[ih] Review: Yasha Levine's "Surveillance Valley"

[Eric Gade]

All,

As promised, here is my review of Surveillance Valley. Special thanks to
all members of this list who helped out (and sorry if you got cut in the
editing process!)

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-long-view-surveillance-the-internet-and-government-research/

[Noel Chiappa]

Post by Eric Gade
As promised, here is my review of Surveillance Valley.

Content-wise, quite good. I had only one minor quibble:

But the lesson to remember from history is that companies on their own are
incapable of big inventions like personal computing or the internet.

Generally true, but it's not impossible: look at Xerox PARC. So "usually
incapable" would have been better.


And two editorial nits that drive me crazy: i) It's 'the Internet'
(capitalized); there are many internets, but only one Internet, just as there
are many white houses, but only one White House. ii) 'her xxx' (for a generic
person) is in no way a real improvement over 'his xxx'; 'their xxx' is an
allowed form for an indeterminate singular person of no particular gender.

Noel

[Andrew G. Malis]

I don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.

Cheers,
Andy

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Eric Gade
As promised, here is my review of Surveillance Valley.

But the lesson to remember from history is that companies on their own are
incapable of big inventions like personal computing or the internet.
Generally true, but it's not impossible: look at Xerox PARC. So "usually
incapable" would have been better.
And two editorial nits that drive me crazy: i) It's 'the Internet'
(capitalized); there are many internets, but only one Internet, just as there
are many white houses, but only one White House. ii) 'her xxx' (for a generic
person) is in no way a real improvement over 'his xxx'; 'their xxx' is an
allowed form for an indeterminate singular person of no particular gender.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[John Day]

Forgot to hit Reply-All, oops

Agreed. The computer as phone was inevitable. It was significant that Jobs’ sense of design and what it should be kicked it off. I hate to think what the first ones could’ve been. ;-)
John

I don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.
Cheers,
Andy

Post by Eric Gade
As promised, here is my review of Surveillance Valley.

But the lesson to remember from history is that companies on their own are
incapable of big inventions like personal computing or the internet.
Generally true, but it's not impossible: look at Xerox PARC. So "usually
incapable" would have been better.
And two editorial nits that drive me crazy: i) It's 'the Internet'
(capitalized); there are many internets, but only one Internet, just as there
are many white houses, but only one White House. ii) 'her xxx' (for a generic
person) is in no way a real improvement over 'his xxx'; 'their xxx' is an
allowed form for an indeterminate singular person of no particular gender.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Craig Partridge]

I think computer + phone was inevitable (recall there were GSM phone
dongles floating about). I think what made the iPhone amazing (beyond its
design focus, which is not to be underestimated either) was to combine:

* A screen of a size usable for many apps
* GPS
* camera
* Voice

into an integrated appliance (and by integrated, I mean all four interacted
in various permutations).

Non-obvious combo but amazing once you started using it.

Craig

Agreed. The computer as phone was inevitable. It was significant that
Jobs’ sense of design and what it should be kicked it off. I hate to think
what the first ones could’ve been. ;-)
John

[Clem Cole]

Post by Craig Partridge
I think computer + phone was inevitable (recall there were GSM phone
dongles floating about). I think what made the iPhone amazing (beyond its
* A screen of a size usable for many apps
* GPS
* camera
* Voice
into an integrated appliance (and by integrated, I mean all four
interacted in various permutations).
Non-obvious combo but amazing once you started using it.

​And at a price that in the end, was not obscene. At the time, many
thought $~1K for a phone was going to be too much, but it is all about
creating 'value' and as you said, a non-obvious combo that once became
useful, became valued.
ᐧ

[Dave Crocker]

don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.

The iPhone popularized a concept but was arguably not first-mover to it.

I'm not sure whether this is entirely accurate, by my own experience
would give Handspring the credit for hitting the milestone, and General
Magic for establishing the target (with Newton being an odd form of
take-back by Apple, since GM was a spinoff.)

The point is that for both examples, it took companies that were not
embedded in the main corporate culture (as indeed PARC was not).

The momentum, immediacy and encrusted bureaucracy of essentially all
larger companies makes it exceedingly difficult for any of them to
start, nurture and protect a serious innovation environment.

While there are exceptions sprinkled over time, they are only that.

d/

[Richard Bennett]

The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take big risks.

Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more ad hoc MP3 players had failed.

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Andrew G. Malis
don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.

The iPhone popularized a concept but was arguably not first-mover to it.
I'm not sure whether this is entirely accurate, by my own experience
would give Handspring the credit for hitting the milestone, and General
Magic for establishing the target (with Newton being an odd form of
take-back by Apple, since GM was a spinoff.)
The point is that for both examples, it took companies that were not
embedded in the main corporate culture (as indeed PARC was not).
The momentum, immediacy and encrusted bureaucracy of essentially all
larger companies makes it exceedingly difficult for any of them to
start, nurture and protect a serious innovation environment.
While there are exceptions sprinkled over time, they are only that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Craig Partridge]

Got a citation about big companies -- most work I've seen (e.g. the
Innovator's Dilemma) suggests the reverse.

Certainly what I've seen is that big companies specialize in squashing
innovation. Most inventive folks I know have a horror story or two or
three or four.

Craig

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of two
dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take big
risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in large
part because of the music infrastructure the company had built around the
iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more ad hoc MP3
players had failed.
don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.
The iPhone popularized a concept but was arguably not first-mover to it.
I'm not sure whether this is entirely accurate, by my own experience
would give Handspring the credit for hitting the milestone, and General
Magic for establishing the target (with Newton being an odd form of
take-back by Apple, since GM was a spinoff.)
The point is that for both examples, it took companies that were not
embedded in the main corporate culture (as indeed PARC was not).
The momentum, immediacy and encrusted bureaucracy of essentially all
larger companies makes it exceedingly difficult for any of them to
start, nurture and protect a serious innovation environment.
While there are exceptions sprinkled over time, they are only that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Eric Gade]

It might help to draw a distinction, as Alan Kay does in his lectures,
between innovation and invention. The former seems to mean "to make new"
something that already exists in some form, while the latter means making
something that has not ever existed before. Obviously the line between
these is not clear cut. But in my view something like the iPhone is very
clearly a case of innovation over invention.

Regarding PARC, my understanding from reading the historical literature is
that it's best to view what happened there as a kind of "last gasp" of the
ARPA research community. There were lots of ARPA project alumni there (some
two "academic generations" deep in ARPA research) and Bob Taylor helped run
the show in its prime.

It's not just big, risky sums of money. You need time and space to breathe.
I believe part of the PARC arrangement was there would be no corporate say
in what they were working on for the first five years or so.

Post by Craig Partridge
Got a citation about big companies -- most work I've seen (e.g. the
Innovator's Dilemma) suggests the reverse.
Certainly what I've seen is that big companies specialize in squashing
innovation. Most inventive folks I know have a horror story or two or
three or four.
Craig

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of two
dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take big
risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built around
the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more ad hoc
MP3 players had failed.
don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.
The iPhone popularized a concept but was arguably not first-mover to it.
I'm not sure whether this is entirely accurate, by my own experience
would give Handspring the credit for hitting the milestone, and General
Magic for establishing the target (with Newton being an odd form of
take-back by Apple, since GM was a spinoff.)
The point is that for both examples, it took companies that were not
embedded in the main corporate culture (as indeed PARC was not).
The momentum, immediacy and encrusted bureaucracy of essentially all
larger companies makes it exceedingly difficult for any of them to
start, nurture and protect a serious innovation environment.
While there are exceptions sprinkled over time, they are only that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Dave Crocker]

Post by Eric Gade
Regarding PARC, my understanding from reading the historical literature
is that it's best to view what happened there as a kind of "last gasp"
of the ARPA research community. There were lots of ARPA project alumni
there (some two "academic generations" deep in ARPA research) and Bob
Taylor helped run the show in its prime.

Eric,

With some trepidation that I'm taking the bait, I'll ask for
clarification about your choice of phrasing with "last gasp". In
several ways it doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, there were folk from the Arpanet community who sent to PARC and
some/much of the PARC work followed-on from Arpanet-related work, but a)
the PARC work went for quite awhile; b) the PARC work did a wide variety
of things that had major effects; c) the remaining Arpanet community
went on for quite awhile -- well, really, is still going; and d) it also
did a wide variety of things that had major effects.

