Economics of Technology – Page 44

Edison Was Great Inventor; “Jobs Was the Far Shrewder Businessman”

“Thomas Alva Edison.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

I have not read Stross’ books on Jobs and Edison. According to some of the Amazon reviews of the Jobs book, back in 1993 Stross was much more critical of Jobs than he is in the piece below:

(p. 4) I wrote a book about Mr. Jobs in 1993.
. . .
Years later, I wrote a biography of Edison, a person whom Mr. Jobs admired. When you compare the two personalities and their careers, a few similarities emerge immediately. Both had less formal schooling than most of their respective peers. Both possessed the ability to visualize projects on a grand scale. Both followed an inner voice when making decisions. And both had terrific tempers that could make their employees quake.
. . .
Mr. Jobs was the far shrewder businessman, even if he never talked about wealth as a matter of personal interest. When Edison died, he left behind an estate valued at about $12 million, or about $180 million in today’s dollars. His friend Henry Ford had once joked that Edison was “the world’s greatest inventor and the world’s worst businessman.” Mr. Jobs was worth a commanding $6.5 billion.
Mr. Jobs was perhaps the most beloved billionaire the world has ever known. Richard Branson’s tribute captures the way people felt they could identify with Mr. Jobs’s life narrative: “So many people drew courage from Steve and related to his life story: adoptees, college dropouts, struggling entrepreneurs, ousted business leaders figuring out how to make a difference in the world, and people fighting debilitating illness. We have all been there in some way and can see a bit of ourselves in his personal and professional successes and struggles.”

For the full commentary, see:
RANDALL STROSS. “The Power of Taking the Big Chance.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., October 9, 2011): 4.
(Note: online version of the commentary is dated October 8, 2011, and has the title “The Wizard and the Mortal: Two Sides of Genius.”)
(Note: in the print version, the same title, on the same page, was used as heading for two different articles on Steve Jobs–Lohr’s on the left side, and Stross’ on the right side.)

Stross’ books on Jobs and Edison are:
Stross, Randall E. Steve Jobs & the Next Big Thing. New York: Scribner Publishers, 1993.
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.

Alexander Field Claims 1930s Were “Technologically Progressive”

Source of book image: http://yalepress.yale.edu/images/full13/9780300151091.jpg

(p. 1) UNDERNEATH the misery of the Great Depression, the United States economy was quietly making enormous strides during the 1930s. Television and nylon stockings were invented. Refrigerators and washing machines turned into mass-market products. Railroads became faster and roads smoother and wider. As the economic historian Alexander J. Field has said, the 1930s constituted “the most technologically progressive decade of the century.”
. . .
(p. 6) The closest thing to a unified explanation for these problems is a mirror image of what made the 1930s so important. Then, the United States was vastly increasing its productive capacity, as Mr. Field argued in his recent book, “A Great Leap Forward.” Partly because the Depression was eliminating inefficiencies but mostly because of the emergence of new technologies, the economy was adding muscle and shedding fat. Those changes, combined with the vast industrialization for World War II, made possible the postwar boom.
In recent years, on the other hand, the economy has not done an especially good job of building its productive capacity. Yes, innovations like the iPad and Twitter have altered daily life. And, yes, companies have figured out how to produce just as many goods and services with fewer workers. But the country has not developed any major new industries that employ large and growing numbers of workers.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID LEONHARDT. “The Depression: If Only Things Were That Good.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., October 9, 2011): 1 & 6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: online version of the commentary is dated October 8, 2011.)

Book discussed:
Field, Alexander J. A Great Leap Forward: 1930s Depression and U.S. Economic Growth, Yale Series in Economic and Financial History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

Technology Allows Start-Ups to Launch with Fewer Employees

“Start-up BiteHunter launched with three employees. Above, co-founders Gil Harel, left, and Ido Shilon.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

Lower costs to entry means more start-ups and that means more innovation, ceteris paribus. All good. For the labor market, there will be fewer initial jobs per start-up. But there will be more start-ups, and more opportunity for erstwhile laborers to themselves become entrepreneurs. So maybe still all good.

(p. B5) New businesses are getting off the ground with nearly half as many workers as they did a decade ago, as the spread of online tools and other resources enables start-ups to do more with less.

The change, which began before the recession, may be permanent, according to some analysts.
. . .
Rather than purchasing the tools and manpower needed to run their companies, more small firms are renting, sharing or outsourcing resources, typically through online services, according to Steve King, a partner at Emergent Research, a research and consulting firm for small businesses.
. . .
Last year, Gil Harel launched BiteHunter, a search engine for restaurant discounts, with just three employees. Based in New York, the site used shared screens and other communications tools to work with developers in Russia, Uruguay and Israel.
“Just to build the infrastructure to get a business off the ground used to take a lot of money and people. But things that you couldn’t do in the past, you can now do on your own,” Mr. Harel says.

For the full story, see:
ANGUS LOTEN. “With New Technology, Start-Ups Go Lean; Web-Based Services Mean Fewer Workers Needed.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., September 15, 2011): B5.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Innovation Depends Less on R&D Spending and More on “Talent, Process, Execution and Strategy”

(p. B1) In the world of R&D spending, more doesn’t necessarily mean better. And R&D may not describe all the innovation that matters.
“I think the numbers are pretty useless,” says Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT’s Sloan School who has studied the subject. “What matters more is the kind of innovator you are. If it were really true that the people who spent the most on R&D were the most successful, we wouldn’t be subsidizing General Motors .”
“There’s no statistically significant relationship between how much a company spends on R&D and how they perform over time,” adds Barry Jaruzelski of Booz & Co. “There’s a set of people who just consistently seem to skin the cat better.”
. . .
(p. B2) Booz & Co. in 2007 listed the biggest global corporate spenders of R&D. The top 10 were Toyota, Pfizer, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens and IBM.
Then it drew up a second list, a group of companies it called “high-leverage innovators” that returned the best financial performance for every dollar spent on R&D. Booz screened for companies that, over the five previous years, outperformed industry peers across seven measures–including profit, sales growth, and shareholder return–while also spending less on R&D as a percentage of sales than the median in their industries.
No company from the first list made the second list. (Winners included Adidas, Apple, Exxon, Google, Kobe Steel, Samsung and Tenneco.)
That disconnect essentially hasn’t changed, says Mr. Jaruzelski. Winning at innovation “is all about talent, process, execution and strategy,” he says. “That’s given the U.S. a pretty strong advantage over time.”
“Technology,” he adds, “is not equal to innovation.”

For the full commentary, see:
JOHN BUSSEY. “THE BUSINESS; Myths of the Big R&D Budget.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., June 15, 2012): B1-B2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Larry Page on Tesla, Commerce, and Changing the World

Funding is a key constraint for the innovative project entrepreneur. By “project entrepreneur” I mean the innovator who views money as a means to achieving the project, and not as an end in itself. In this brief clip from Page’s 2007 AAAS talk, he discusses how as a 12 year-old reading Tesla’s autobiography he almost cried at how Tesla’s failure to commercialize his ideas limited his ability to change the world.

The Tesla autobiography is:
Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla. SoHo Books, 2012.

