Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is tangential to the main point of the article, but this concluding sentence annoyed me greatly:

> Governments are generally better at supporting companies in established markets where innovation takes place slowly and incrementally. This is likely why state-backed efforts have found it easier to be competitive against aerospace companies than Silicon Valley giants working at breakneck pace

I always finds it fascinating that companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon or Microsoft (granted the later isn't a “silicon valley giant” proper) managed to build a narrative portraying themselves as “innovative companies” when they are the opposite of that: they are, and have been for almost two decades now or even more for Microsoft, very close to the complacent and short-term-profit-maximizer Boeing portrayed in this article.

They just happen to benefit from a much stronger network effect than Boeing, and work in a business where economies of scale are insane.



When you really think of those companies they mostly seem stagnant. They buy other companies, but for innovative company with essentially unlimited amounts of resources. Wouldn't you expect a big innovation at least say every other year?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: