I would generally agree with the overall thrust of the post, that successful products come from looking at the customer's problems first rather than what technologies you happen to have on hand to sell them. But the bit about how basic, non-product-oriented research is a distraction and a waste of effort leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Look at one of the cited examples:
> AT&T had Bell Labs, created Unix, and never made a successful product out of that work.
Which, sure, OK. But on the other hand, ask yourself where Apple (since we're talking about them here) would be today if Bell Labs had never existed. Bell Labs invented UNIX; no UNIX means no BSD, which means no NeXTSTEP, which means no OS X. Bell Labs invented C; no C means no Objective-C. Bell Labs invented the freaking transistor, without which the idea of a "personal computer" would have been utterly ridiculous. These are all fundamental inventions that made entire generations of tech businesses possible.
So one way to look at it is Gruber's way, that skipping out on R&D means that Apple is "focused." Another way to look at it would be that Apple is a freeloader. That they cheerfully take useful things that are only available to them due to the generosity of others to build products on, without seeing a need to ever be the generous ones themselves -- to replenish the commons that made their own fortune possible.
That's probably good business, at least in the near term. If there's a pile of gold sitting out in the town square, you'd be a fool not to grab as much of it as you could for yourself. But unless someone's throwing new gold onto that pile, eventually it's going to run out. And if you've used the gold to set yourself up as a goldsmith, that's going to be a pretty bleak day for you. You know?
That's a good argument for publicly funded research, the products of which become available to be leveraged by business across the economy. That doesn't mean that vertically directed, product focused research within companies is a bad thing. Without it smartphone tech would be years behind where we are today, and the Mac would never have happened which means Windows may never have happened, at least when and in the form that it did.
This is also an argument against a strictly enforced and restrictive patent system. If inventors are incapable of turning their inventions into viable products, then the broader economy and public interest may actually be best served by allowing others to make use of those inventions without punitive licensing terms. I'm not anti-patent, but it seems to me the current patent system is far from optimal.
It's not that Apple is a freeloader, it's that those companies were terrible at allocating capital. Apple does R&D on technology, its just done with the goal of being utilized in a product that is viable enough to have real business value. It's not R&D for R&D's sake, which was the example companies' mistake. That R&D wasn't being done out of charity for the public good, that was shareholder capital being risked for the prospect of reaping returns from it.
Steve Jobs adopted Mach when he started NeXT because it was available and good at the time. If it hadn't existed, he would have gone off in another direction. If C, hadn't existed he wouldn't have used something else. People on HN always bring these up but they fail to realize that Steve would have simple done something else.
I think it's probably good business in the long term as well. Apple isn't consuming the supply of public innovation. Apple might not add broadly to the pile, but it's not shrinking. Spending wildly on R&D doesn't ensure long term sustainably, or meaningful contributions to the public either. The Nokia comparison is pretty persuasive.
The WSJ reported that between 2004 and 2007, Nokia outspent Apple on R&D by a factor of 9 ($22.2 billion vs. $2.5 billion).
It's worth noting that Apple's $2.5 billion had a pretty big impact. Mobile computing as we now enjoy it was arguably ushered in by Apple. Focused contribution is still valuable.
Apple isn't consuming the supply of public innovation. Apple might not add broadly to the pile, but it's not shrinking.
While I know that the economy isn't zero-sum, the pie can grow bigger, etc, it also does happen that a very successful company can weaken or kill its competition, or at least force them to focus more on the short term themselves, so in way, they might be.
Bell Labs' saying "no bucks no Buck Rogers" sounds great, but how did they implement that idea?
Jobs' statements about scarring, animals, and macrocosms do not convince me he's right about focusing on customer's problems, even if his approach at the time worked out well.
EDIT: Jobs disappointed at least two actual NeXT users I knew who really liked the NeXT.
Can't argue Apple's contributions rise to the level of Bell Labs (that's the gold standard of research groups). But WebKit, for example, certainly has been leveraged to great effect outside of Apple.
My first response got downvoted so I'm going to try again.
You're completetely wrong. Steve would have simply come up with another solution, or used a different technology. The original Mac wasn't C or Unix based.
And with what logic does it help to post it again with basically no change to the content? You make it sound like downvotes are a calamity of nature and not a deliberate process.
How could it be a deliberate process when people don't have a reason for disagreeing with what I've said, they simply don't like it? How much of my time do I need to keep wasting trying to explain to people why they're wrong? The OP believes something that is simply not true but it's a common misconception on HN. Just because SJ stood on Bell Labs shoulders in this instance, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have found someone else's shoulders to stand on, if Bell Labs hadn't existed. One of the things that Steve was good at was finding other technology on which to build.
People are not necessarily disagreeing with what you said; it's likely that they are disagreeing with how you said it.
By opening a statement with "Wrong. Absolutely wrong" or "You're completely wrong" you are being unnecessarily argumentative and confrontational. That's really not a positive opening for a discussion.