One thinks of 'last gasp' as constrained in time and effect (and
typically with limited efficacy.)

Hence my confusion.

d/

[Eric Gade]

No bait here, just a poor choice of words. I meant only the end of the
period where people who had worked on ARPA projects had easy access to
funding for longer (than present) durations. I meant nothing negative about
the actual people, but was referecing the end of the funding environment in
which they were allowed to work. I suspect (and could be very wrong) that
it's not a coincidence that the sweetheart deal for PARC came soon after
the passage of the Mansfield amendments. In that sense it was something of
a "last gasp" in that computing research would not be funded again in the
same way.

ARPA people have, of course, done interesting and important work since that
time, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I do, however, wonder what would
have emerged if the funding culture had persisted.

Post by Eric Gade
Regarding PARC, my understanding from reading the historical literature
is that it's best to view what happened there as a kind of "last gasp" of
the ARPA research community. There were lots of ARPA project alumni there
(some two "academic generations" deep in ARPA research) and Bob Taylor
helped run the show in its prime.

Eric,
With some trepidation that I'm taking the bait, I'll ask for clarification
about your choice of phrasing with "last gasp". In several ways it doesn't
make sense to me.
Yes, there were folk from the Arpanet community who sent to PARC and
some/much of the PARC work followed-on from Arpanet-related work, but a)
the PARC work went for quite awhile; b) the PARC work did a wide variety of
things that had major effects; c) the remaining Arpanet community went on
for quite awhile -- well, really, is still going; and d) it also did a wide
variety of things that had major effects.
One thinks of 'last gasp' as constrained in time and effect (and typically
with limited efficacy.)
Hence my confusion.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

[Dave Crocker]

Post by Eric Gade
No bait here, just a poor choice of words. I meant only the end of the
period where people who had worked on ARPA projects had easy access to
funding for longer (than present) durations. I meant nothing negative
about the actual people, but was referecing the end of the funding
environment in which they were allowed to work. I suspect (and could be
very wrong) that it's not a coincidence that the sweetheart deal for
PARC came soon after the passage of the Mansfield amendments. In that
sense it was something of a "last gasp" in that computing research would
not be funded again in the same way.
ARPA people have, of course, done interesting and important work since
that time, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I do, however, wonder what
would have emerged if the funding culture had persisted.

Eric,

Many thanks for the clarification. Now I can see the substance you
intended. It seems a clear point, though doesn't match my own recollection.

My initial view was from a couple levels below those getting the funding
and doing the research. (I can't comment on any possible effect of the
Mansfield project.)

My view is that some folk from the Arpa community got enticed by an
extremely interesting offer to create and work at PARC, but that the
ARPA funding and effort in digital communications continued in parallel
for quite awhile. At some point this could be classed as a transition to
Internet work, but in terms of the point you are making, I'd class that
as the same community working in relatively the same space.

Certainly there was continuing IMP and TIP and protocol working going
through the 70s. And I was part of an ARPA funded arpanet-email-for-unix
effort in the latter 70s, by way of offering a particularly mundane example.

There was the Arpa-to-NSF funding transition for operational issues, but
I don't know any of the details. (Others here, of course, do.) What I
was told that Arpa finally noted that it didn't have a mandate to do
straight operations and its research demonstration project -- the basic
Arpanet -- was itself no longer research. This made so much obvious
sense, in terms of Arpa's mission, that I'd never have thought other
forces were a concern.

Note also that through at least the 70s, Arpa did related projects
besides the Internet development, namely packet radio and packet
satellite. All of this suggests continued, robust funding from Arpa for
work in the same technical space.

d/

[Richard Bennett]

Here’s a good overview on economic theory about innovation: https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2014-2-page-41.htm <https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2014-2-page-41.htm>

It’s a broad and deep field. I tend to ignore mass-market books that purport to provide very simple accounts of fast fields of endeavor. It’s my experience that reading Clay Christenson, Jared Diamond, or Nassim Taleb leaves the reader less well informed than [sh]he was before opening the book.

