• Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717443

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item Innovation

  • jay-h


    Points: 18816

    Innovation is very important, but also is application of innovation. Some companies have come up with terrific innovations, but never applied them constructively in a product. Personally it's immaterial whether a company grows innovations in house, or purchases them outside... the fact that the see the innovation and realize how to utilize it that is important.


    -- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --

  • GSquared

    SSC Guru

    Points: 260824

    I think both matter, pretty much equally.

    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • David Fisher-415435

    SSC Journeyman

    Points: 94

    The industry's and the public's obsession with "innovation" is foolish. Take 90% of the energy expended on having the newest gizmo or gimmick and invest it in improving long-term reliability, and we'll all be better off...all of us other than those whose livelihood turns on pushing product obsolescence to ever-greater extremes. The kind of innovation that has long-term value will occur; it cannot be suppressed. What is needed, throughout the economy, is greater reliability, and this includes people as well as products.

  • Matt Miller (4)

    SSC Guru

    Points: 124203

    I'd agree with GSquared. You need both, and both are equally important. You need the innovators to push things along, give us better solutions, and you then need the implementors/distributors to take on applying the breakthroughs to concrete applications (or package said innovation for the masses). And, from what I've seen, truly rare is it that a single person/organization can do both well.

    I can't say I think things get better by lowering copyright lengths/patent standards though. If anything, in my mind, that's a step in the wrong direction. Innovation is a very costly and dangerous/speculative business, so helping big organization come in and scoop the innovation, essentially short-sheeting the innovator in the process, essentially discourages innovation. You can't disregard the cost/value that went into coming up with something just because we want to have it cheaply: it devalues all of the hard work that was put into the process, often with no guarantee that it would work in the end.

    I do see the current system for protecting and claiming your IP as at least partially broken though, so I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is.

    Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?

  • BJ Hermsen

    Hall of Fame

    Points: 3123

    Controlled innovation is key if a company wants any new customers. It is also key to retaining old customers. If a product is developed and never changed either it was a golden ticket done perfect the first time (Cough Cough) or it was for a very limited scope. When looking at enterprise class applications customers want growth in products. Don't get me wrong they want the basics and they want it to work but competition will steal them away with features. The controlled part is important as if all you do is change your product you never ensure the old features work solid and yes you have the most features but your basics may not be great. I think that you should have a group in every company doing the forefront inovative thinking taking ideas from others within and running with them.

  • jburkman

    Right there with Babe

    Points: 768

    Seems like maybe innovation, as used here, is being muddled a bit with R&D. Innovation is the end result - and arguably the implementation - of a successful R&D outcome (imho). So innovation *is* the bringing to market of the idea. Then there's that next layer of pushing, expanding, growing the innovation (whatever that is called).

    Microsoft seems to perform at this unnamed second layer, of aggregating innovations (like SeaDragon) and finding some great synergies with other products. Then pushpushpush shoving innovations to a largely captive market.

    Can't happen without innovation, which can't happen without research. And I personally prefer the natural selection lifecyle of new innovations that are never pushed (pick any one of a number of great open-source applications) over the "aggregate and stuff" business.

    Microsoft seem to less often "bring" us a product, as they do put us in a position of eating the new dish on the table or walking out of the dining room altogether.

    Research ftw.

    2 cents, ymmv.

  • Tomm Carr


    Points: 5366

    Marketing or innovation? Chicken or egg?

    Not so much "which came first?" as "which depends more on the other?" The answer, of course, is "yes."

    To give Microsoft and other such companies their due: successful marketing requires its own innovation.

    Tomm Carr
    Version Normal Form --

  • Anipaul


    Points: 24681

    Innovation is the most important thing no doubt but just think if other people do not able to know that innovation then can we call it a INNOVATION. No it has to be known to other people or you can say it has to made usable/popular to mass.

    CREDIT TO MICROSOFT FOR MAKING AN TECHNOLOGICAL INNVATION (by other players) POPULAR (by copying those innovation).

  • Manie Verster


    Points: 7020

    Innovation is important because we need to continuously grow and find out knew things. The human mind is and should always be curious of what we can do to better our world always. Though, we cannot all be innovators but each of us got our own talents. In this case some will innovate and others will market and therefore marketing is also important as long as we don't steal each other's innovations because that could kill innovations and we won't have new things to interest us anymore.;););)

    :-PManie Verster
    South Africa

    I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Holy Bible
    I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times. - Everett Mckinley Dirkson (Well, I am trying. - Manie Verster)

  • Miles Neale


    Points: 13147

    Discovery is critical, without it we are destined to repeat only what we know with no hope of moving the info technology frontier forward. In short it becomes boring.

    But the best and most innovative solution is at best a disaster if implemented incorrectly.

    Thus both are necessary and forever linked.

    Shorten the time the creator has rights is wrong. A workman is worthy of their hire, but is not worthy of fortune upon fortune. What is in place now is reasonable, it insures that the the one who makes it is compensated, and the one who makes it work is also.

    Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717443

    I'd disagree with the time length we have for rights. Most, meaning high 90-some %, of content produces it's value in the first 5-10 years, especially in the media and software areas. 14 years, renewable for 14 years, is plenty. Let people build on the item after that.

  • Kit Brandner

    SSC Enthusiast

    Points: 147

    I think innovation is seen as more of a priority than it really is. Too many people try to force it, and such, come across with a less-than-usable product. Conventional practices have become conventional, often, because they work well and get the job done. That said, we should not be close-minded to new methods of doing things we thought we had already perfected, just not so forcibly. Let it come naturally.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply