When it comes to transportation (especially in Canada, where you have relatively long distances under relatively subobtimal road conditions), you need the support structure in place first.
This is a major problem in the Energy Companies/Car manufacturer loop. The Energy companies don't want to spend millions on setting up new infrastructure without any cars to use it, and the car manufacturers don't want to spend millions on developing a car that no one will buy because they can't fuel the thing. It's a serious catch-22.
Jon's example of the petrochemical industry is a shining example of the other side of the coin. In America, at least, those companies have a long tradition of assembling end-to-end collections of divisions and subsidiaries to control the entire operation. The result is a surprisingly efficient operation in which innovation is rewarded. That doesn't apply to many other industries that are more driven by the economics and politics of subcontracting and competition.
I think here we're seeing the difference between what the money comes from. For the oil industry, the cheaper you get your product and the more of it you get, the more you can sell and hence more money you make. This makes for a very competitive environment were new innovations that make the job of extraction and refinement cheaper, faster and more effective mean a boost in revenue and so are encouraged.
In the software industry we have an industry that relies on either people buying the latest wiz bang product, or supporting their old product. Since most companies don't like paying the massive licensing fees for new products every year, to get more money from them you have to do it through support, so the more support you can sell the more money. This encourages you to make sure that you're going to be able to sell the support and leads to an environment where the targeting is towards forcing people to require that support and pay for it.
|