Web Expedites Labor Market for Small Projects

“Liz Langer helped John Burks retrieve his keys.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) A new crop of websites and smartphone applications are allowing people to farm out chores to a growing army of temporary personal assistants. These micro-employees are taking the division of labor to once-unthinkable extremes.
. . .
(p. A14) Some investors see dollar signs. Zaarly Inc., an online marketplace for micro-labor and goods based in San Francisco, recently raised $14.1 million from Google Inc. GOOG -2.18% investor and venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Actor Ashton Kutcher and clothing designer Marc Ecko have also put in money. In October, Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Meg Whitman joined the company’s board.
After launching six months ago, Zaarly is processing more than 1,000 transactions a week for jobs that cost around $50 a pop. Chief Executive and cofounder Bo Fishback, 33, says about half the requests involve tangible goods, and the rest involve some sort of service. One of his favorites: a person who hired someone to buy a Michael Jackson-themed dog costume for a puppy.
Sometimes the situation can be dire. John Burks, a 30-year-old actor who also runs an arts organization in Chicago, accidentally dropped his keys in a sewer during a rainstorm over the summer. To replace all the keys–including ones to his home, office and Mercedes–could cost well over $100.
After Googling “lost keys down sewer” to see what tactics others had used, Mr. Burks thought he could recover his keys with a fishing rod and a magnet, but had neither. His girlfriend at the time knew someone who worked at Zaarly, so he posted the job on its site. Liz Langer, a 27-year-old neuroscience graduate student and top Zaarly “fulfiller,” spotted the job and within an hour arrived with the needed tools. Fifteen minutes later, they fished the keys out of the sewer. (Price: $80.)
“It’s like stranger than fiction,” Mr. Burks says. “I thought there was a very small chance that anything like that can happen.”

For the full story, see:
EMILY GLAZER. “Serfing the Web: Sites Let People Farm Out Their Chores; Workers Choose Jobs, Negotiate Wages; Mr. Kutcher, Anonymously, Asks for Coffee.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., November 28, 2011): A1 & A14.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“Why Would I Ever Need 10 Floppy Disks?”

Steven Johnson’s early The Ghost Map is a wondrous story of a courageous medical entrepreneur who fairly single-handedly changes accepted wisdom on a hugely important issue (what causes disease). Steven Johnson’s recent Where Ideas Come From provides a mechanical account that attributes new ideas to the inevitable exploration of “the adjacent possible,” leaving little room for the great innovative entrepreneur.
It takes guts to contradict one’s most recent book, and to contradict it so eloquently. So please join me in welcoming back the Steven Johnson of The Ghost Map:

(p. C3) In the fall of 1986, during the first week of my freshman year of college, my cousin took me to the university computer store to help me buy my first Macintosh. The Mac platform was two years old at that point, and Apple had just released a new machine called the Mac Plus that featured a then-staggering 1 megabyte of RAM. (In today’s mileage, that would be just enough memory to store the first few verses of a Katy Perry song.) But the Mac did not yet offer a hard drive, and so my more tech-savvy cousin told me to buy a 10-pack of floppy disks as well.

I looked at him with astonishment. I was an art kid, not a techie. I needed a computer to write plays and short stories and term papers. The computer was just a tool, nothing more. “Why would I ever need 10 floppy disks?” I asked. “I just need one disk for my Microsoft Word files.” My cousin smiled, knowing full well where I was headed. “Just buy the disks. Trust me.”
He was right, of course, and to this day whenever I call him up to tell him about my latest computer purchase, with its terabytes of storage and gigabytes of memory, he laughs and says, “Just one disk. That’s all I need.”
. . .
The genius of famous innovators and CEOs is often exaggerated: Most fortunes are built on good fortune as much as sheer brilliance, and invention is a collaborative art. But there is no contesting the fact of Steve Jobs’s genius–just a debate about its defining qualities.
I worry that we miss something in hailing him as either a master salesman or a master designer, though he is clearly both. His real gift, from an early age, has been the ability to see that these two worlds could, and should, productively collide. It isn’t just that he made computers cool or put them in pretty boxes. It’s that he put those computers in new conceptual boxes. A machine originally designed for processing equations and building bombs turned out to have a wonderful hidden potential: for song, laughter, poetry, community, family.
. . .
When I heard the news that he was stepping down from Apple, the image that flashed in my head was of a kid in a computer store trying to save a few bucks by skimping on floppy disks. I suspect my own story is not so unusual. There is, on the one hand, the simple, factual accounting of it: Steve Jobs persuaded me to buy a lot more than 10 disks over the years. But the other hand is so much more interesting: all the wonderful, unexpected things that he got me to put on those disks.

For the full commentary, see:
STEVEN JOHNSON. “THE GENIUS OF JOBS; Marrying Tech and Art; Steven Johnson on the magic of his first Mac–and how it changed his life.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., August 27, 2011): C3.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Steve Jobs Showed that Art and Commerce Could Be “Happy Bedfellows”

Gary Oldman. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 2) Gary Oldman is an English actor . . . widely known for his roles as Sirius Black in the “Harry Potter” film series and Jim Gordon in the Batman movies.
. . .
READING Right now I’m reading the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson. I love when people have a singleness of purpose and don’t get dissuaded. I can connect with that. I can recognize it. I think a lot of artists have that. Art and commerce are not particularly happy bedfellows, but he was the exception.
I read quite a lot of biographies. I like nonfiction. The other book I’m carrying around with me at the moment is “River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West” by Rebecca Solnit. It deals with the 19th century and the arrival of speed with the coming of the industrial age. We were very much governed by nature before; we were at the mercy of our own speed and horses and the like. It’s interesting to think of living at that pace.

For the full interview, see:
KATE MURPHY. “DOWNLOAD; Gary Oldman.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., February 5, 2012): 2.
(Note: ellipses added; bold in original.)
(Note: online version of the interview is dated February 4, 2012.)

Our Cups Will Runneth Over If We Choose Entrepreneurship, Imagination, Will and Optimism

Source of book image: http://www.abundancethebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cover-NYTimes-3d-500.jpg?139d23

(p. 18) in Silicon Valley, where the locals tend to be too busy starting companies to wallow in gloom, Peter Diamandis has stood out as one of the more striking optimists. Several years ago, Diamandis founded the X Prize Foundation, which rewards entrepreneurs with cash for achieving difficult goals, like putting a reusable spaceship into flight on a limited budget. More recently he helped start Singularity University, an academic program that convenes several weeks a year in the Valley and educates business leaders about the “disruptive” — i.e., phenomenally innovative — technological changes Diamandis is anticipating. To be sure, Diamandis is both very bright (he studied molecular biology and aerospace engineering at M.I.T. before getting an M.D. at Harvard) and well informed. Moreover, he’s not the kind of optimist who will merely see the glass as half full. He’ll give you dozens of reasons, some highly technical, why it’s half full. Then he’ll explain that your cognitive biases are tricking you into seeing the glass of water in a negative light, and cart out the research of acclaimed psychologists like Daniel Kahneman to prove his point. Finally he may suggest you stop fretting: new technologies will soon fill the glass up anyway. Indeed, they are likely to overfill it.
. . .
(p. 19) Throughout the book Diamandis . . . offers small groups of driven entrepreneurs as a kind of Leatherman solution to the world’s problems. It’s true that plenty of insurgents are doing impressive things out there — Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors, which helped jump-start the world’s electric car industry, is a good example.
. . .
. . . , there’s a significant idea embedded within “Abundance”: We should remain aware, as writers like Jared Diamond have likewise told us, that societies can choose their own future, and thus their own fate. In that spirit Diamandis and Kotler put forth a range of possible goals we may achieve if we have the imagination and the will. A little optimism wouldn’t hurt, either.

For the full review, see:
JON GERTNER. “Plenty to Go Around.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., April 1, 2012): 18 & 19.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 30, 2012.)

The book under review is:
Diamandis, Peter H., and Steven Kotler. Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. New York: Free Press, 2012.

Even with Subsidies and High Gas Prices, Electric Cars Cost More

(p. 12) The Ford Focus Electric has a base price of $39,995 — minus a $7,500 federal tax credit and a $2,500 rebate in California. That puts its tab at $30,000, some $7,000 above the upscale Focus Titanium. I can hear the electric naysayers exclaiming “Aha! You won’t make back the savings at the pumps.” That’s despite $4 gasoline, and the Focus Electric’s 110 m.p.g. equivalent rating.
But when buying any new car, especially an innovative model of any kind, emotions, aesthetics and externalities eclipse economics.

For the full story, see:
BRADLEY BERMAN. “BEHIND THE WHEEL; 2012 FORD FOCUS ELECTRIC; The Battery-Driven Car Just Got a Lot More Normal.” The New York Times, SportsSunday (Sun., May 6, 2012): 12.
(Note: online version of the story is dated May 4, 2012.)