developed the assembly line made car) and that the Japanese could only ever compete on price.
Now of course, people assume that the Chinese will never start innovating and only copy American or Japanese products.
Anyway, American manufacturing jobs have disappeared mostly because of advances in automation technology - A great product of American and German cleverness and innovation.
Yep. http://blog.american.com/2011/01/the-demise-of-america%E2%80...
Now of course, people assume that the Chinese will never start innovating and only copy American or Japanese products.
Innovation is an interesting thing. I think culture feeds a lot into innovation. I wonder if the Chinese government will continue to bend enough to let innovation occur or will it hit some limit?
As an interesting aside, I was at a conference a few years ago on web services. While watching some of the presentations it dawned on me that anytime pricing or some other hard to get exactly right decision came up the students from China always defaulted to having a central authority make the decision. The students from the US always used some market mechanism/crowd sourcing option. The culture that the students grew up in clearly had an impact on their solutions.
Yep. http://blog.american.com/2011/01/the-demise-of-america%E2%80...
Now of course, people assume that the Chinese will never start innovating and only copy American or Japanese products.
Innovation is an interesting thing. I think culture feeds a lot into innovation. I wonder if the Chinese government will continue to bend enough to let innovation occur or will it hit some limit?
As an interesting aside, I was at a conference a few years ago on web services. While watching some of the presentations it dawned on me that anytime pricing or some other hard to get exactly right decision came up the students from China always defaulted to having a central authority make the decision. The students from the US always used some market mechanism/crowd sourcing option. The culture that the students grew up in clearly had an impact on their solutions.
Well, obviously culture and society play an important role in innovation. The British believed that the rigid and deferential Germans could never copy British industrial innovation which was based on independent inventors tinkering in sheds. They were right, but the Germans invented the concept of industrial education and close links with technical universities instead.
I wish that political liberty was important to technological innovation, but it might not end up being so.
I wish that political liberty was important to technological innovation, but it might not end up being so.
I wish that political liberty was important to technological innovation, but it might not end up being so.
True, and I didn't mean to say that one way was better over the other. It was more of an interesting observation.
True, and I didn't mean to say that one way was better over the other. It was more of an interesting observation.
Culture evolves over time, of course, and not to discount your observations, but I think over time, the success of the entrepreneurs in china will result in a shift in culture in the next generation.
The other edge of that sword, though, is the general prosperity that freedom produced in america has resulted in a culture going the other way.
I think freedom is taken for granted, and then people start thinking they can legislate whatever they want, including a central authority with great control (to "protect them" etc.) which eventually results in less freedom and consequently less prosperity.
One of the curses of getting old is seeing this in action, at least when its going the wrong direction.
The other edge of that sword, though, is the general prosperity that freedom produced in america has resulted in a culture going the other way.
I think freedom is taken for granted, and then people start thinking they can legislate whatever they want, including a central authority with great control (to "protect them" etc.) which eventually results in less freedom and consequently less prosperity.
One of the curses of getting old is seeing this in action, at least when its going the wrong direction.
"Welfare" is a general term that applies to a series of programs that date back to the 1930s, in the USA. So, it's existed for much more than a decade. I think we might be misunderstanding each other here.
Peter Theil is, you're right, a libertarian, as I mentioned. Libertarians are those who believe in the non-aggression principle. The nonaggression principle simply stated is this: "The initiation of force against an innocent person is immoral." You're correct that Peter and I agree with this. But that doesn't mean we necessarily agree in other areas. However, I suspect Peter is a fan of Hayek, and I am certainly a fan of the Austrian economists of that school, though they don't always agree, they do share the thesis that, when people are free to choose, rather than having choices forced on them by violence, the economy does better.
There's no contradiction between the claim that american manufacturing is not competitive, and america is still an innovative country. Just because America is still innovative (even if it is on the decline) doesn't presume that there's no innovation, and my general point is to argue, in fact, for the innovation of a particular american designed product.
You're right that american manufacturing has benefited from automation. In fact, american manufacturing capacity is higher than it has been in the past. But the jobs have not disappeared because of automation. Economically, automation tends to create more jobs, by providing increased leverage of each worker. American manufacturing jobs have disappeared because they are no longer competitive globally, because regulation, which allows unions to force employees to join the union, and which forced employers to deal with unions, which give unions a stranglehold on the companies. Companies which are able to avoid it via automation survive, those that can't- like much of the car industry- go bankrupt.
Please notice that I did not bring up tax policies in my article. There are many ways to measure whether a country is "pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship". Specifically I was talking about regulations.
