Hacker News Reader

Comment by julianpye | Hacker News Reader

My former boss (CTO of Panasonic) once told me that the only way to do real R&D is to have a monopoly that allows you to hide the margins in cutting edge R&D. Everyone else was doing just product development.

Google X is amazing in that it is about the only one left doing true bluesky R&D. Everyone else is just doing product development.

View on HN

> Google X is amazing in that it is about the only one left doing true bluesky R&D. Everyone else is just doing product development.

That is quite wrong, really. There are many industrial research labs that are pursuing 'bluesky' research, in pretty much all sectors, including computer science, EE, chemistry, pharmacology, etc. Just to name a few, Mitisubishi Electric Research Labs (MERL), IBM Almaden/New York/Zurich, Microsoft Research, traditional pharma companies, traditional chemicals/materials companies, GE Global Research, etc. all have 'blueskies' agendas to varying extents.

Just because there are research labs, it doesn't mean that they are doing truly free blue-sky research. Lots of the labs you mention have very antiquated IPR focus, especially Mitsubishi and IBM. And as an example, Almaden still feels closer to the lair of a a James Bond enemy in the 60s than a free spirited R&D lab.

If nothing, at least IBM's radio astronomy effort should count as 'bluesky' research literally and figuratively speaking,

https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/37361.wss

Re: "And as an example, Almaden still feels closer to the lair of a a James Bond enemy in the 60s than a free spirited R&D lab."

It does look that way. You drive in the front gate, and go along a winding road through pastures for about half a mile before reaching the big glass buildings on a hilltop overlooking a huge park. The view from the cafeteria is spectacular. That's what people thought research centers should be like in the 1960s.

Today, it's a shadow of what it once was. I happened to be there the day IBM exited the disk drive business. Major layoffs followed. It's sad.

IBM employees have won five Nobel Prizes. The last one was in 1987.

If IBM's Watson does not count as "free blue-sky" AI research, I don't know what else counts.

http://youtu.be/P18EdAKuC1U?t=2m20s

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=an+acco...

Funnily, Google completes my phrase "an account of the principalities of wallachia and moldavia inspired this author's famous novel" but is completely clueless.

As the other poster said, Google seems to be winning the advertising game (after all that is how they make $).

IBM's Watson is about the level of research that Google or Microsoft do in their regular research labs - i.e., it definitely has a longer-term scope, and it's reasonable to expect that investments in this area will pay off in the next 10-15 years rather than 2-3 years as with normal product development.

It is not blue-sky research, though: it's pretty clear what the value proposition is, who the (potential) customers are, etc.; IBM just put on the publicity upfront with their "winning Jeopardy!" grand challenge to put themselves on the map in a space that is currently dominated by small boutique companies and a very limited numbers of bigger players such as Thomson-Reuters and (partly) Nuance.

Which means that IBM will have an easier time selling to existing enterprise customers who want to get in on this "big data" thing using text analytics (and, frankly, it's also good advertising for their existing data analytics business).

"It is not blue-sky research,"

As someone who dwells in AI/Machine Learning for a living, let me tell you: Watson is the most extreme blue sky research out there. It happens to have a customer base that intersects with IBM's current base. Why should this be a diminishing factor?

Google's blue sky research is also ultimately for customers. IBM is good at actually selling its research as products. No company does anything for truly altruistic reasons. If so, Google would be spending billions of particle accelerators.

http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/info/news_ibm_help_cern.ht...

> Watson is the most extreme blue sky research out there

Do you mean it is the most blue sky research being done in the field of AI by large companies? Even if it was closest to blue sky research being done in machine learning by large tech companies, that really doesn't automatically mean that it is blue sky research.

> It happens to have a customer base that intersects with IBM's current base

The definition of blue sky research is "research without any clear path to a product". It isn't diminishing the importance of research to say that it is blue sky (in fact many people would argue the opposite). Watson was already being touted for an actual product launch by the time that it was on Jeopardy.

What would an example be from, say, Google?

I don't know that Google has too much blue sky research itself. I guess maybe something that Kurzweil is up to, have they released anything about him?

I guess probably anything that Hinton was hired for which is more fundamental neural network research, maybe the cat recognizing neural network research they did on youtube video?

Also, just because there is no research labs doesn't mean employees aren't allowed to do some blue-sky research.

IBM absolutely does not pursue bluesky research anymore. (I was part of IBM Watson Research)

Basically all research is tied to some sanely forseeable bottom line item.

Microsoft killed their Microsoft Research Silicon Valley lab last week. It's not at all clear at the moment what the future of blue sky research is at Microsoft.

>only way to do real R&D is to have a monopoly that allows you to hide the margins in cutting edge R&D

This idea is from Joseph Schumpeter. The same guy who coined the phrase "creative destruction."

What about Microsoft Research?

http://www.eweek.com/it-management/microsoft-lays-off-2100-c...

what about them?

According to your link, there were 75 people at that lab. Microsoft Research has over 800 people:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/catalog/default.aspx?t=pe...

That headline is confusingly worded, but Microsoft only laid off 50-75 people in one MSR location. That was far from the entire division: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/labs/default.aspx

That's not all. There are other parts being shutdown too - Robotics apparently https://twitter.com/AshleyFen/status/513392391467048960

Well that's the second time then! I was working with the Robotics team when they got seriously downsized a few years ago.

(This might be a different robotics team, who knows!)

Still, probably proportionally less layoffs in MSR than the rest of the company overall during these cuts. The insinuation was that Microsoft is shuttering Research entirely, which is very far from true.

I think the insinuation is the Microsoft Research is beholden to business drivers, and therefore not truly 'free, blue-sky' research.

That doesn't seem unfair, given the layoffs.

I read the comment "what about them?" along with the poorly headlined link, as insinuating that Microsoft Research was being shut down. If someone thought that Silicon Valley was their main lab or didn't know either way, that headline would easily give the mistaken impression that Microsoft was canning the whole endeavor. My apologies to rasz_pl if I mistook his/her meaning.

For what it's worth, MSR historically hasn't been beholden to find commercial applications for their work. If anything, it's usually disappointing how much really cool stuff they come up with that isn't ever productized in an accessible way.

I heard an old timer describe it well ... true research needs to be altruistic. Today, I think this can only be done through govt sponsorship. In places like Canada, my impression is that even the stewards who dole out govt funding have forgotten what true research means. They dole out money for commercializing innovation, which is not research by definition. From what I've heard from other scientists, the US is doing a better job. They are focusing their research dollars on 'promising' areas. This isn't as bluesky but at least it is research.

That would be the point of government investment in research though - to drive commercial advantage in their country. Everyone in governmenthas an agenda; there's no free money. That leaves insanely wealthy companies or individuals with an altruistic bent to drive free research.

Oracle's Labs division does a mix of fundamental research and very long term product development. One way to tell how much fundamental research a company is doing is to see how much partnering they do with universities and DAPRA, although not all companies may advertise much about these partnerships.

> Everyone else is just doing product development.

I believe IBM still does quite a bit of fundamental research as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com