Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Benjamin J. Tilly " <ben_tilly@operamail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:53:06 +0500

"Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/02 5:42 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > My apologies.  I'm used to the lingo standard in economics, where
> > 
> > "idea" == "creation" == "Work" == _invention_
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > "commercialization" == "productization" == "finding the right people"
> > == _innovation_.
> > 
> > I'll try to avoid that usage in the future.
> 
> 
> Interesting.  I've never heard that before.  I would have thought that
> invention == innovation, with productization and commercialization the
> equivalent terms in the second syllogism.

I would have thought the same thing, but now that I see
it said, it makes sense.  Invention is coming up with
something new.  Innovation is improving on what you
already have.  Turning an idea into a product usually
does involve producing a stream of innovations.

I am also left wondering whether Microsoft thinks about
things this way.  They often claim to be a very
innovative company, and a lot of people sneer at that
because they don't _invent_ very much.  But if you
define innovation as above, they certainly take the
basic idea of a product from someone else and then add
a constant stream of innovations to it.  So by that
measure Microsoft really is innovative.

Cheers,
Ben
-- 
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com

Powered by Outblaze