wasn't bell labs part of a very big corporation when they invented basically everything about the modern world?

AT&T's early dominance was the direct result of the invention of the transistor that came from their own labs. From then on, the company was committed to spending massive amounts of money into developing new technology. Even if AT&T didn't directly invent a new technology, they were still one of the few companies in the world that could actually afford to buy new toys and put them into the hands of researchers who would find novel uses for it.

The Computerphile YouTube channel as some interviews with computer scientists that worked at Bell Labs during their heyday. It's incredibly interesting to hear about how they screwed around with early Linotype printers (which $100k+ in the 70s) and did things like reverse-engineer the font formats to create custom chess fonts.

That's not accurate. AT&T dominated telecommunications for decades before the transistor. Many of Bell Labs great scientific inventions predate the transistor, such as information theory.

Sure, but the transistor ushered in the long-distance era and helped AT&T establish their monopoly (and their eventual breakup). Regional telephone services were already beginning to drive down costs in local markets.

Maybe you're thinking of the triode, which AT&T did have a monopoly on around 1915, when they deployed the first transcontinental long-distance service using vacuum tubes to boost the signal. They bought deForest's patents and filed many more of their own on amplification circuits.

They had direct-dial long-distance by 1951, using relays and tubes.

The transistor started making a difference in telephony with the release of the 1ESS switch in 1965. But transistors were a commodity by then.

I think it is also that with a huge monopoly in an area, you can capture most of the benefits from basic research. With lots of competitors basic research gains go to all the competitors too and at some level you don't capture enough of the benefit to justify it.

Add to that, in return for their monopoly status, they released much of their IP to the public domaian. Imagine if they had held/sold their IP how electronic innovation would have been stifled.

They didn't invent Google and Facebook, but they're responsible for transistors, lasers, Unix, C and C++, CCD digital image sensors, long distance microwave radio relays, the first transatlantic phone cable, MOSFETs, communication satellites, and cell networks.

Not modern internet services no, but all of the infrastructure it's built on is grounded on theirs.

All of which they were required to license on FRAND terms - Consider that the basic research done by bell labs was paid for by a royalty paid to it by western electric and the various bell operating companies - it was blanket royalty, not a per product one too.

Google and Facebook are ad companies. Their “innovation” isn’t even in the same ballpark as what came out of Bell Labs

Google and Facebook would look a lot different without transistors.

And lasers. And Unix. And switched networking. And binary digital computers. And long-haul undersea cables. And the first successful communications satellite. And data networking.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/next-generation-communications/2011/0...

Yes, but apart from that, what have the Romans, er, Bell Labs ever given us?

>Bell Labs invented Google, Facebook, etc? Wow, did not know that.

Compared to what they invented, Google and Facebook are insignificant in comparison.

We could go back to Altavista and no-Facebook and we'd be more or less fine.

Giving back the Bell Labs technlogy would be a much harder hit...

No-Facebook would arguably be a better world the older I get...

TBH your examples are not what people should be much proud of. If you mentioned e.g. stackexchange and similar human-grade tech, then this argument would look somewhat better. Invasive tracking and manipulation through ads is actually the style of military of thinking.

No, Bell Labs did not invent basically everything about the modern world.

yeah, part of it was invented at PARC

you down voters are not giving Al Gore enough credit.

What myth?

As you say, bigger companies have a harder time innovting.

Yeah, but it's not necessarily related to competion, size is primary factor. At least I believe that was his point.

I think it is related to competition. Lack of competition brings complacency of executives, who think they can get free money for shareholders without having to reinvest into innovation. (And I think that was carlmr's point.)

Of course, if you are bigger, the more likely it is that there is no competition at certain times.

Yeah, my point was that a big company can coast without innovating. They usually have a lot of stuff to sell that they have done in the past. The pressure to rejuvenate comes from outside, rarely from the inside (surely there are exceptions as with every good rule).

If you can survive without investing, a lot of companies choose not to.

Apple / Google / Amazon don’t seem to struggle?

Microsoft / IBM and now Intel defintely did.

I think it has more to do with the leadership of the company than the size of the company.

Does Google innovate?

-ss

Have you seen how many messaging apps theyve made in the last few years?

I wish they would fix up one of the existing ones rather than keep shoving out new half finished ones. I poked around in a few of them from a web client and phone perspective for a while and still don't feel like they beat Slack.

And it's still a mess that nobody wants to use.

Took over 500 lightbulbs before there was a usable one. Just dont give up.

This is sarcasm right? Messaging apps are the height of "innovation?"

:-)

This is also the topic of the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton Christensen.