No. On the web, innovation is happening so quickly few users can keep up. And the tons of little companies making incremental improvements don't seem to be hurting the shops working on big ideas either: http://www.anybots.com/
Nobody cares about the web. Take an excursion into reality and notice the web is a fraction of a percent of what's going on and is of minimal real life impact for pretty much everybody.
The technologies at the root of new products like Apple’s iPod or the Facebook social networking service were actually developed several decades ago.
Would people have bought an iPod when they were using CDs still and hard drives were really expensive?
Just because the technology was created "decades ago" doesn't make those current innovations any less valid. Both of those examples (ipod/fb) required the technology to be applied effectively and have a market ready for them. It took more then hard drives and web applications to make them successful.
They created the technology for personal computers long before it became feasible for a market outside of the tech and academic community. After all the other factors came into place (price, hardware manufacturing, market demand etc) it was able to reach a mainstream market.
That sounds like a weak argument when saying there is an innovation crisis. Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them. Not just because they exist.
> Investors will invest in innovations when there is a feasible market for them.
That's the whole complaint. Many markets were created by force of will and R&D dollars, not simple natural progressions. That's the low hanging fruit and not very innovative.
The poignant illustration is how in the 50s everybody expected robot vacuum cleaners and appliances in the next 30 years. But nobody ever even tried to build them. Instead, from the 70s through to today business leadership focused on cost reduction rather than progress. So we have no robot vacuum cleaners. This is the "innovation crisis."
What about the 130$ Roomba is not a "robot vacuum cleaner"?
Building a working airplane had a lot more to do with the availability of light and high horse power engines than a new understanding of physics. AI is held in check not by the lack of desire it's all about having enough CPU's at enough GHz connected to enough high speed memory. For 25 billion we could build a working fusion power plant that would be online in under 10 years. Sometimes focusing on cheep is more important than you might think.
You're missing the point, which is that GE could and should have gotten there first. It had absolute dominance in the domestic applicance industry, stemming from bringing the technology to the market in the 1950s. It should have been able to deliver domestic robots. But by treating the appliance business as a "cash cow", extracting cash without reinvesting, GE missed the opportunity and iRobot came out of nowhere to take it.
That seems like a fundamental property of a market leader (a reluctance to threaten the very market in which they are already dominant -- see "The Innovator's Dilemma"). It doesn't seem like it's just a short-term "crisis" that has arisen recently.
It's a little early to say that GE missed an opportunity. The robotic vacuums market is still in its early stages. iRobot may be one of the first but they will definitely face some competition in the future. GE could easily acquire iRobot right now.
GE has thousands of products in a variety of industries. I'm sure they evaluated robotic vacuums and decided not to pursue it right away, for their own reasons. But they are still investing tons of capital in other areas. Big companies enter new markets all the time and you can't expect them to always get it right.
note I agree with the person above, read Innovators Dilemma. Big companies are not the best at building disruptive technologies and lack of innovation is only a small factor.
That's a fair point. But was it possible to create a robot vacuum in the 50s? Just because people wanted or expected something doesn't equal the means to build something. Theres so many factors at stake from the point of building a new technology and bringing it to market.
Entrepeneurs and VCs look for opportunities to build businesses and make money. There is always a need for some short-term return otherwise they will die. Being the driving force behind a completely new technology is very expensive and the first mover advantage is usually not worth it. VCs are not in the business of pioneering a new technology, they look for trends and opportunities to get a return for their investors.
If its not the VCs putting up the capital to support innovation, whos left? The government? I prefer letting the market do its work.
