Academics: Why it's faster, more lucrative, and fun to do startups
academicproductivity.com
academicproductivity.com
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6200&page=6
Bottom line: you have to invest in research because you know it will pay off. But it is impossible to say exactly how or when it will pay off. The only kind of institution that can support that kind of investment is government or large (probably monopolistic) corporations.
Most companies care about their employees, and care about their work. They aren't trying to get every $ they can.
Well-funded government labs can do R&D because they're in a low-risk position and can take the long view. A government researcher is going to keep his job regardless of whether his findings contribute to the immediate P&L, so he's able to pursue research projects that are unlikely to pay off in the short term.
Contrary to the common slight against government regarding innovation, government research projects can be highly innovative and useful. As for CEOs claiming that R&D departments are less innovative than private-sector executives, well... they're CEOs, so of course they're going to be immensely biased in favor of their own kind. Their definition of innovation is based on what they recognize as innovation, so of course most of them will underappreciate the long-term-oriented contributions of R&D.
The problem with academia, though, is that it has the worst of both worlds. It's bureaucratic and stuffy, moreso than most government research labs, but the level of risk (career death) for the aspiring professor is intolerably high, meaning that high-risk research projects are unpalatable. Academia's a sinking ship, and no longer a viable career for more than a handful of people per year. I hate to say it, but academia's best days are almost three decades behind it, by this point.
I've given this topic some thought recently. Academia has it's problems, but what I do like is that I can work on things that are interesting and useful, but not necessarily profitable.
How can something be useful without being profitable? I do research in systems and high performance. In theory, the software we create could be sold. Some startups exist that do just that - Cilk Arts and RapidMind are two examples. But I'm skeptical of their viability; companies that exists solely to sell compilers rarely do well.
The kind of research I do is valuable to companies, but rarely as something to sell on its own. Intel, for example, does research in programming models for emerging architectures not because they want to sell that software, but because they need it so programmers can use the processors they do sell.
Fortunately, many schools do support startups (financially, even) coming out of their grad schools. I haven't noticed any discussion on the success of this kind of support versus traditional VC, but it makes lots of sense for a grad student to turn a thesis project into a startup immediately after graduation.
Take the face recognition thing that Apple just announced. OK, that one came from a corporation, but one with lots of money. I think for a startup it would have been difficult to say "let's create a startup about face recognition in photos" because until recently, no sufficiently good method for doing it was known.