Comments
I would generally agree with the overall thrust of the post, that successful products come from looking at the customer's problems first rather than what technologies you happen to have on hand to sell them. But the bit about how basic, non-product-oriented research is a distraction and a waste of effort leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Look at one of the cited examples:
> AT&T had Bell Labs, created Unix, and never made a successful product out of that work.
Which, sure, OK. But on the other hand, ask yourself where Apple (since we're talking about them here) would be today if Bell Labs had never existed. Bell Labs invented UNIX; no UNIX means no BSD, which means no NeXTSTEP, which means no OS X. Bell Labs invented C; no C means no Objective-C. Bell Labs invented the freaking transistor, without which the idea of a "personal computer" would have been utterly ridiculous. These are all fundamental inventions that made entire generations of tech businesses possible.
So one way to look at it is Gruber's way, that skipping out on R&D means that Apple is "focused." Another way to look at it would be that Apple is a freeloader. That they cheerfully take useful things that are only available to them due to the generosity of others to build products on, without seeing a need to ever be the generous ones themselves -- to replenish the commons that made their own fortune possible.
That's probably good business, at least in the near term. If there's a pile of gold sitting out in the town square, you'd be a fool not to grab as much of it as you could for yourself. But unless someone's throwing new gold onto that pile, eventually it's going to run out. And if you've used the gold to set yourself up as a goldsmith, that's going to be a pretty bleak day for you. You know?
That's a good argument for publicly funded research, the products of which become available to be leveraged by business across the economy. That doesn't mean that vertically directed, product focused research within companies is a bad thing. Without it smartphone tech would be years behind where we are today, and the Mac would never have happened which means Windows may never have happened, at least when and in the form that it did.
This is also an argument against a strictly enforced and restrictive patent system. If inventors are incapable of turning their inventions into viable products, then the broader economy and public interest may actually be best served by allowing others to make use of those inventions without punitive licensing terms. I'm not anti-patent, but it seems to me the current patent system is far from optimal.
It's not that Apple is a freeloader, it's that those companies were terrible at allocating capital. Apple does R&D on technology, its just done with the goal of being utilized in a product that is viable enough to have real business value. It's not R&D for R&D's sake, which was the example companies' mistake. That R&D wasn't being done out of charity for the public good, that was shareholder capital being risked for the prospect of reaping returns from it.
It's not basic research then which is what most people understand under 'research'.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Steve Jobs adopted Mach when he started NeXT because it was available and good at the time. If it hadn't existed, he would have gone off in another direction. If C, hadn't existed he wouldn't have used something else. People on HN always bring these up but they fail to realize that Steve would have simple done something else.
I think it's probably good business in the long term as well. Apple isn't consuming the supply of public innovation. Apple might not add broadly to the pile, but it's not shrinking. Spending wildly on R&D doesn't ensure long term sustainably, or meaningful contributions to the public either. The Nokia comparison is pretty persuasive.
It's worth noting that Apple's $2.5 billion had a pretty big impact. Mobile computing as we now enjoy it was arguably ushered in by Apple. Focused contribution is still valuable.
Apple isn't consuming the supply of public innovation. Apple might not add broadly to the pile, but it's not shrinking.
While I know that the economy isn't zero-sum, the pie can grow bigger, etc, it also does happen that a very successful company can weaken or kill its competition, or at least force them to focus more on the short term themselves, so in way, they might be.
Also Shannon's work on entropy.
Bell Labs' saying "no bucks no Buck Rogers" sounds great, but how did they implement that idea?
Jobs' statements about scarring, animals, and macrocosms do not convince me he's right about focusing on customer's problems, even if his approach at the time worked out well.
EDIT: Jobs disappointed at least two actual NeXT users I knew who really liked the NeXT.
Apple isn't completely a free loader.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Can't argue Apple's contributions rise to the level of Bell Labs (that's the gold standard of research groups). But WebKit, for example, certainly has been leveraged to great effect outside of Apple.
My first response got downvoted so I'm going to try again.
You're completetely wrong. Steve would have simply come up with another solution, or used a different technology. The original Mac wasn't C or Unix based.
And with what logic does it help to post it again with basically no change to the content? You make it sound like downvotes are a calamity of nature and not a deliberate process.
(The old post for reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7304693 )
How could it be a deliberate process when people don't have a reason for disagreeing with what I've said, they simply don't like it? How much of my time do I need to keep wasting trying to explain to people why they're wrong? The OP believes something that is simply not true but it's a common misconception on HN. Just because SJ stood on Bell Labs shoulders in this instance, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have found someone else's shoulders to stand on, if Bell Labs hadn't existed. One of the things that Steve was good at was finding other technology on which to build.
People are not necessarily disagreeing with what you said; it's likely that they are disagreeing with how you said it.
By opening a statement with "Wrong. Absolutely wrong" or "You're completely wrong" you are being unnecessarily argumentative and confrontational. That's really not a positive opening for a discussion.