Jesse Stuckwisch
The following are the main points concerning the Human Capital and Tech Backwardness elements of innovation.
Human Capital- refers to the stock of competences, knowledge and personality attributes embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value. It is the attributes gained by a worker through education and experience.
Technology backwardness- is the repercussions or unintended consequences of increased or decrease in technological innovation
Using Google’s competition with other main competitors is a prime example of how these ideas apply in a real world sense.
The blood feud that is present between Google, Microsoft and Apple has emerged new issues concerning the human capital, which is leading to technology backwardness within these companies. Lately for the past couple of years Apple has been beating both Microsoft and google to the punch for the demanded goods. Examples of these were things such as the Ipod, and Mac book. Both of these were ideas that Microsoft had equivalents for, which were going to be produced. However apples superior efficiency and information flow beat Microsoft to the chase. The reason for this lack of competitiveness is because due to technological backwardness idea finding itself in informational leakage.
Another point to make is the reason for the lack of innovation by both Google and Microsoft is because the incentive to innovate is slowly diminishing as Apple becomes more successful. Microsoft and Google are stuck in the “old” computer systems, which is acting like a trough for which they cant leave. This issue is very serious for both companies because of right now Apple is on a boom. Even with Microsoft’s new Window 7, nothing really has changed from the consumer pint of view. For apple when change is advertised, the change is much more so than Microsoft. This example of technology backwardness is bringing Microsoft down.
Conor http://www.economist.com/node/15267915
This article from the economist illustrates how government policy can discourage wealth from entering the country. China's strict censorship laws have caused Google to leave the Chinese market, and they are now without the benefits of a company so thoroughly committed to innovation. Google had even employed a number of Chinese linguists to help develop and innovate to the point the Mandarin search engine was as powerful as the English, however this example of Indigenous Innovation is no more.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001365&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
Although this article is based more on the release of the phones themselves rather than their effects on the developing countries they are intended for, it is clear evidence that foreign technology has been exported into these countries, and is now aiding in growth. More importantly however, is that not only are the countries importing technology, but they are developing technology that is the most recent, and perhaps skipping a rung in the technological ladder; meaning, these developing countries may have never had the regular telephone infrastructure, but now they can import the cell phone infrastructure and advance much quicker than if they had had to develop the cell technology themselves.
Michael Huntley
I'll give an outline of creative destruction, leaks, and fourth-quadrant innovation, and say how Google is an example of each.
Outline of creative destruction:
The process through which new technology systematically or suddenly replaces old technology at the expense of the old technology. Ex: cassette tapes replace 8-tracks, CDs replace tapes, MP3s replace CDs.
Can be either a positive or a negative force in driving development, although it is typically positive in advancing technology.
Keep in mind: technology is not a panacea (cure-all). This will be covered later.
Creative destruction ex:
-Fivium overhauling Australia’s system of healthcare subsidies
-Replacing old system to increase efficiency
Using Google’s success as an example (fits many concepts in this demonstration today):
Google innovates upon pre-existing technologies in many ways to provide cheaper and easier services to people. However, where does the funding come from?
-Google’s AdSense campaign. Every time you see “sponsored ads”, those are Google’s links.
-Every time an ad is clicked on, it costs the owner of that page a certain amount of money that goes to Google.
-This amount varies; Google uses a bidding system for keywords, e.g. you buy “car” and “buy car” and whenever someone searches those words, your ads come up. The more common the word, the more it is per click.
-Note: No variable costs for Google. Beyond the cost of running servers (relatively low), they don’t have to pay anything for production. Simply redirecting traffic.
Leaks: Transfer of information from one party to another, typically unintended, which results in the spread of new ideas and technology. For example, this is why LDCs generally get old technology that MDCs have already created. Information as a public good.
From innovation article: “fourth quadrant” innovation:
-Space of collaborative, nonproprietary innovation, exemplified by the internet.
-This is what Google is all about. Open-source nature of many projects contributes to this
-Google employee’s have a work environment to promote this innovation
Why is it good policy for the US government to be hands-off of Google and keep regulation low?
-Google is philanthropic. Government has incentive not to interfere.
-Google.org is the philanthropic branch of Google, donates 1% of profit and equity to world causes.