Got a citation about big companies -- most work I've seen (e.g. the Innovator's Dilemma) suggests the reverse.
Certainly what I've seen is that big companies specialize in squashing innovation. Most inventive folks I know have a horror story or two or three or four.
Craig
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more ad hoc MP3 players had failed.

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Andrew G. Malis
don’t know, I would count the iPhone as a “big invention”. It completely
changed mobile telephony and created the entire app market.

The iPhone popularized a concept but was arguably not first-mover to it.
I'm not sure whether this is entirely accurate, by my own experience
would give Handspring the credit for hitting the milestone, and General
Magic for establishing the target (with Newton being an odd form of
take-back by Apple, since GM was a spinoff.)
The point is that for both examples, it took companies that were not
embedded in the main corporate culture (as indeed PARC was not).
The momentum, immediacy and encrusted bureaucracy of essentially all
larger companies makes it exceedingly difficult for any of them to
start, nurture and protect a serious innovation environment.
While there are exceptions sprinkled over time, they are only that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
--
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Dave Walden]

von Hippel's Sources of Innovation may still have some relevance:

http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www-old/books/sources/SofI.pdf

Post by Richard Bennett
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2014-2-page-41.htm
It’s a broad and deep field. I tend to ignore mass-market books that
purport to provide very simple accounts of fast fields of endeavor.
It’s my experience that reading Clay Christenson, Jared Diamond, or
Nassim Taleb leaves the reader less well informed than [sh]he was
before opening the book.

[Dave Crocker]

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.

This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.

Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.

Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.

d/

[Richard Bennett]

With the iPod, Apple sold people on carrying a highly portable computer around with them everywhere they went. It had a screen, a UI, and an earpiece and the ability to run a very limited set of programs. It also had a rudimentary networking capability, limited to short periods of connection via USB.

iPod became iPhone with the addition of a microphone, a radio, and a somewhat more capable operating system. With the expansion of iTunes to include apps, you got the whole banana.

The iPhone was therefore an incremental enhancement of two of Apple’s existing products, a portable one and a network-based feeder system. It’s hard to see two dudes in a garage pulling something like this off.

RB

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.

This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.
Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.
Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Craig Partridge]

I'm sorry, but my immediate reaction is that by this logic, the airplane
was not an innovation because, when the Wright brothers invented it, they
created a device that, using modest horsepower, could move a single human
being a short distance and since they already sold bicycles (which achieve
similar goals), they hadn't innovated. That said, thank you for the
pointers -- I'll go do some reading and see if I'm converted to your point
of view.

Craig

Post by Richard Bennett
With the iPod, Apple sold people on carrying a highly portable computer
around with them everywhere they went. It had a screen, a UI, and an
earpiece and the ability to run a very limited set of programs. It also had
a rudimentary networking capability, limited to short periods of connection
via USB.
iPod became iPhone with the addition of a microphone, a radio, and a
somewhat more capable operating system. With the expansion of iTunes to
include apps, you got the whole banana.
The iPhone was therefore an incremental enhancement of two of Apple’s
existing products, a portable one and a network-based feeder system. It’s
hard to see two dudes in a garage pulling something like this off.
RB
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.
This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.
Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.
Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[n***@ic.unicamp.br]

regarding innovation and airplanes I recommend reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

Nelson

Post by Craig Partridge
I'm sorry, but my immediate reaction is that by this logic, the airplane
was not an innovation because, when the Wright brothers invented it, they
created a device that, using modest horsepower, could move a single human
being a short distance and since they already sold bicycles (which achieve
similar goals), they hadn't innovated. That said, thank you for the
pointers -- I'll go do some reading and see if I'm converted to your point
of view.
Craig

Post by Richard Bennett
With the iPod, Apple sold people on carrying a highly portable computer
around with them everywhere they went. It had a screen, a UI, and an
earpiece and the ability to run a very limited set of programs. It also had
a rudimentary networking capability, limited to short periods of connection
via USB.
iPod became iPhone with the addition of a microphone, a radio, and a
somewhat more capable operating system. With the expansion of iTunes to
include apps, you got the whole banana.
The iPhone was therefore an incremental enhancement of two of Apple?s
existing products, a portable one and a network-based feeder system.
It?s
hard to see two dudes in a garage pulling something like this off.
RB
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.
This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.
Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.
Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
?
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Brian E Carpenter]

Post by n***@ic.unicamp.br
regarding innovation and airplanes I recommend reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

Zeitgeist is a real thing. For aviation, there was also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse and probably others.

