Re: Monopolies
<snip/>
> Right now, the biggest, baddest monopoly is Microsoft,
> but I very well remember the 30 years I spent at the
> old monopoly. IBM in those days was a great place
> for the employees, since the profit margins were so
> high that nobody clamped down too hard on little
> frills like research on conceptual graphs or writing
> books and papers that didn't have clear business cases.
> As long as you met the basic requirements on time,
> they cut a lot of slack.
>
> For similar reasons, Bell Labs was a great place for
> innovative R & D for things that never made ATT much
> direct profit -- transistors and Unix, for example.
> But those things did a lot for the overall industry.
> Yet if you compare the innovation and price decreases
> in the telephone industry in the past 20+ years
> (since the breakup of ATT) to the 20 years before
> the breakup, the difference is amazing. Unfortunately,
> Bell Labs ain't what it used to be.
>
> I could see the same kinds of things happening in IBM,
> which had an incredible amount of innovative R & D,
> but most of it never got out the door. One example
> is GML, which IBM did release as a product for the
> mainframes, but they killed a very nice version for
> the PC. Charlie Goldfarb, who represents the G in
> GML, got a version of GML standardized as SGML, but
> he left IBM because he couldn't get a product out
> of it. Instead, a couple of guys in a garage at
> CERN popularized a subset called HTML, and the rest
> is history.
>
> Worst of all, some of the best developments were
> killed because they were "counterstrategic". There
> was an informal IBM jargon dictionary, to which I
> contributed the following two definitions:
>
> counterstrategic adj. Embarrassingly superior
> to what is strategic.
>
> strategic adj. Supported by managers who have
> reached their level of incompetence.
>
> Mike Cowlishaw, who edited that dictionary for many
> years, added my two definitions. Unfortunately, his
> manager suggested that he delete them. Following
> are the definitions from the 10th edition (1990):
>
> counter-strategic 1. adj. Not the official policy.
> Applied to suggestions that one would like to ignore.
> “Not the basket in which IBM has placed its eggs.”
> 2. adj. Not the published official policy. That is,
> causing embarrassment to those who are responsible
> for what is strategic. (q.v.)
>
> strategic adj. Used to designate a major IBM product,
> to which IBM is prepared to commit significant
> resources. A project manager will do anything to
> get his or her product classified “strategic”.
>
> Only the word "embarrassment" reflects my definitions,
> but in a greatly watered-down version.
>
> After IBM handed its monopoly to Billg on a silver
> platter, they went through a near-death experience,
> from which they emerged as a leaner and more nimble
> company. (That's why I took the early retirement
> option -- it was the simplest way to continue doing
> what I wanted to do.)
>
> But unlike IBM and ATT, Microsoft has never produced
> any real innovations -- other than novel ways of
> driving their competitors out of business. At least
> IBM and ATT were famous for reliable products, but
> you can't say that for the current monopoly.
>
> John Sowa
Your analysis pits another patter in my heart. I remember
those years when I was a young new grad who wanted to do
great research, invent grand new ways of doing things that
no other great researcher could do. Right after BS years, I worked
for a government agency (remaining nameless) that sent me to
grad school and let me work full time on my dissertation, and
let me publish papers, so long as I didn't name the agency on my
papers, and I got so much new work done in those days. I have
never since been able to accomplish grand new designs, though
I have made much better economic progress without them.
Now my stepdaughter is dating a guy much like I used to be,
except he is in the newer, genetic technology that has just got
to be the coming thing. At present, there is no major market
leader that can afford to have researchers contributing to the
greater humanity concerns in genetic tech. But I'm sure there
will be one within the next dozen years.
You and I may have run our course, but we have the great pleasure
of watching the next generation struggle through the emotional
and egotistic battles we had to win. Monopolies or not, there
are human beings doing research wherever they can find the time,
the opportunity, and the conceptual novelty to stretch a wing.
-Rich