-Clean energy projects like RechargeIT and Google Earth Outreach
-Google Flu Trends, Oil spill monitor, Google Powermeter, etc…
-www.googlelabs.com for a full list of current Google projects, philanthropic or not
Matt
VS.
vcr
VS.
Audio CD Recordings
Jamie Bean
One of the keys to Google's success is having a corporate structure that easily benefits from leaks and matching. However, Google has also stressed indigenous innovation which means that the companies advancements may not be fully contributing economic to economic growth.
Leaks: Transfer of information from one party to another, typically unintended, which results in the spread of new ideas and technology. For example, this is why LDCs generally get old technology that MDCs have already created. Information as a public good.
Matching: The process by which individuals are put together with other people and new ideas. The ultimate goal of this process is to "match" the people in such a way that they can have the greatest contribution to developing the new ideas. In many LDCs people are incorrectly matched, so they do not develop as rapidly as MDCs.
Indigenous Innovation: Looking internally for development rather than basing development off of existing ideas. Most LDCs uses existing ideas that they build off of, while MDCs create completely new technologies.
Google on Leaks
Internally, Google stresses the value of the transfer of information. All workers have access to a private website on which they can post and develop ideas. They are allowed time throughout the day to work on theses ideas. Some of Google's best ideas such as gmail and Google Maps are products of this process. However, through patents and its overwhelming wealth Google is preventing other companies from developing on its ideas, either by legally restricting them or by driving competitors out of the market. This means that Google's technology is less likely to be developed to potentially benefit society in other ways. (Also work environment)
Google on Matching
Google recruits only graduates from the top colleges every year, saying they want strong thinkers with fresh ideas. While this has proven successful, it limits the diversity of thinkers at Google and also takes most of the top programmers and developers in the nation from other industries. The financial industry has lost out to Google in recent year in getting computer engineers to work for them, which has slowed the potential development of computer programs used in the financial world. Thus Google may be negatively impaction the ability of other companies to match workers with ideas.
Summary
If Google was a nation, this would be a great situation. Unfortunately Google is a company that is dominating the technological innovation within a nation. Not only is Google limiting the information flow within its industry, but its primary purpose is to control information flow around the world. Google is in a very powerful position and currently is not working to the benefit of any national economy.
The following are the main points concerning the Human Capital and Tech Backwardness elements of innovation.
Human Capital- refers to the stock of competences, knowledge and personality attributes embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value. It is the attributes gained by a worker through education and experience.
Technology backwardness- is the repercussions or unintended consequences of increased or decrease in technological innovation
Using Google’s competition with other main competitors is a prime example of how these ideas apply in a real world sense.
The blood feud that is present between Google, Microsoft and Apple has emerged new issues concerning the human capital, which is leading to technology backwardness within these companies. Lately for the past couple of years Apple has been beating both Microsoft and google to the punch for the demanded goods. Examples of these were things such as the Ipod, and Mac book. Both of these were ideas that Microsoft had equivalents for, which were going to be produced. However apples superior efficiency and information flow beat Microsoft to the chase. The reason for this lack of competitiveness is because due to technological backwardness idea finding itself in informational leakage.
Another point to make is the reason for the lack of innovation by both Google and Microsoft is because the incentive to innovate is slowly diminishing as Apple becomes more successful. Microsoft and Google are stuck in the “old” computer systems, which is acting like a trough for which they cant leave. This issue is very serious for both companies because of right now Apple is on a boom. Even with Microsoft’s new Window 7, nothing really has changed from the consumer pint of view. For apple when change is advertised, the change is much more so than Microsoft. This example of technology backwardness is bringing Microsoft down.
George http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sergey_brin_and_larry_page_on_google.html Hey guys, I'm going to use this TED talks to show how Google creates circles in the innovation process as well as generating network effects.
Conor
http://www.economist.com/node/15267915
This article from the economist illustrates how government policy can discourage wealth from entering the country. China's strict censorship laws have caused Google to leave the Chinese market, and they are now without the benefits of a company so thoroughly committed to innovation. Google had even employed a number of Chinese linguists to help develop and innovate to the point the Mandarin search engine was as powerful as the English, however this example of Indigenous Innovation is no more.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001365&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
Although this article is based more on the release of the phones themselves rather than their effects on the developing countries they are intended for, it is clear evidence that foreign technology has been exported into these countries, and is now aiding in growth. More importantly however, is that not only are the countries importing technology, but they are developing technology that is the most recent, and perhaps skipping a rung in the technological ladder; meaning, these developing countries may have never had the regular telephone infrastructure, but now they can import the cell phone infrastructure and advance much quicker than if they had had to develop the cell technology themselves.
