Without new innovations, we would be living in caves. On a more modern note, New innovation is how the economy survives, how companies survive, and companies surviving is what brings in tax, and pays for pensions.NewAtlantis wrote:The economy scares me a lot.
New innovations come out. People get layoff. They can't pay off their mortgage, college, etc.
I agree in priciple but not the RPi but the ARM chip used has been evolving quietly, it has come to term in the mobile phone and the foundation has harnest some of that potential as a force to be given to our young generation.riffraff wrote:Think of the Pi itself as the equivalent of a 8080, Z-80 or 6502 in '70's generation machines. What will turn the market on it's head are the things that will be created with them.
Tell that to "RIM", er, ah "Blackberry". Apparently they didn't get the memo. Let's sit back and watch. I think they could fare a little better in the coming year than Microsoft or Apple ."Companies which made money out of technology which becomes obsolete do not necessarily adapt well to the business environment created by the new technologies."
Xerox didn't develop xerography. They bought it, patented it, left it in the cupboard for more than 20 years and were astonished to see it making loads of money when they finally decided to release it. Polaroid never developed anything new after the kludge they called instant photography.NewAtlantis wrote:"Companies that once revolutionized and dominated new industries – for example, Xerox in copiers or Polaroid in instant photography have seen their profits fall and their dominance vanish as rivals launched improved designs or cut manufacturing costs.
Companies don't adapt at all. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If they detect their downfall before it is too late, they might adapt. Most don't because they aren't led by inventors, or even people who understand technology. They are led by people who understand the shareholders' mindset. And that's dangerous. It creates nothing new, because creating means risk taking. Something shareholders want to avoid at all cost.In technology the cassette tape replaced the 8-track, only to be replaced in turn by the compact disc, which was undercut by MP3 players, which will in turn eventually be replaced by newer technologies. Companies which made money out of technology which becomes obsolete do not necessarily adapt well to the business environment created by the new technologies."
Linus Torvalds has a net worth of $150 million....sort of falls into my book as a multi-millionaire...you must have very high standards. Although he has proven you don't need to be a patent whore to make money.Jim JKla wrote: Linus Torvalds has shown the way forward.
OK Linux never made him a multi millionaire but he is globaly recognised as shown in his collection of part of the Millennium Technology Prize.
Never said he was not only that Linux was not the direct source of his wealth.Jim JKla wrote:Linux never made him a multi millionaire
Semantics at this point though. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's somewhat incorrect...Linux did make him money. Red Hat and VA Linux presented Torvalds with stock options in gratitude for the creation of Linux. In 1999, both companies went public and Torvalds' net worth shot up to roughly $20 million. Okay, maybe the money isn't from charging for the OS, but it was Linux that created a good portion of his wealth.Jim JKla wrote:Never said he was not only that Linux was not the direct source of his wealth.Jim JKla wrote:Linux never made him a multi millionaire