"While amazing, groundbreaking research is possible in academic computer science - the general lifecycle of research is some irrelevant poorly made prototype that ignores any number of real world concerns and leads to a couple of uninspired papers that noone reads."
I think there are probably some deeper factors at play in this. I think in most fields of computer science its hard to articulate the importance of the research in itself. That is I think my vague outsider view of Maths and Physics research is that its easier to quantify the significance research on its own. In CS I feel their is a stronger need for outside justification - that is this research will do x faster or better - but that research tends to be divorced from industry to the extent that it rarely contributes directly. Fundamentally there just isn't as much need for academia in lots of fields of CS - it doesn't take expensive equipment and its not so abstract that it can't be undertaken by a profit seeking concern. Add to that most universities want to take good research patent it and spin it off anyway, and you might as well just start a company and keep your equity.