Michael Huntley
I'll give an outline of creative destruction, leaks, and fourth-quadrant innovation, and say how Google is an example of each.
Outline of creative destruction:
The process through which new technology systematically or suddenly replaces old technology at the expense of the old technology. Ex: cassette tapes replace 8-tracks, CDs replace tapes, MP3s replace CDs.
Can be either a positive or a negative force in driving development, although it is typically positive in advancing technology.
Keep in mind: technology is not a panacea (cure-all). This will be covered later.
Creative destruction ex:
-Fivium overhauling Australia’s system of healthcare subsidies
-Replacing old system to increase efficiency
Using Google’s success as an example (fits many concepts in this demonstration today):
Google innovates upon pre-existing technologies in many ways to provide cheaper and easier services to people. However, where does the funding come from?
-Google’s AdSense campaign. Every time you see “sponsored ads”, those are Google’s links.
-Every time an ad is clicked on, it costs the owner of that page a certain amount of money that goes to Google.
-This amount varies; Google uses a bidding system for keywords, e.g. you buy “car” and “buy car” and whenever someone searches those words, your ads come up. The more common the word, the more it is per click.
-Note: No variable costs for Google. Beyond the cost of running servers (relatively low), they don’t have to pay anything for production. Simply redirecting traffic.
Leaks: Transfer of information from one party to another, typically unintended, which results in the spread of new ideas and technology. For example, this is why LDCs generally get old technology that MDCs have already created. Information as a public good.
From innovation article: “fourth quadrant” innovation:
-Space of collaborative, nonproprietary innovation, exemplified by the internet.
-This is what Google is all about. Open-source nature of many projects contributes to this
-Google employee’s have a work environment to promote this innovation
Why is it good policy for the US government to be hands-off of Google and keep regulation low?
-Google is philanthropic. Government has incentive not to interfere.
-Google.org is the philanthropic branch of Google, donates 1% of profit and equity to world causes.
-Clean energy projects like RechargeIT and Google Earth Outreach
-Google Flu Trends, Oil spill monitor, Google Powermeter, etc…
-www.googlelabs.com for a full list of current Google projects, philanthropic or not
Matt
Jamie Bean
One of the keys to Google's success is having a corporate structure that easily benefits from leaks and matching. However, Google has also stressed indigenous innovation which means that the companies advancements may not be fully contributing economic to economic growth.
Leaks: Transfer of information from one party to another, typically unintended, which results in the spread of new ideas and technology. For example, this is why LDCs generally get old technology that MDCs have already created. Information as a public good.
Matching: The process by which individuals are put together with other people and new ideas. The ultimate goal of this process is to "match" the people in such a way that they can have the greatest contribution to developing the new ideas. In many LDCs people are incorrectly matched, so they do not develop as rapidly as MDCs.
Indigenous Innovation: Looking internally for development rather than basing development off of existing ideas. Most LDCs uses existing ideas that they build off of, while MDCs create completely new technologies.
Google on Leaks
Internally, Google stresses the value of the transfer of information. All workers have access to a private website on which they can post and develop ideas. They are allowed time throughout the day to work on theses ideas. Some of Google's best ideas such as gmail and Google Maps are products of this process. However, through patents and its overwhelming wealth Google is preventing other companies from developing on its ideas, either by legally restricting them or by driving competitors out of the market. This means that Google's technology is less likely to be developed to potentially benefit society in other ways. (Also work environment)
Google on Matching
Google recruits only graduates from the top colleges every year, saying they want strong thinkers with fresh ideas. While this has proven successful, it limits the diversity of thinkers at Google and also takes most of the top programmers and developers in the nation from other industries. The financial industry has lost out to Google in recent year in getting computer engineers to work for them, which has slowed the potential development of computer programs used in the financial world. Thus Google may be negatively impaction the ability of other companies to match workers with ideas.
Summary
If Google was a nation, this would be a great situation. Unfortunately Google is a company that is dominating the technological innovation within a nation. Not only is Google limiting the information flow within its industry, but its primary purpose is to control information flow around the world. Google is in a very powerful position and currently is not working to the benefit of any national economy.