Stifle wasn’t the right word. Sorry about that, I wrote my comment too fast amd English isn’t my first language.
Innovation isn’t an all or nothing thing.
There is a difference between removing all the red tape and saying “fuck it” and making sure that the said innovation isn’t outright dangerous. If we need to take thing slower to make sure that people aren’t killed directly or indirectly, then so be it.
How can they benefit from innovation that has been stifled?
a) how are you measuring “innovation”?
b) how are you measuring the “benefit”, and for who?
Regulations and standardization can hold back an existing company from trying a new idea, however, they are also the only thing that creates true, lasting, interoperability, and interoperability is what let’s new companies enter markets.
i.e. Theoretically, Apple may be held back if they want to innovate their charging port because they have to make it compatible with USB-C.
However, now new companies that aren’t apple that want to innovate on cables and chargers can enter the market, and they’ll benefit from a consistent specified interface and not having to design a million proprietary variants, and they’ll be able to plan their products in a stabler, longer term environment, that will make it easier to attract investment.
I don’t think governments should be in charge of deciding what’s innovative
History has shown us again and again that corporations can’t behave decently if let to their own device.
I would much rather have the government stiffle innovation if that means that consumer are safe and benefit from said innovation.
I’m not saying don’t regulate.
How can they benefit from innovation that has been stifled?
Stifle wasn’t the right word. Sorry about that, I wrote my comment too fast amd English isn’t my first language.
Innovation isn’t an all or nothing thing.
There is a difference between removing all the red tape and saying “fuck it” and making sure that the said innovation isn’t outright dangerous. If we need to take thing slower to make sure that people aren’t killed directly or indirectly, then so be it.
That’s not what people like Draghi think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draghi_report
If we burn the planet for more economic productivity, we made more money but made human life worst.
So what is the point of economic productivity if it makes our everyday live worst?
If the innovation is a more efficient way to your toe
Stifled innovation means a loss of competitive advantage.
Clearly you work for the “big toe stub” industry
a) how are you measuring “innovation”?
b) how are you measuring the “benefit”, and for who?
Regulations and standardization can hold back an existing company from trying a new idea, however, they are also the only thing that creates true, lasting, interoperability, and interoperability is what let’s new companies enter markets.
i.e. Theoretically, Apple may be held back if they want to innovate their charging port because they have to make it compatible with USB-C.
However, now new companies that aren’t apple that want to innovate on cables and chargers can enter the market, and they’ll benefit from a consistent specified interface and not having to design a million proprietary variants, and they’ll be able to plan their products in a stabler, longer term environment, that will make it easier to attract investment.
Patents, breakthroughs. Most happen in US or China.
No risk, no reward.
It’s the lesser evil in this case.
Exactly the sort of thinking that has stagnated Europe in all areas of innovation this century.