Innovation & Entrepreneurship

Even Chinese Communists Understand the Fundamental “Law of Disruption”

by on September 8, 2011 · 4 comments

I’ve reviewed many tech policy books here over the years, but have only found myself in agreement with a couple of titles. One of my favorites is “The Laws of Disruption” by fellow TLF co-blogger Larry Downes.  [My short review is here]  Larry does a terrific job documenting the technological forces (or “laws” as he calls them) that our reshaping the modern economy.

The fundamental law of disruption he identifies is: “Technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally.” Downes says this law is “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life” and that it will have profound implications for the way businesses, government, and culture evolve going forward. “As the gap between the old world and the new gets wider,” he argues, “conflicts between social, economic, political, and legal systems” will intensify and “nothing can stop the chaos that will follow.”  He’s exactly right and I’ll be elaborating on that “law” in more detail in a new paper with Jerry Brito as well as in my next book, which I’m finishing up currently.

Anyway, with Larry’s “law” in mind, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I was reading this Reuter‘s summary of a recent editorial from the People’s Daily, the main newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party. The commentary lambasted the Internet, social networking technologies, and online culture. It contained this gem of quote that proves the Chinese government has a firm grasp of the Law of Disruption: “We have failed to take into sufficient account just how much the Internet is a double-edged sword, and have a problem of allowing technology to advance while administration and regulation lag.” Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

The Spectrum Argument Lives, Debunking Letter-Gate, and Why the DOJ Is Still Wrong to Try to Stop the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

by on September 2, 2011 · 615 comments

Milton Mueller responded to my post Wednesday on the DOJ’s decision to halt the AT&T/T-Mobile merger by asserting that there was no evidence the merger would lead to “anything innovative and progressive” and claiming “[t]he spectrum argument fell apart months ago, as factual inquiries revealed that AT&T had more spectrum than Verizon and the mistakenly posted lawyer’s letter revealed that it would be much less expensive to expand its capacity than to acquire T-Mobile.”  With respect to Milton, I think he’s been suckered by the “big is bad” crowd at Public Knowledge and Free Press.  But he’s hardly alone and these claims — claims that may well have under-girded the DOJ’s decision to step in to some extent — merit thorough refutation.

To begin with, LTE is “progress” and “innovation” over 3G and other quasi-4G technologies.  AT&T is attempting to make an enormous (and risky) investment in deploying LTE technology reliably and to almost everyone in the US–something T-Mobile certainly couldn’t do on its own and something AT&T would have been able to do only partially and over a longer time horizon and, presumably, at greater expense.  Such investments are exactly the things that spur innovation across the ecosystem in the first place.  No doubt AT&T’s success here would help drive the next big thing–just as quashing it will make the next big thing merely the next medium-sized thing.

The “Spectrum Argument”

The spectrum argument that Milton claims “fell apart months ago” is the real story here, the real driver of this merger, and the reason why the DOJ’s action yesterday is, indeed, a blow to progress.  That argument, unfortunately, still stands firm.  Even more, the irony is that to a significant extent the spectrum shortfall is a product of the government’s own making–through mismanagement of spectrum by the FCC, political dithering by Congress, and local government intransigence on tower siting and co-location–and the notion of the government now intervening here to “fix” one of the most significant private efforts to make progress despite these government impediments is really troubling.

Anyway, here’s what we know about spectrum:  There isn’t enough of it in large enough blocks and in bands suitable for broadband deployment using available technology to fully satisfy current–let alone future–demand.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 615 comments

Vivek Wadhwa on High-Tech’s “Best Regulator”

by on July 8, 2011 · 7 comments

Vivek Wadhwa, who is affiliated with Harvard Law School and is director of research at Duke University’s Center for Entrepreneurship, has a terrific column in today’s Washington Post warning of the dangers of government trying to micromanage high-tech innovation and the Digital Economy from above.

For reasons I have never been able to understand, the Washington Post uses different headlines for its online opeds versus its print edition. That’s a shame, because while I like the online title of Wadhwa’s essay, “Uncle Sam’s Choke-Hold on Innovation,” the title in the print edition is better: “Google, Twitter and the Best Regulator.” By “best regulator” Wadhwa means the marketplace, and this is a point we have hammered on here at the TLF relentlessly: Contrary to what some critics suggest, the best regulator of “market power” is the market itself because of the way it punishes firms that get lethargic, anti-innovative, or just plain cocky. Wadhwa notes:

The technology sector moves so quickly that when a company becomes obsessed with defending and abusing its dominant market position, countervailing forces cause it to get left behind. Consider: The FTC spent years investigating IBM and Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices, yet it wasn’t government that saved the day; their monopolies became irrelevant because both companies could not keep pace with rapid changes in technology — changes the rest of the industry embraced. The personal-computer revolution did IBM in; Microsoft’s Waterloo was the Internet. This — not punishment from Uncle Sam — is the real threat to Google and Twitter if they behave as IBM and Microsoft did in their heydays.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 7 comments

Russ Roberts on ‘Why Technology Doesn’t Destroy Jobs’

by on June 22, 2011 · 3 comments

You wouldn’t think that policymakers need to be reminded that technological progress raises living standards and creates new (and better) employment opportunities. Alas, some comments President Obama made in a speech last week seemed to link technology to job losses. “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” he said. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

In an essay in today’s Wall Street Journal, one of my Mercatus Center colleagues Russ Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University, brilliantly deconstructs this logic and points out why technology doesn’t destroy jobs:

Somehow, new jobs get created to replace the old ones. Despite losing millions of jobs to technology and to trade, even in a recession we have more total jobs than we did when the steel and auto and telephone and food industries had a lot more workers and a lot fewer machines.

Why do new jobs get created? When it gets cheaper to make food and clothing, there are more resources and people available to create new products that didn’t exist before. Fifty years ago, the computer industry was tiny. It was able to expand because we no longer had to have so many workers connecting telephone calls. So many job descriptions exist today that didn’t even exist 15 or 20 years ago. That’s only possible when technology makes workers more productive.

Read the whole thing. Great stuff.

SHARE: 3 comments

3D Printing: The Future is Here

by on June 10, 2011 · 649 comments

Have you heard about 3D printing yet? Bre Pettis, founder of Makerbot, a company that sells a $1300 home 3D printer, was Wednesday night’s guest on the The Colbert Report. And back in April, Public Knowledge kicked off what’s sure to be a long public debate over the legal and policy questions raised by 3D printing with a half-day conference here in D.C.

Also called “additive manufacturing,” 3D printing is the process of “printing” a three-dimensional object layer-by-layer with equipment that’s not much different from ink-jet printers. Combine 3D printing with 3D scanning and you’ve got the first real step towards something that seems at first like total science fiction: A Star Trek replicator.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 649 comments

Turns out Apple’s walled garden susceptible to market pressure and political pressure

by on June 9, 2011 · 3 comments

A couple of news items this week have vindicated some opinions I’d previously expressed here, and they’re all about Apple, so how can I can pass up the opportunity to note them, right?

A while back [I wrote](http://techliberation.com/2010/11/04/how-closed-is-apple-anyway/) that as long as iOS devices had a standards-compliant browser, innovation would be safe:

>Apple has come under fire by some supporters of an open internet and open software platforms such as Jonathan Zittrain and Tim Wu, who argue that Apple’s walled garden approach to devices and software will lead us to a more controlled and less innovative world. In particular, they point to the app store and Apple’s zealous control over what apps consumers are allowed to purchase and run on their devices. Here’s the thing, though: Every Apple device comes with a web browser. A web browser is an escape hatch from Apple’s walled garden. And Apple has taken a backseat to no one in nurturing an open web.

This week comes word that the Financial Times, unhappy with having to give Apple a 30% cut of it’s subscription revenues, [has dropped its iOS app in favor of a web app](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/financial-times-wont-give-apple-a-cut-drops-ios-for-web-app/). Read the story; it’s quite interesting. As far as I can tell, the web app, written in cutting edge HTML5, is as good as the native app.

The second piece of news is that [Apple has quietly backed down](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/) from its controversial requirement that an in-app newspaper or magazine subscription be the “same price or less than it is offered outside the app”. “Apple also removed the requirement that external subscriptions must be also offered as an in-app purchase.”

What this tells me is that the market works, and when companies make boneheaded moves, they can’t force users or publishers to go along with it by sheer will. Back when the subscription issue was blowing up I wrote that [Apple did not have the market power](http://techliberation.com/2011/02/21/is-apples-digital-subscription-plan-good-or-bad-for-consumers/) to make this stick:

>Digital publishing is very much a contestable market. I hardly need to point out that the day after Apple’s announcement, [Google made public](http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20032217-1.html) its own very competitive subscription service. And while the iPad is ahead of the game right now, Android tablets are only now beginning to hit the market. If [declining iPhone market share](http://thenextweb.com/apple/2010/02/01/iphone-shedding-market-share-increasingly-competitive-market/) is any indication, Android will nip at Apple’s heels in the tablet space as well. And let’s not forget other formidable (and somewhat-formidable) competitors in the likes of HP’s WebOS, Microsoft-Nokia, and RIM.

Let’s now talk about the real threat to app innovation. There’s news today that Apple has finally [caved in to political pressure](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/apple-will-reject-d-u-i-checkpoints-apps/) from members of Congress and banned DUI checkpoint apps from the app store. RIM had already complied, and Google has yet to respond. You can see, though, how apps are more susceptible to nanny state meddling than to monopolization.