However, since you have brought up taxation, please be aware that there are two forms of redistribution. While the tax rates may be low, we have seen record "redistribution" of wealth in the past decade. The government spent $4T in only the past severel years, in fact, which is such a massive sum that the only way to wrap your head around it is to recognize that before this happened there were only $10T in money supply in existence!
That is effectively a %40 inflation rate, cumulative, and consequently a massive hidden tax on the people.
You're absolutely right that the USA used british industrial innovation to kickstart our industrial revolution, and I don't begrudge the Japanes, or the Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc, from doing similar deals to kickstart their industrial revolutions.
The massive increase in overall wealth in China and India-- at least a doubling of the average income for over 2Billion people over 20 years, is long-term very good for the world.
Further, economics is not a zero sum game, thus it is not the case that for China and India to lift their people out of poverty, the USA has to suffer.
No, all of the wounds the USA is suffering are self inflicted.
PS- apologies to everyone else in the western hemisphere for using the term "america" to refer to the USA. I know, south america is also "america" as well. Its an old habit.
Peter Theil is, you're right, a libertarian, as I mentioned. Libertarians are those who believe in the non-aggression principle. The nonaggression principle simply stated is this: "The initiation of force against an innocent person is immoral." You're correct that Peter and I agree with this. But that doesn't mean we necessarily agree in other areas. However, I suspect Peter is a fan of Hayek, and I am certainly a fan of the Austrian economists of that school, though they don't always agree, they do share the thesis that, when people are free to choose, rather than having choices forced on them by violence, the economy does better.
There's no contradiction between the claim that american manufacturing is not competitive, and america is still an innovative country. Just because America is still innovative (even if it is on the decline) doesn't presume that there's no innovation, and my general point is to argue, in fact, for the innovation of a particular american designed product.
You're right that american manufacturing has benefited from automation. In fact, american manufacturing capacity is higher than it has been in the past. But the jobs have not disappeared because of automation. Economically, automation tends to create more jobs, by providing increased leverage of each worker. American manufacturing jobs have disappeared because they are no longer competitive globally, because regulation, which allows unions to force employees to join the union, and which forced employers to deal with unions, which give unions a stranglehold on the companies. Companies which are able to avoid it via automation survive, those that can't- like much of the car industry- go bankrupt.
Please notice that I did not bring up tax policies in my article. There are many ways to measure whether a country is "pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship". Specifically I was talking about regulations.
However, since you have brought up taxation, please be aware that there are two forms of redistribution. While the tax rates may be low, we have seen record "redistribution" of wealth in the past decade. The government spent $4T in only the past severel years, in fact, which is such a massive sum that the only way to wrap your head around it is to recognize that before this happened there were only $10T in money supply in existence!
That is effectively a %40 inflation rate, cumulative, and consequently a massive hidden tax on the people.
You're absolutely right that the USA used british industrial innovation to kickstart our industrial revolution, and I don't begrudge the Japanes, or the Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc, from doing similar deals to kickstart their industrial revolutions.
The massive increase in overall wealth in China and India-- at least a doubling of the average income for over 2Billion people over 20 years, is long-term very good for the world.
Further, economics is not a zero sum game, thus it is not the case that for China and India to lift their people out of poverty, the USA has to suffer.
No, all of the wounds the USA is suffering are self inflicted.
PS- apologies to everyone else in the western hemisphere for using the term "america" to refer to the USA. I know, south america is also "america" as well. Its an old habit.
I think you're projecting. I have never been enthralled by any of Apple's products and certainly not multi-touch. Calling people anti-intellectual because they're against Apple is ludicrous.
My problem with Apple and especially Steve Jobs is that I'm allergic to reality-distortion fields. And the unfailing hypocrisy. I distinctly remember Jobs saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal" [1]. Sometimes innovation is using other ideas and combining them, and then they're saying that Android is a rip-off of their product and they won't rest until it is destroyed.
[1]: http://www.skuggen.com/2010/03/apple-ceo-steve-jobs-we-steal...
My problem with Apple and especially Steve Jobs is that I'm allergic to reality-distortion fields. And the unfailing hypocrisy. I distinctly remember Jobs saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal" [1]. Sometimes innovation is using other ideas and combining them, and then they're saying that Android is a rip-off of their product and they won't rest until it is destroyed.
[1]: http://www.skuggen.com/2010/03/apple-ceo-steve-jobs-we-steal...
You are digging a bit deep for the invention. That multi-touch is as important an innovation you claim it to be is yet to be seen. Then, to turn it to a higher argument (them vs. us style) about innovators and the us vs china is pretty far-reaching. Not to mention the false android claims, and pretty visible bias.
To quote you - "There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here." That ideology is that great passion, which you show, excuses false data and misleading talking points.
