What industry experience do you base that assessment on?

Engineering design and analysis support, but it seems to happen most often in the software product lines of any company. Oracle's business model, for example, is based largely on revenue streams from training and consulting in the use of its software products, which are intentionally kept relatively baroque and complex so as apparently to justify the need for the training and consulting. I was at Oracle for a couple years.

The specific example of self-stifled technology comes from the commercial satellite industry. And I have a colleague, two of whose companies (as in, he started them) were bought (one by IBM and another by, I believe, Sun) under the guise of acquiring his innovative and competitive intellectual property, but instead having it put on the shelf in favor of those large companies' exisiting products. This guy is one of the smartest engineers I know, but those experiences drove him out of the industry altogother. He now sells real estate.

It certainly does not match my experience in the petroleum and metal industries and the subsiduaries that service them.

I would tend to believe that. In my observation those industries tend to have a more private perspective, to "take care of their own," in a phrase, and do more in-house. They have a much older management and operational culture than many newer technology companies. Mineral companies get a bad rap, especially in the United States. But from both a technical and managerial standpoint, considering such things as safety and efficiency, they tend to be among the better run companies.

However, since various petrochemical companies are my customers, I would say you stand a better chance of being on the giving end of one of those companies' revenue streams, depending upon how carefully you investigate your vendors.

When you say it happens, but not as a general rule, would you say that it is rare, occasional, or common?

It varies according to which specific sin of the ones I mentioned are being contemplated. Larry Ellison built Oracle to the second-largest software company in the world on the principle of supplying a baroque, poorly-documented product and then charging people money to show them how to use it.

The saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." In the high-tech business world it continues, "Convince a man to pay you for fishing lessons and you're set for life too."

The other instances I would say are comparatively rare, but (as I said) common enough to notice. I certainly don't condone stifling innovation that way.

I would certainly agree that people people often don't appreciate that commerical factors are as critical in whether an innovation is accepted as the technical factors.

Absolutely. This extends from the situation where something is cool and employs an innovative principle, but won't be successul as a commercial product for various reasons, to the situation where technical merit is completely overlooked in favor of the continuing profit in doing it the wrong way.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I've heard and read about suppressed inventions for decades, such as the mythical device that you can bolt onto your car to make it run on water or instantly get 100 MPG. When actually tested (as was done on Mythbusters), these devices all turn out to be hoaxes and/or frauds. Seen another way, this could also be debunked by simple reasoning. Back in the 1970s when two events drove up the price of oil sharply (the 1973 OPEC oil embargo following the Yom Kippur War and the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1977 or 78). Gas prices doubled following each of these events. Millions of people suddenly became interested in buying more fuel efficient cars. The US automakers in the early 1970s had the Vega, the Pinto, and the Gremlin (winners all), so people started buying cars from funny sounding companies like Toyota, Honda, and Datsun (now Nissan). The US auto industry lost a lot of market share and has never regained it. At the time, GM was the biggest US corporation. I find it hard to believe that they would've willingly let their market share erode so the oil companies could make more money. If there were easy ways to increase mileage, they would've used them.

Then again, some rumored inventions don't look so good when you do a little basic math. For example: If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity.

Where I live, electricity costs about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, so $9 worth of electricity is roughly 90 kilowatt hours. To push that amount of electricity in 5 minutes, you'd need a system that would be sized to push 1080 kilowatts of electricity in an hour (90 * 12). Applying Ohm's law (Power = voltage * current), a voltage of 1080 volts would require a current of 1000 amps to carry 90 kilowatt/hours of electricity in 5 minutes. Personally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere in the area while that's going on.

If you sell someone a widget, you get the price of the widget. Once. If that person can use the widget without anyone's help, then you get nothing beyond the purchase price. But if that person needs your help using the widget, and can be persuaded to pay for that help, then you have not only the price of the widget but also the price of the support and consultation. Therefore there is a motivation in some circles to make products that are difficult to use and require ongoing support.

Which is as good an explaination for Microsoft's business plan as I've ever seen.

It would if you spelled it correctly. A Google search on +"hafnium-178" +"atomic weight" yields 29 hits.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Oracle's business model, for example, is based largely on revenue streams from training and consulting in the use of its software products, which are intentionally kept relatively baroque and complex so as apparently to justify the need for the training and consulting.

Having had the misfortune to have to work with Oracle, this makes a sad amount of sense. I've never been closer to an aneurysm than at that time.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

I always have wondered what happened to Starlite, the fire-retardant paint; I seem to remember seeing it on Tomorrow's World (BBC) long ago, but then it vanished, like so many of the other odd innovations on that show.

I remember seeing a show about Starlite. If it worked as advertised, it might have been bought up to keep it off the civilian market due to its military applications. For example, if Starlite worked as advertised, it would make it simple to develop reentry heat shields for long range missiles. Heat shields are a tough engineering challenge, so anything that made it easy could also make it easier for countries like North Korea or Iran to make long range missiles.

Again, if Starlite worked as advertised (and that's a big "if"), the inventor probably received a nice cash settlement and the technology is being applied to various weapons programs.

I think that is a lot of it. I also think, that a lot of these wizz-bang inventions turn out to have significant problems to commercialization and marketing. I think the thermoacoustic refrigeration is probably a good example - it is too noisy for most people to want in their house. I suspect many of these things have some sort of problem like that - too expense, the technology to make millions of them doesn't exist, some fatal flaw.

There is also the whole issue of retooling - I have seen this often with materials. Someone will come along with a new material that has a slight improvement in an important property (I've seen this a lot with piezoelectric and other electronic materials). The 10% improvement in whatever sounds great on grant proposals or in talks, but ulitimately, it is not worthwhile to redesign all of you circuits or components to work with the new material. It is only where the new material allows you to do something you couldn't do before - such as make the electronics work at a higher temperature - that you get any interest, and then usually only for those niche markets.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

My brother is an engineer at a fuel cell company in Vancouver. He is quite dissolusioned at the general public. He told me one of the major problems is that people are not willing to spend the extra money on things like fuel efficient cars. He was on a program which would provide hydrogen fuel cell for a home generator. It has been cancelled. I thought is was a great idea, but it didn't work, and no one showed interest in it. Some people would cry "conspiracy!!" They are keeping the technology from us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (note the number of exclamation marks)

Also, the generator couldn't get the required 40000 W to start an airconditioner compressor

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

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.

We're all for fuel efficient cars. But if we can't get them out of our driveways due to excessive cold / inability to get the thing maintained or refueled, then we can't buy. I can buy a gallon of gas, at will, without going further than a mile. I cannot buy a hydrogen cell. Period.

The Prius came out at about the same time I bought my Corolla. Know why I bought the Corolla? I couldn't get performance stats/reviews for deep winter conditions (-25C and below). I'd been with my old non-starting Topaz to know exactly what happens when a battery gets cold. And the Prius runs (in city conditions) on batteries. So, with all apologies to your friend, but 30 grand is a bit much when you don't know if the darn thing is going to run when the weather turns.

I went with the optimal choice. Reasonable performance/price, maintainable, works in the deep winter, decent fuel economy, and I can get fuel for it.

__________________

New! It combines the power of science with the gentleness of your mother's best intentions!
A new miracle technique, we apply homeopathic methods to achieve scientific efficaciousness
for dilutions WAY beyond Avogadro's Limit. It's New! It's Fresh!
It's Placebo^[tm] Brand Power Drink! *[Use as directed. May increase kidney function.]

Having had the misfortune to have to work with Oracle, this makes a sad amount of sense. I've never been closer to an aneurysm than at that time.

Instead of risking brain damage, you were supposed to pay Oracle's substantial training fees, or hire an Oracle-certified consultant.

The combination of baroque product and professional services is a common business model. Part of making that model work is keeping the product baroque, which does occasionally mean intentionally stifling innovation from within and exerting a damping influence (usually through legal or financial means) on minor competitors.

This works generally only market sectors that provide tools for other businesses and industries to do their jobs. It doesn't work in industries that supply end-user products such as refrigerators, or that supply raw or refined materials to other industries. No consumer will buy a refrigerator that requires him to spend a week at the manufacturer's site undergoing training at exorbitant expense. Similarly there's not very many ways in which you can complicate an I-beam or a liter of kerosene, and so there's not much opportunity there for a professional services revenue stream.

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I find it odd that while there is substantial agreement on the premise of this topic, each of the examples given by the OP has been hotly disputed by the other participants in the discussion.

I don't find it odd. There can be evidence for a certain frame of mind or general practice without there also being evidence that the general practice explains some other incidents.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think the most relevant sentence in the thread is "if it worked as advertised."

I think most of the "great innovations" you hear about sound great in press release but don't work in practice. I could be wrong about that; I certainly don't have the technical expertise to say. But it strikes me that, a lot of the time, the reason you hear a lot initially and then never again has to do with press release reporting. When it turns out that the thing doesn't work, it's not as exciting and therefore gets less ink. (Or fewer pixels, I suppose.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

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.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Thanks, CM - I realized my original spelling error and corrected the original yesterday.

Sorry for the confusion.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

And how, exactly, would these hardships affect this particular invention, particularly when people all over the planet, including (if not particular, due to the prevalence of block heater plugs at every parking spot in the northernmost hotels, like exist at the Holidrome (Holiday Inn) in North Dakota?)

The grid is alive and well. If you have to recharge in 5 minutes, then you'll probably pay a premium. Otherwise, it'll be an overnight deal, and will probably cost you roughly the going rate.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

[quote=Daffy;982072]Follow the money trail. Why would a corporation manufacture something that has less profit margin? [quote]

They don't make it. They buy up competing technologies which threaten their "cash cow" then sit on it for twenty years.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Which I do not necessarily contest. Nevertheless, there's a reason I posted this in the "Conspiracy Theories" thread...

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

I think here we're seeing the difference between what the money comes from.

Well, yes. What revenue stream can be built around a barrel of oil? Do you need my training to use it? Do you need an upgrade in six months? Do you need a phone number you can call when something goes wrong? No -- after you've bought a barrel of oil from me the only thing you'll want is another barrel of it.

But if you make a widget that purports to do something, you can make it hard to use. You can charge people money to teach them how to use it. You can create attachments that you sell at a premium, without which the widget is nearly useless. You can make it so the widget breaks after 5 years and requires replacement. You can make it so the things the widget services can only be manipulated with the widget, which you conveniently replace with a new version (to be sold at a premium) after the other one is discontinued. That's how software works, and it's how a lot of other stuff in engineering works too.

But I still maintain there is a very big difference between how the petrochemical industries are organized and how, say, aerospace is organized. Aerospace is based on contracts between companies that each tries to maximize its value in the deal, leading to strategies based on vendor-locking and maximizing profit at the expense of quality and innovation. Petrochemicals were the original trusts (e.g., Standard Oil) that basically controlled everything in their operational chain. Very efficient and appreciative of innovation, but not especially capitalistic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base