Incandescent light bulbs, moving pictures: multiple claimants too.

Equally so in the early days of computing & networking.

Brian

Post by n***@ic.unicamp.br
Nelson

Post by Craig Partridge
I'm sorry, but my immediate reaction is that by this logic, the airplane
was not an innovation because, when the Wright brothers invented it, they
created a device that, using modest horsepower, could move a single human
being a short distance and since they already sold bicycles (which achieve
similar goals), they hadn't innovated. That said, thank you for the
pointers -- I'll go do some reading and see if I'm converted to your point
of view.
Craig

Post by Richard Bennett
With the iPod, Apple sold people on carrying a highly portable computer
around with them everywhere they went. It had a screen, a UI, and an
earpiece and the ability to run a very limited set of programs. It also had
a rudimentary networking capability, limited to short periods of connection
via USB.
iPod became iPhone with the addition of a microphone, a radio, and a
somewhat more capable operating system. With the expansion of iTunes to
include apps, you got the whole banana.
The iPhone was therefore an incremental enhancement of two of Apple?s
existing products, a portable one and a network-based feeder system.
It?s
hard to see two dudes in a garage pulling something like this off.
RB
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.
This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.
Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.
Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
?
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
.

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

***@ic.unicamp.br wrote in <46ec716cb643a587bb3aabccaebf6537.squirr\
***@webmail.ic.unicamp.br>:
|regarding innovation and airplanes I recommend reading
|
|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

And not to forget Gustav Weißkopf[1] (Gustave Whitehead[2]), who
seems to have been the silent first.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Weißkopf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

[Richard Bennett]

Heh, I didn’t say the iPhone wasn’t an innovation; I actually said it was the kind of innovation that only a big company could pull off. The prior art that failed in the marketplace more or less reinforces this point.

The airplane was an innovation regardless of who invented it; I tend to lean toward DaVinci on that question.

I'm sorry, but my immediate reaction is that by this logic, the airplane was not an innovation because, when the Wright brothers invented it, they created a device that, using modest horsepower, could move a single human being a short distance and since they already sold bicycles (which achieve similar goals), they hadn't innovated. That said, thank you for the pointers -- I'll go do some reading and see if I'm converted to your point of view.
Craig
With the iPod, Apple sold people on carrying a highly portable computer around with them everywhere they went. It had a screen, a UI, and an earpiece and the ability to run a very limited set of programs. It also had a rudimentary networking capability, limited to short periods of connection via USB.
iPod became iPhone with the addition of a microphone, a radio, and a somewhat more capable operating system. With the expansion of iTunes to include apps, you got the whole banana.
The iPhone was therefore an incremental enhancement of two of Apple’s existing products, a portable one and a network-based feeder system. It’s hard to see two dudes in a garage pulling something like this off.
RB

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.
Apple succeeded with the iPhone while Handspring and Nokia failed in
large part because of the music infrastructure the company had built
around the iPod, another second or third mover that succeeded where more
ad hoc MP3 players had failed.

This casts things as either or, which is in line with how the thread has
gone, but probably misses a basic distinction, namely basic innovation
from what I'll call scaling innovation.
Creation of the basic capability versus delivering a version of the
capability that gains widespread success. The latter is not a 'mere'.
Being able to get the balance of features, costs, marketing and sales
choices just right is, obviously, not obvious. But it is quite
different from what we often call 'technological breakthrough'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
Internet Policy Consultant
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
--
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Johan Helsingius]

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.

How about my fellow Swedish-speaking Finn that lives in Oregon these
days? :)

Julf

[Richard Bennett]

You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest company at the time?

Post by Johan Helsingius

Post by Richard Bennett
The research on innovation very clearly shows that significant, game
changing inventions almost always come from big companies. The myth of
two dudes in a garage ignores the fact that it takes big money to take
big risks.