Of course this is my opinion, filled with my biases, so take it as you will.
To quote you - "There's an entire ideology that is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-mind at work here." That ideology is that great passion, which you show, excuses false data and misleading talking points.
Of course this is my opinion, filled with my biases, so take it as you will.
Do you realize you made several accusations against me, provided no facts to bolster them, and accused me of having "visible bias"? This communicates to me that when you hear something you agree with, you believe it to be "objective fact", but that anyone who disagrees is obviously "biased".
One of the things I am careful about, personally, is distinguishing between what I know, what I don't know, and what I believe. I cited facts that I know to be true, some that are obvious opinions (Eg: significance of something by definition is an opinion and "shows visible bias") and put forth hypothesis (e.g.: what I believe, and that is that there's an ideology at work here.)
If you don't see the "pretty visible bias" in things that you agree with, I think that can lead to mistakes. I recommend trying to find the faults in the arguments of people you agree with. If you can do that, you can produce even stronger arguments for your position, and you keep your mind sharp.
Anyway, as for the topic at hand, your response only serves provide supporting evidence for my hypothesis about ideology. I believe if that hypothesis were wrong, you'd have not made accusations against me, or if you did, you'd have supported them with facts, and that your primary objection wold be to an error of fact, or an error of belief on my part.
But in doing so, you provide a good example of what I'm talking about by ideology. Ideology is an act of faith, whereby you take your beliefs from another person or group, sans evidence, or by accepting their claims.
If you were responding to me on a philosophical basis, or simply on a factual basis, you would have had at your ready disposal philosophical (e.g.: logical) arguments, or specific facts that contradict my claims.
Please don't take offense here, none is intended. I'm simply disagreeing with you and explaining my perspective vis-a-vis your comments.
But this is also why I hesitate to post comments like the one you'r replying to to Hacker News. I don't find the charge of "pretty visible bias" (etc) to be.... interesting.... at all. (And the down votes I see I'm getting, for the "crime" of pointing out that the above response was personal rather than on the point, serve to further confirm my hypothesis. Hell, I even said "please don't take offense here" in response to someone who accused me of lying, but didn't even bother to be specific about what I was allegedly lying about!)
One of the things I am careful about, personally, is distinguishing between what I know, what I don't know, and what I believe. I cited facts that I know to be true, some that are obvious opinions (Eg: significance of something by definition is an opinion and "shows visible bias") and put forth hypothesis (e.g.: what I believe, and that is that there's an ideology at work here.)
If you don't see the "pretty visible bias" in things that you agree with, I think that can lead to mistakes. I recommend trying to find the faults in the arguments of people you agree with. If you can do that, you can produce even stronger arguments for your position, and you keep your mind sharp.
Anyway, as for the topic at hand, your response only serves provide supporting evidence for my hypothesis about ideology. I believe if that hypothesis were wrong, you'd have not made accusations against me, or if you did, you'd have supported them with facts, and that your primary objection wold be to an error of fact, or an error of belief on my part.
But in doing so, you provide a good example of what I'm talking about by ideology. Ideology is an act of faith, whereby you take your beliefs from another person or group, sans evidence, or by accepting their claims.
If you were responding to me on a philosophical basis, or simply on a factual basis, you would have had at your ready disposal philosophical (e.g.: logical) arguments, or specific facts that contradict my claims.
Please don't take offense here, none is intended. I'm simply disagreeing with you and explaining my perspective vis-a-vis your comments.
But this is also why I hesitate to post comments like the one you'r replying to to Hacker News. I don't find the charge of "pretty visible bias" (etc) to be.... interesting.... at all. (And the down votes I see I'm getting, for the "crime" of pointing out that the above response was personal rather than on the point, serve to further confirm my hypothesis. Hell, I even said "please don't take offense here" in response to someone who accused me of lying, but didn't even bother to be specific about what I was allegedly lying about!)
> There were no multi-touch devices before the iPhone
EDIT I see that in another comment you refine y our statement to mean, only multi touch capacitance. Our technology uses camera to achieve multi touch.
This is simple false.
I worked for a company that made touch screens in the early 2000's. We had multi touch in 2000.
Our products are sold to schools where more than 1 million kids go to a classroom with one in it each and every day.
Please don't say things like "there were no multi touch devices before the iPhone" when this is so provably false. There was a multi billion dollar market of multi touch devices in schools before the iPhone was first revealed.
EDIT I see that in another comment you refine y our statement to mean, only multi touch capacitance. Our technology uses camera to achieve multi touch.
This is simple false.
I worked for a company that made touch screens in the early 2000's. We had multi touch in 2000.