SHARE: 3 comments

Apple’s iCloud Strategy: Lock-In or Consumer Convenience?

by on June 8, 2011 · 2 comments

Wired’s Brian Chen writes today about the “damage” caused to Apple’s competitors and there own developers by products announced at yesterday’s WWDC keynote, making several claims that are bit dubious, the most suspect of which was this claim about Apple’s new cloud-focused trio:

Now, here’s why iCloud, iOS 5 and Lion pack such a deadly punch against so many companies: Together, they strengthen Apple’s lock-in strategy with vertical integration.

While I don’t doubt that Apple is indeed going to deal a very deadly punch to many competitors with their version of cloud computing for consumers, I think using the term “lock-in” is going to far.  True lock-in would mean driving consumers down a one-way street where their data can’t be moved to another platform (think Facebook prior to late last year) or driving up switching costs through cancellation fees ala the telecom industry.  Apple, on the other hand, is offering consumers a truly compelling user experience, not holding them hostage.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 2 comments

San Francisco backs off controversial cell phone radiation ordinance

by on May 10, 2011 · 4 comments

San Francisco, often the breeding ground for “interesting” public policy proposals, decided recently to back off its mandate the would have required retailers of cell phones to label them with radiation levels and pass out material explaining the level of SAR in each device (SAR= Specific Absorption Rate).

This has not been done anywhere else and faced stiff opposition from the wireless industry, which filed suit against the ordinance last year.

We’ve commented on the ridiculous nature of this ordinance before. Suffice to say, in the year since this issue hit, there has still been no evidence offered that cell phones pose any sort of carcinogenic threat. This great piece in the NY Times Magazine goes into more detail on the problems of testing this hypothesis but also highlights the common error of confusing causality with coincidence. The author’s main point: Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

UK report’s “resiliency” sure looks a lot like “anticipation”

by on May 10, 2011 · 0 comments

A UK government report issued this week warns that climate change, in addition to threatening many different parts of everyday life, also threatens the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry. The report, available online, warns that regulatory measures have to be taken to lessen the threat of rising temperatures and stormy weather, which would have adverse effects on the radio waves that constitute communications technology.

Specifically, the report’s authors assume that rising temperatures and rainy storms will interfere with radio waves. This assumes that that the aforementioned rising temperatures and rainy storms are indeed a foregone conclusion. For the sake of argument, let’s assume they are correct.

The study mentions that rising temperatures will cause cell towers to lose efficiency, but nothing in the document backs this up. Making such a claim requires scientific data but nothing was offered. A skeptical person reading this report may think, anecdotally, that cell towers are sited in all sorts of conditions all over the globe, taking into account varying temperatures in which they operate. Cell towers sited in Alaska are probably able to handle the extreme cold, otherwise the cell provider would not waste money placing it there. Likewise, a cell tower sited in Arizona would need to take into account the 100 degree+ temperature. And at last count, wireless service is available in both Alaska and Arizona. Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Revisiting the Bitcoin bubble

by on April 25, 2011 · 12 comments

Here is [a chart](http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg180ztgCzm1g10zm2g25) of the Bitcoin-dollar exchange rate for the past six months. The arrow notes the date [my column on the virtual currency](http://techland.time.com/2011/04/16/online-cash-bitcoin-could-challenge-governments/) was published in TIME.com. The day after that piece was published, the Bitcoin exchange rate [reached an all time high at $1.19](http://www.bitcoinnews.com/post/4703632837/daily-2011-04-17). Yesterday, just over a week later, [it was pushing $2](http://www.bitcoinnews.com/post/4897524633/daily2011-04-24).

A wiser fella than myself once said, correlation is not causation, and no doubt my article was just a contributing factor in Bitcoin’s recent run-up. It’s simply getting increasingly mainstream attention, and with that more speculators and speculation about mainstream adoption. The chart above lends a lot of credence to Tim Lee’s [bubble critique](http://timothyblee.com/2011/04/18/the-bitcoin-bubble/), so I wanted to make sure I wasn’t giving that argument short shrift.

There may well be a Bitcoin bubble, and it may even be likely. But again, I think that misses the greater point about what Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin may be tulips and the bubble may burst, but the innovation—distributed, anonymous payments—is here to stay. Napster went bust, but its innovation presaged BitTorrent, which is here to stay. Could the Bitcoin project itself go bust? Certainly, but the innovation solving the double-spending problem I’ve been talking about, will be taken up and improved by others, just as other picked up and ran with Napster’s innovation.

I want to start thinking through the practical and legal implications of that innovation. If you don’t think the innovation could ever allow for a useful store of value, then mine is a fool’s errand. I guess I’m betting on the success of a censorship resistant currency.

SHARE: 12 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →