Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Is the profit motive holding back innovation?
  • Subject: Is the profit motive holding back innovation?
Subject: Is the profit motive holding back innovation?

The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

I was thinking about this earlier. If there was unbridled research, without the desire to recoup costs spent on R&D, would we be technologically further along?

Example: Why are there still CD's? The compact disc was invented over 20 years ago, and only until the invention of digital media (ie MP3's, MP3 players, iTunes etc...) was there a paradigm shift in the industry. Why? Why haven't we made something better sooner?

Is it because the CD was just a profitable way to store music until Napster and home CD burners forced the industry's hand? If there wasn't the need to recoup the costs for CD's, might a better way have been invented sooner?

This isn't about CD's, or digital music. Its about the need to make a profit holding back innovation. If we removed the question of: "Will it be profitable" from the equation, might we be better off?

  • 12.30.2012 10:36 AM PDT

I'm inclined to say yes. There is only one real innovator in the mobile phone industry, for example, and the other companies just copy instead of doing something else.

  • 12.30.2012 10:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

The desire for a beneficial outcome (to self or for company) is what drives R&D. Sure, it sounds selfish, but there aren't many "advancements" that aren't/weren't motivated by self-interests.

Take away the chance for reward, and who is then motivated to even risk anything?

  • 12.30.2012 10:38 AM PDT

Yep.

Whenever people talk about space exploration, all they ever debate is money.

  • 12.30.2012 10:38 AM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: Recon Number 54
The desire for a beneficial outcome (to self or for company) is what drives R&D. Sure, it sounds selfish, but there aren't many "advancements" that aren't/weren't motivated by self-interests.

Take away the chance for reward, and who is then motivated to even risk anything?
What if there was no risk?

  • 12.30.2012 10:38 AM PDT

How do we define progress?

How do we measure it?

  • 12.30.2012 10:38 AM PDT

RIP Ginger

Spring 1997 - 6 January 2012

Nvm, didn't fully read op.

[Edited on 12.30.2012 10:40 AM PST]

  • 12.30.2012 10:39 AM PDT

Yes, everyone should know this by now.

  • 12.30.2012 10:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Posted by: Recon Number 54
The desire for a beneficial outcome (to self or for company) is what drives R&D. Sure, it sounds selfish, but there aren't many "advancements" that aren't/weren't motivated by self-interests.

Take away the chance for reward, and who is then motivated to even risk anything?
What if there was no risk?

How could risk be eliminated? For any effort, there is a cost. Which in the case of innovation is balanced (but not consistently rewarded) by the potential benefits and profitable outcome.

If risk/cost could be eliminated.... how in the hell would that be done? Allow any moron to say "I am attempting to innovate, so give me what I want for free?" and somehow impose that onto everyone who is "asked to help out someone with an idea"?

  • 12.30.2012 10:41 AM PDT

04s suck

Well, you could also argue that the profit motive stimulates innovation. If you come with something better than everyone else, you can earn a lot of money with it.

  • 12.30.2012 10:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Eijsvogel2
Well, you could also argue that the profit motive stimulates innovation. If you come with something better than everyone else, you can earn a lot of money with it.

IMO, that is the only reasonable explanation for any effort at improving or innovating anything.

If we (humanity) were comfortable and satisfied with banging rocks in front a fire in a cave, then why try to make anything "better for me"?

I can't think of a single step of progress that wasn't at least attempted to "make MY life easier/better" and in most cases once social structures allowed for it, by coming up with "something new and better", the innovator typically reaped some sort of benefit for not only trying/thinking/working it out, but for getting off of their ass and actually doing something.

Just look around these forums. How many people say "I want to be in the game industry, but what I really want to do is come up with ideas. I am more of a concept and idea person." As if they could simply envision, and others will somehow "make it happen" and bring the "idea guy's" vision to reality. Total crap.

  • 12.30.2012 10:51 AM PDT

Be not afraid, for the forest nymphs have taught me how to pleasure a women.

Profit holds back everything capitalist pigs!


  • 12.30.2012 10:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: Leafie
Profit holds back everything capitalist pigs!

Which could be used to show an interesting example.

The various psuedo-communist nations of the late 20th century (USSR and Communist China). In both instances, when it came to spending on R&D for aerospace and or nearly any other technology, they put as much (or more) effort into espionage and reverse-engineering Western technologies than innovating and creating their own.

From disassembling a B-29 in the 40's, to their nuclear programs, to their SST and so on. Easier, cheaper and more efficient to let the "other guy" spend the money on R&D and then find a way to get the plans and make your own without having to risk/invest in research that may prove fruitless.

  • 12.30.2012 10:59 AM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

It's worth noting that if new technologies came out too frequently, the population wouldn't be able to keep up, and everybody would have non-compatible devices. Not to mention a massive increase in resources would be needed due to technologies being thrown away far more often simply because they're seen as outdated. Finally, remember that profit is also a powerful motivator.

[Edited on 12.30.2012 11:01 AM PST]

  • 12.30.2012 11:00 AM PDT

Because much that has been invented cannot enter the market until it is efficiently able to be produced at level that can achieve a marginal amount of profit. It always takes the second step for companies that are for-profit to realize there is a paradigm shift. They will always follow where the money goes. It is not really good or bad, in my eyes, they want money and I would only mock them if they tried something completely illogical and try to persuade consumer's into buying a then-inferior product.

  • 12.30.2012 11:00 AM PDT

Please do not send me group invites.


Posted by: Eijsvogel2
Well, you could also argue that the profit motive stimulates innovation. If you come with something better than everyone else, you can earn a lot of money with it.
As long at is isn't TOO much better, otherwise you're raising the bar really high and making it harder for you to stay ahead.

See Apple - they only add tiny little upgrades with each product release; slightly better camera, slightly better processor, etc. When in reality, they could make a beast of a product outright, instead of leaving some things for future upgrades.

  • 12.30.2012 11:08 AM PDT

BAN ALL BRONIES

I see what youre saying here, i wouldnt much i dont think. Id imagine profits influence these kinda things significantly. I know you said its not about cd'd but i do not like where the music industry is going. Everyone seems to be just dowloadingmusic digitally and not caring for appreciating actually having your own physical collection. the masses just seem to love eating up these "hot" new singles that popular artists release often. Radio hits. Nobody cares about the other songs. But these artists know that and dont really pit anything into those other songs anyway. As long as their radio hit is catchy so that they get the air time and money that comes along with it. Theres other reasons i should probably implore here but im trying to avoid a bigger wall of txt here.

Tl;DR : the music industry is going down the -blam!-er and i fear the death of the physical compact disc album.

  • 12.30.2012 11:09 AM PDT