How about my fellow Swedish-speaking Finn that lives in Oregon these
days? :)
Julf
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Johan Helsingius]

You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

Yes, that guy. And while UNIX was created by people at Bell Labs,
large parts of the system was of course contributed by academia.

Julf

[John Day]

And the Bell Labs guys were basically scaling down Multics.

Post by Johan Helsingius

You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

Yes, that guy. And while UNIX was created by people at Bell Labs,
large parts of the system was of course contributed by academia.
Julf
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Dave Crocker]

You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

and yet, the specifics of who did what and with what, then, describes a
classic garage activity.

the only difference worth noting is that the big company was paying
their salaries. in terms of critical components to the event, that
point doesn't impress me.

d/

[Richard Bennett]

Organizations such as Bell Labs and IBM Research pretty much put a dagger in the heart of “big companies don’t innovate” conventional wisdom all by themselves.

RB

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Richard Bennett
You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

and yet, the specifics of who did what and with what, then, describes a
classic garage activity.
the only difference worth noting is that the big company was paying
their salaries. in terms of critical components to the event, that
point doesn't impress me.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[Craig Partridge]

Post by Richard Bennett
Organizations such as Bell Labs and IBM Research pretty much put a dagger
in the heart of “big companies don’t innovate” conventional wisdom all by
themselves.

Bell Labs is a lousy example as it was Govt mandated research in return for
monopoly status for AT&T. Once AT&T broke up and Bell Labs was divided up
and the parts became subject to normal corporate governance of research,
the pieces began to fade (despite desperate attempts by former Bell Labs
folks to keep them sound). Many of those pieces are now gone.

IBM is the more interesting one, as Tom Watson Sr apparently believed
deeply in research as a way to help the corporate bottom line and that
ethos continued for a long time. Currently IBM Labs folks say it ain't
what it used to be but remains a vibrant place. But it is also known as an
exception.

Craig

[Dan Cross]

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Richard Bennett
You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

and yet, the specifics of who did what and with what, then, describes a
classic garage activity.

I would describe it more as "skunkworks" than garage.

the only difference worth noting is that the big company was paying

Post by Dave Crocker
their salaries. in terms of critical components to the event, that
point doesn't impress me.

Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While
perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been
accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost
certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact
that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.

- Dan C.

[Richard Bennett]

As I recall, a deadline played a crucial role as well. Dudes in garages don’t have deadlines.

Post by Dave Crocker

Post by Richard Bennett
You mean the guy who copied Unix, a creation of America’s 11th largest
company at the time?

and yet, the specifics of who did what and with what, then, describes a
classic garage activity.
I would describe it more as "skunkworks" than garage.
the only difference worth noting is that the big company was paying
their salaries. in terms of critical components to the event, that
point doesn't impress me.
Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.
- Dan C.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

[John Day]

One needs to be careful how one defines ‘something that would have been accessible to an individual’ in those days. ;-) The same with the PDP-11. (It didn’t have the /20 designation yet.) Was the machine bought and paid for by an individual? No. Did an individual have free access to do whatever they wanted with the machine on company or your own time? Not uncommon at all. We had a PDP-11 in 1970 it pretty well belonged to us. Management had no idea what it was. ;-)

Post by Dave Crocker
snip
Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.
- Dan C.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[Clem cole]

John. I semi beg to differ. I think Dan got the basics right. I lived those same times and yes management did not look at everything I did. But they owned the system, the terminals, the media, even the printer paper/consumables. While we had a lot of latitude what we were doing had to at least consider the corporate values/plans/goals. Yes we all had what were refered to as G-jobs on the side. I would even say Tektronix and HP were noted for encouraging them (Woz is said to have built the prototype Apple 1 on his bench at HP as an example).

But I really could not have done much serious computing in those days with using equipment and software licensed by my employer. I would not haven been able to afford it otherwise and I was getting paid to do it. That was Dans observation which I think is spot on. I don’t think most people in those days were really in a much different position.

Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite.

