Hacker News Reader

Comment by Chiba-City | Hacker News Reader

There is nothing obviously wrong with copying things and nothing obvious right with "inventing" them first. DOS was not first but beat CPM. Microsoft even went on to PROMOTE its "fast follower" modus operandi. VC's seeking exits have very sound reasons for wanting something "first" and preferably "license protected." But those wins do not obviously confer to either nation states or even all industries or companies. Making things over and over for expanding markets is the best source of innovation. Any delusions of "labs" as "heads" and "making things" as "mere hands" are in fact pure delusions. [Edit: sp]

View on HN

Maybe not pure delusions! But I think you’re otherwise right. It’s slow to penetrate post-modern perspectives, so much that pointing it out seems to only confuse and slow us down. I think it’s sad. At this point, an American with the lab:factory perspective is met with a set of industries and personnel perfectly trained to that model, and scarce resources to undermine it if they choose to go against the grain (See Tesla’s uphill battles in manufacturing, not an isolated or perfect example but fits). We’re also likely to be surrounded with success stories of that model.

But, like you say, there is another way. It’s pretty tough to see the benefit of not looking for it, especially when comparing the pace of the outsourcing model. But, we ironically installed the artisan model in our nation’s individualist “doer” image of itself and spend a lot of effort talking around it. It’s proven time and time again in stories of history, art and innovation but it’s just a matter of a pendulum swing.

It probably depends on industry. It doesn't work so well in today's software, like Microsoft has proved. Also in industries with strong patents or with effective process secrets. And i'm not sure that way of thinking is effective in industries with network effects.

So what's left ? usually industries with low-margins. And afaik, that generally describes China.

First, it would certainly depend on as many sample variations we can find. Second, you are approaching tautological nonsense where patents and copyrights are nothing more than excuses for undeserved "outsized returns." Maybe that is true now or in countries with "first-to-file" patent regimes. There are no guarantees of ANY future outsized returns, no matter how much people might desire them. Low-margin might just equal "useful and fair."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com