|
I have voted for 2nd but had exactly similar thoughts on my mind about bigger organizations...
Their size provide them with cushion as well as resources to do something new and innovative... to take risk... but then at the same time many of them get tied up with a pre-defined line of thought and thus restricted (example... How Microsoft killed its courier tablet)... whereas an individual or a small group have to take risk to make their mark which make them more open to thoughts and ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Naerling wrote: I'd say GOG.com[^] is innovative and they confess they have the ability to be so because they are big, have a large network and financial certainty.
And GOG.com is inspired by Steam[^] from the rich and famous Valve Corporation.
Well, GOG isn't that innovative then, if they're an iteration of Steam.
Steam may be big now, but started much smaller - and was innovative at the time.
.NET Framework - not exactly innovative. I find it hard to think of a single innovative thing in there. It's well-implemented, and I like it, but was massively influenced by Java and other languages.
Google Maps: Google Maps first started as a C++ program designed by two Danish brothers Lars and Jens Rasmussen at the Sydney-based company Where 2 Technologies.
So, pretty well all the "innovative" things you mentioned were either developed by small teams, orthe remainder were iterative, rather than innovative.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Well, GOG isn't that innovative then, if they're an iteration of Steam.
I said inspired. They are an online games portal, like Steam. But instead of selling new games they sell old games no one wants to sell anymore (probably because it was thought no one wants to buy them anymore). CDProjekt took a huge financial risk by selling these games anyway. And mind you that GOG started small and innovative, but that CDProjekt was the innovator and took the risks.
Steam started small, but Valve was still the initiator and they took the financial risks. A large and established company (kind of like CDProjekt and GOG).
So you say .NET is not innovative. Let's think for a minute that this is true (and you might be right), Microsoft still did something new and took a financial risk by doing it. They could have released VB7 and C# whatever version they were at the time. Instead they put all their time and money in the .NET Framework. If it hadn't caught on and people would've stuck to VB6 and C# well... That wouldn't have been good for Microsoft. And what about WCF, WPF, F#... Aren't those at least a bit innovative (WPF because it changed the old WinForms way of building forms (after 15 years!), WCF because it's a sort of all in one solution that I think made life so much easier and F# because it brought functional and object oriented programming to one language). And these are only some technologies I can think of without using Wikipedia (which is closed today because of some SOPA/PIPA support  )...
Can't say much about Google Maps, except that it was still Google who made it big and appearently thought it would work while a huge part of the world didn't or didn't know it yet.
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to .NET, I think you're confusing taking risks with being innovative.
.NET really didn't do much Java was already doing. Consider that other languages were already targetting JVM. OCAML and Common LISP had already merged functional and OO languages, and F# seems a bit of a bastard child of the two to me. I like the direction of C#, enjoy using it, and am glad it has adopted innovations from other languages.
Its a bit like people claiming Steve Jobs was innovative - he very good at getting products to market, but was renowned for doing so with ideas developed elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, so we don't fully agree on .NET being innovative, but it was a risk for Microsoft when they introduced it at the time. And the original question did include risks, so I think Microsoft would still fit the question 
Anyway, I'm not saying all large corporations are innovative or risk taking, but overall I think they are more innovative and take more risks then many people seem to realize.
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
Small companies allow making decisions to some extent and does not hinder process by long chains of communications, so that may get relatively innovative.
***** Programme comme si dept soutien technique. est plein de tueurs en série et ils savent adresse de votre domicile. *****
|
|
|
|
|
The reason why a start-up is more likely to be innovative and an established company isn't is that the small company is trying to find their customers so they are more willing to try new ideas to differentiate themselves from the established companies whereas established companies are trying to maintain and keep their existing customers who, generally, don't want to change either.
m.bergman
For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered. -- Voltaire
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. -- Steve Landesberg
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem with start ups is that they often lack the domain knowledge to really inovate. While it is true that they can through up a lot of new ideas, the hit/miss ratio will be high and companies with deeper domain knowledge are better able to exploit new ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
sellinger wrote: companies with deeper domain knowledge are better able to exploit new ideas.
Well isn't this a matter of exploiting existing ideas versus innovating/creating those ideas then?
I think large companies sit around and wait until a small company shows promise with what they are doing, then jump on it, too, often with more resources.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. "
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Why?
Because they'll provide BACON to keep the code monkeys at work!
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
Before going bust under crippling bacon bills.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: bacon bills
Now there is a concept: bacon money. Spend it before you either eat it or it goes off...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
But, but, but, buttie.
I'm sure the staff would all chip in, just to make sure the BACON, didn't run out.
ps. There are some mean spirited people here who may be of the t.o.f.u persuasion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
In general it is small companies that allow you to be innovative, whether they are startups or not - simply because you can talk directly to the person who makes the decision and they understand what you are saying. The larger the company, the more layers of non-understanding you have to go through to get an idea started.
But innovation is not just about your output, to be truly innovative in terms of product needs a lot more than a good idea - it need a lot of money too. There are the costs of manufacture, marketing, advertising, sales - all of which are frequently tens or hundreds of times the development cost. This is where it takes a big company to back it and get it to the market.
I have seen quite a few good, innovative products that have got nowhere because the company concerned cannot afford to get it out there to teh attention of people. And quite a few that do very well, despite being completely useless. JML anyone?
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I have seen quite a few good, innovative products that have got nowhere because
the company concerned cannot afford to get it out there to teh attention of
people. And quite a few that do very well, despite being completely useless. JML
anyone?
The poll asks "Which type of organisation is the most innovative?" - of course small is better. If a product is created money is needed to go further - commercialisation. This can be IPO, Sell out, Partnership etc. Quite often this is where they fall - because they cannot take this step (or mess it up) - but that is another question.
Peter Wasser
|
|
|
|
|
I agree - but the list does not cover small (or medium sized) companies that have been going for a while.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Do they exist?
Peter Wasser
|
|
|
|
|
Well there has to be some stage between "small startup" and "large commercial"... 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
And yet few people have voted "other" it seems.
Peter Wasser
|
|
|
|
|
Because people don't vote for a penguin for President of the USA, doesn't mean they don't exist, either!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
|
..Small commercial Start-ups in most cases.
I have worked in big MNC's and never found it to be innovative, only big billing and comfort zone.
Also, worked at small IT inc as fresher and had good experience of learning, unlike Big Co's.
// ♫ 99 little bugs in the code,
// 99 bugs in the code
// We fix a bug, compile it again
// 101 little bugs in the code ♫
|
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with you. You dont get the right recognition for the work done if you are in a big organization but small organizations and startups do help you grow and help you learn a lot.
Ravi Sant wrote: only big billing and comfort zone
Completely agree. The company which i work is not at all an employees organization, i would say its the stake holders organization. People here only talk about money.
Every new day is another chance to change your life.
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is, you also want to get *paid* a lot. Perhaps I been around for a long time so getting paid sounds more important than *opportunity to learn* (hell any tech subjects I can find online learn on my own)
dev
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