Post by John Day
One needs to be careful how one defines ‘something that would have been accessible to an individual’ in those days. ;-) The same with the PDP-11. (It didn’t have the /20 designation yet.) Was the machine bought and paid for by an individual? No. Did an individual have free access to do whatever they wanted with the machine on company or your own time? Not uncommon at all. We had a PDP-11 in 1970 it pretty well belonged to us. Management had no idea what it was. ;-)

Post by Dave Crocker
snip
Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.
- Dan C.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[John Day]

You have my condolences for having had to work under such harsh conditions.

We were pretty much on our own. It got to the point that we finally had to fire 3 of our bosses.

Post by Clem cole
John. I semi beg to differ. I think Dan got the basics right. I lived those same times and yes management did not look at everything I did. But they owned the system, the terminals, the media, even the printer paper/consumables. While we had a lot of latitude what we were doing had to at least consider the corporate values/plans/goals. Yes we all had what were refered to as G-jobs on the side. I would even say Tektronix and HP were noted for encouraging them (Woz is said to have built the prototype Apple 1 on his bench at HP as an example).
But I really could not have done much serious computing in those days with using equipment and software licensed by my employer. I would not haven been able to afford it otherwise and I was getting paid to do it. That was Dans observation which I think is spot on. I don’t think most people in those days were really in a much different position.
Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite.

Post by John Day
One needs to be careful how one defines ‘something that would have been accessible to an individual’ in those days. ;-) The same with the PDP-11. (It didn’t have the /20 designation yet.) Was the machine bought and paid for by an individual? No. Did an individual have free access to do whatever they wanted with the machine on company or your own time? Not uncommon at all. We had a PDP-11 in 1970 it pretty well belonged to us. Management had no idea what it was. ;-)

Post by Dave Crocker
snip
Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.
- Dan C.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>

[Dan Cross]

Post by John Day
You have my condolences for having had to work under such harsh conditions.

Clem just about nailed what I was heading for, but this I don't understand.
What's harsh about being given wide latitude to work on interesting and
novel problems using hardware and software subsidized by a big organization
with deep pockets and an interest in letting you come up with something
cool?

We were pretty much on our own. It got to the point that we finally had to

Post by John Day
fire 3 of our bosses.

Ha! That's neat.

But the original point was contrasting "two guys in a garage" to "two guys
in a well-stocked lab funded by a major research organization/large
corporation." For the former, I think of two dudes with a door thrown over
a couple of saw horses, using a dumpster-dived 'scope to design a new
circuit out of self-funded discrete components and they gotta do it in 6
months or they'll burn through their personal savings and default on their
mortgage. The latter have many more resources to draw on (professional
grade, well-calibrated equipment, for one) and the security of a paycheck.

- Dan C.

Post by John Day
John. I semi beg to differ. I think Dan got the basics right. I lived
those same times and yes management did not look at everything I did. But
they owned the system, the terminals, the media, even the printer
paper/consumables. While we had a lot of latitude what we were doing had
to at least consider the corporate values/plans/goals. Yes we all had what
were refered to as G-jobs on the side. I would even say Tektronix and HP
were noted for encouraging them (Woz is said to have built the prototype
Apple 1 on his bench at HP as an example).
But I really could not have done much serious computing in those days with
using equipment and software licensed by my employer. I would not haven
been able to afford it otherwise and I was getting paid to do it. That was
Dans observation which I think is spot on. I don’t think most people in
those days were really in a much different position.
Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite.
One needs to be careful how one defines ‘something that would have been
accessible to an individual’ in those days. ;-) The same with the PDP-11.
(It didn’t have the /20 designation yet.) Was the machine bought and paid
for by an individual? No. Did an individual have free access to do
whatever they wanted with the machine on company or your own time? Not
uncommon at all. We had a PDP-11 in 1970 it pretty well belonged to us.
Management had no idea what it was. ;-)
snip
Ken Thompson wrote the first "Unices" kernel on a cast-off PDP-7. While
perhaps antiquated for 1969, is that really something that would have been
accessible to an individual? 1st Edition was on a PDP-11/20; almost
certainly out of the reach of individuals in the early 1970s. And the fact
that they were getting *paid* to work on this is not a small point.
- Dan C.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[John Day]

+1

Post by Noel Chiappa

Post by Eric Gade
As promised, here is my review of Surveillance Valley.

But the lesson to remember from history is that companies on their own are
incapable of big inventions like personal computing or the internet.
Generally true, but it's not impossible: look at Xerox PARC. So "usually
incapable" would have been better.
And two editorial nits that drive me crazy: i) It's 'the Internet'
(capitalized); there are many internets, but only one Internet, just as there
are many white houses, but only one White House. ii) 'her xxx' (for a generic
person) is in no way a real improvement over 'his xxx'; 'their xxx' is an
allowed form for an indeterminate singular person of no particular gender.
Noel
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

[John Levine]

Post by n***@ic.unicamp.br
regarding innovation and airplanes I recommend reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

Santos-Dumont did some interesting stuff but he didn't build a heavier
than air plane as opposed to a balloon until 1906. A good biography
in English is "Wings of Madness" by Paul Hoffman (not the one we
know.)

The Wrights were excellent engineers, who solved a bunch of
engineering problems to create a working plane. They invented the
wind tunnel and used it to test airfoils and propellers, having found
that the existing tables for airfoils were wrong. Their engine was
the first to have an aluminum crankcase, which made it much lighter.
There were a lot of people working on airplanes in the early 1900s but
it's clear enough that the Wrights were the first to put the pieces
together and build planes that flew and had controls that worked.

Unfortunately they were also control freaks who wanted to control
everything about their airplanes. They got into huge patent fights
with Glenn Curtis whose planes worked better. (He used ailerons,
the Wrights twisted the wings.) If they had more sense they would
have formed a patent pool with Curtis and made a lot more money
from better planes.

There is surely a lesson here about innovation and invention. The
technology was simple enough in 1903 that a pair of gifted mechanics
could self-fund to build and fly a plane. But as the technology
progressed, I doubt that anyone could have done a self-funded jet
engine in the 1940s.

ObComputer: Konrad Zuse built his mechanical Z1 and relay Z2 on his
own, in his parents' apartment but I don't think there's been any
significant solo work since then. The Apple ][ was a tour de force of
assembling parts made by other larger companies. Wozniak created an
excellent design using low cost parts, but Jobs bamboozled Intel
into providing them with enough 2K RAMs to build it.

[Wayne Hathaway]

Along this line, I once heard a great quote about the Wright brothers:

Everyone else was trying to learn how to build an airplane.
The Wright brothers were trying to learn how to fly.


wayne

Post by John Levine

Post by n***@ic.unicamp.br
regarding innovation and airplanes I recommend reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont

Santos-Dumont did some interesting stuff but he didn't build a heavier
than air plane as opposed to a balloon until 1906. A good biography
in English is "Wings of Madness" by Paul Hoffman (not the one we
know.)
The Wrights were excellent engineers, who solved a bunch of
engineering problems to create a working plane. They invented the
wind tunnel and used it to test airfoils and propellers, having found
that the existing tables for airfoils were wrong. Their engine was
the first to have an aluminum crankcase, which made it much lighter.
There were a lot of people working on airplanes in the early 1900s but
it's clear enough that the Wrights were the first to put the pieces
together and build planes that flew and had controls that worked.
Unfortunately they were also control freaks who wanted to control
everything about their airplanes. They got into huge patent fights
with Glenn Curtis whose planes worked better. (He used ailerons,
the Wrights twisted the wings.) If they had more sense they would
have formed a patent pool with Curtis and made a lot more money
from better planes.
There is surely a lesson here about innovation and invention. The
technology was simple enough in 1903 that a pair of gifted mechanics
could self-fund to build and fly a plane. But as the technology
progressed, I doubt that anyone could have done a self-funded jet
engine in the 1940s.
ObComputer: Konrad Zuse built his mechanical Z1 and relay Z2 on his
own, in his parents' apartment but I don't think there's been any
significant solo work since then. The Apple ][ was a tour de force of
assembling parts made by other larger companies. Wozniak created an
excellent design using low cost parts, but Jobs bamboozled Intel
into providing them with enough 2K RAMs to build it.
_______
internet-history mailing list
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history