Our products are sold to schools where more than 1 million kids go to a classroom with one in it each and every day.
Please don't say things like "there were no multi touch devices before the iPhone" when this is so provably false. There was a multi billion dollar market of multi touch devices in schools before the iPhone was first revealed.
There were no multi-touch devices before the iPhone was introduced. Nobody has provided a single piece of evidence of someone else showing the same technology. I never said there were no touch devices, and there were, in fact, "multi-touch" devices where your touch closed two switches. This is not the same.
The real problem is, either you're so ignorant of the technology in question that you don't realize your claim is false... or that your ideology leads you to not care.
BTW, if you want to make a claim like that, you could at least provide a citation of the actual name of the product so I can research it. But I don't think you care... you jut want to assert I'm wrong ,and act like you've proven me wrong, when the reverse is true.
Its sad that Hacker News has such a contingent of anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-innovation people that you can post these kinds of lies and not feel any shame.
Well, I guess that's not quite true. You felt enough shame to omit the name of the product you're "citing".
The real problem is, either you're so ignorant of the technology in question that you don't realize your claim is false... or that your ideology leads you to not care.
BTW, if you want to make a claim like that, you could at least provide a citation of the actual name of the product so I can research it. But I don't think you care... you jut want to assert I'm wrong ,and act like you've proven me wrong, when the reverse is true.
Its sad that Hacker News has such a contingent of anti-intellectual, anti-technology, anti-innovation people that you can post these kinds of lies and not feel any shame.
Well, I guess that's not quite true. You felt enough shame to omit the name of the product you're "citing".
http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle....
> "Users can also place a finger on the screen and touch another finger to the right of it for a right mouse click. These advanced mouse features eliminate the need to press extra buttons or find scroll bars on the screen."
>" DViT technology, introduced by SMART in March 2003, uses proprietary digital cameras and sophisticated software to pinpoint contact by a finger or stylus on a display. "
> "Users can also place a finger on the screen and touch another finger to the right of it for a right mouse click. These advanced mouse features eliminate the need to press extra buttons or find scroll bars on the screen."
>" DViT technology, introduced by SMART in March 2003, uses proprietary digital cameras and sophisticated software to pinpoint contact by a finger or stylus on a display. "
Smart boards were multi touch well before 2007 and selling quite well.
>. I've even seen people on Hacker News insist that Xerox invented the GUI. (showing either they don't know what a GUI is, or they don't care.)
Why don't you tell us what a GUI is, even if it's a personal definition?
You've come up with multiple posts where you claim Xerox didn't invent the GUI and dismissed anyone who said otherwise as being anti-Apple, but have never presented a shred of evidence or even an argument that Xerox didn't invent the GUI.
Why don't you tell us what a GUI is, even if it's a personal definition?
You've come up with multiple posts where you claim Xerox didn't invent the GUI and dismissed anyone who said otherwise as being anti-Apple, but have never presented a shred of evidence or even an argument that Xerox didn't invent the GUI.
Thiel is right. In 100 years, people are still going to be talking about inventors like Ford and Edison. I doubt you'll find 22nd century schoolchildren reading about the little company that made shiny, walled-garden media players.
Ford and Edison. You see the irony there, right?
Wikipedia on "incandescent light bulb"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb):
In addressing the question of who invented the incandescent lamp, historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison.
On "phonograph" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph):
Several inventors devised machines to record sound prior to Thomas Edison's phonograph, Edison being the first to produce a device that could both record and reproduce sound... [Charles] Cros's paleophone was intended to both record and reproduce sound but had not been developed beyond a basic concept at the time of Edison's successful demonstration of the Phonograph in 1877.
I won't bother to quote the enormous list of Henry Ford's predecessors that appears in e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile. I'd never do them justice.
In addressing the question of who invented the incandescent lamp, historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison.
On "phonograph" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph):
Several inventors devised machines to record sound prior to Thomas Edison's phonograph, Edison being the first to produce a device that could both record and reproduce sound... [Charles] Cros's paleophone was intended to both record and reproduce sound but had not been developed beyond a basic concept at the time of Edison's successful demonstration of the Phonograph in 1877.
I won't bother to quote the enormous list of Henry Ford's predecessors that appears in e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile. I'd never do them justice.
Okay, I take it back: One link to a predecessor of Henry Ford, because the story is just too fun for words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz
On the way, [Bertha Benz] solved numerous problems. She had to find ligroin as a fuel, which was available only at apothecary shops so she stopped in Wiesloch at the city pharmacy to purchase the fuel. A blacksmith had to help mend a chain at one point. Brakes needed to be repaired; in doing so Bertha Benz invented brake lining. She also had to use a long, straight hairpin to clean a fuel pipe, which had become blocked, and to insulate a wire with a garter. She left Mannheim around dawn and reached Pforzheim somewhat after dusk, notifying her husband of her successful journey by telegram. She drove back to Mannheim the next day.
I can't believe that I haven't heard this story before. Note that at this point in 1888 Henry Ford is still servicing steam engines; he'll start his personal experiments in gasoline engines in earnest in 1893.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz
On the way, [Bertha Benz] solved numerous problems. She had to find ligroin as a fuel, which was available only at apothecary shops so she stopped in Wiesloch at the city pharmacy to purchase the fuel. A blacksmith had to help mend a chain at one point. Brakes needed to be repaired; in doing so Bertha Benz invented brake lining. She also had to use a long, straight hairpin to clean a fuel pipe, which had become blocked, and to insulate a wire with a garter. She left Mannheim around dawn and reached Pforzheim somewhat after dusk, notifying her husband of her successful journey by telegram. She drove back to Mannheim the next day.
I can't believe that I haven't heard this story before. Note that at this point in 1888 Henry Ford is still servicing steam engines; he'll start his personal experiments in gasoline engines in earnest in 1893.
I don't think that's true. I think the innovation of the iPhone was in two areas...
1. It was the first product to popularize touch. That's going to have a big impact in the future of technology. The gestures pioneered by the iPhone (swipe, pinch to zoom) could very well exist 100 years from now and if they do the iPhone will be their ancestor. That's a big deal.
2. The iPhone saved Apple and Apple changed the conversation in technology. 10 years ago adding more features and giving users 20 different ways to do things was considered an asset. Now the technology industry has changed direction back towards designing a product and giving the user 1 way to do things that's easier. I'm inclined to believe we'll eventually reach a happy medium between those two philosophies but there's no doubt the design side was losing out before Apple's resurgence.
1. It was the first product to popularize touch. That's going to have a big impact in the future of technology. The gestures pioneered by the iPhone (swipe, pinch to zoom) could very well exist 100 years from now and if they do the iPhone will be their ancestor. That's a big deal.
2. The iPhone saved Apple and Apple changed the conversation in technology. 10 years ago adding more features and giving users 20 different ways to do things was considered an asset. Now the technology industry has changed direction back towards designing a product and giving the user 1 way to do things that's easier. I'm inclined to believe we'll eventually reach a happy medium between those two philosophies but there's no doubt the design side was losing out before Apple's resurgence.
"the little company that made shiny, walled-garden media players"
Yup. That's all Apple ever did all right.
Yup. That's all Apple ever did all right.
Introducing your biases does not strengthen your argument.
No one really knows what people will be talking about in 100 years. That said, the iPhone seems to be as good a candidate as your examples. The interface was revolutionary compared to the devices which came before it, and the idea that 3rd parties could distribute apps without going thru the carriers was also a big change.
No one really knows what people will be talking about in 100 years. That said, the iPhone seems to be as good a candidate as your examples. The interface was revolutionary compared to the devices which came before it, and the idea that 3rd parties could distribute apps without going thru the carriers was also a big change.
Do they teach about what Ford did today?
Now, you can make a pretty convincing argument[0] that we are as a society committing Bastiat's fallacy ("Seen vs. Unseen"), in that there are more lives lost due to not developing new drugs than there are due to failures of new drugs.
The failures are seen, the lack of new drugs is not seen.
However, the deeper point is that we are currently simply too wealthy as a society to tolerate the human costs (in deaths[1]) associated with rapid innovation in real world technologies. Wealth means necessities are met, but necessity is the mother of invention. This is why war and serious hardship gooses technological innovation. It's because life becomes cheaper, and test pilots and volunteers for new vaccines become more readily available.
I don't think Thiel would disagree[2] with this analysis, but it does mean that the problem can't be solved simply through shifts in entrepreneurial focus. Americans simply aren't ready for the kind of messiness that real world innovation involves.
[0] http://bit.ly/mtGRyv
[1] Perhaps strangely, we are more ready to allow people to take futile risks like bungee jumping or skydiving than we are to allow people to consciously opt out of various health/safety/etc. regulations (and suffer the consequences).
[2] Taking the totality of his statements in context, including the article on the Founders Fund website ("What Happened to the Future?"), Thiel and Levchin's point is not that the iPhone isn't innovative but more that there hasn't been much innovation in big areas like energy, medicine, and transportation. Indeed, by some measures we're moving backwards in those areas: the real price of energy has gone up, new drug approvals have stagnated, and top speeds have gone down since the Concorde was retired.