|
Lester's Fixins[^] has mastered innovation. To prove it they have Bacon Soda!!! 
as if the facebook, twitter and message boards weren't enough - blogged
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, please, please, please, pretty please ---- Where the heck can I buy that???? 
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: Where the heck can I buy that?
well I live about 30 miles from Virginia City, NV and I know there is a store there that sells it as well as all sorts of other weird soda brands.
as if the facebook, twitter and message boards weren't enough - blogged
|
|
|
|
|
brings me to the question, any recent/real innovation avail for .net developers?
i mean, there're exciting new development such as Android/tablet Pc's. But what's new candies can I give to my clients really (desktop/web based apps)...?
LINQ/WPF/WCF... etc don't count - they are just different way to do what we've done for years with sql, winform and sockets... so... really, anything that extends our ***capability*** to whoa clients we serve?
(but seems like this has been a gradual process, more User Interface eye candies over the years... but nothing exciting recent years it seems)
dev
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO small open-source teams make most "innovative" software, but nobody hears about them. They exist somewhere, but a number of users isn't much bigger than a number of developers. I saw a couple of truly unique projects on the Source Forge and even used some of them. But they are non-existent in a commercial world.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Before every innovation there was an idea of a single person...
|
|
|
|
|
A customer usually pay for a product and could care less about how it works as long as... it works! 
There are areas where being innovative won't cost you anything, its something that pops out of your head and you start doing it in a new way the next minute, but software development isn't like that.
Innovation is an extra that costs money.
Being it in research, development, testing, a some more research, testing, debuging, and again and again and again.
There is a lot of stuff that is already tested by the community that will be broken when you innovate and that need to be tested again. The biggest problem is that usually you won't be able to foresee them all and eventually you'll break something in the future, and this will cost more time and more resources.
If you're being really innovative and are making something really new then you're kind of alone out there, not even Google will help you... and it will take even more time and more resources.
So, if you really building your stuff targetting innovation you must be prepared to spend at least the double of the time you would spend if you would have chosen to do it the "usual" way or with the "usual" tools or at least the way the first result page on Google points you to
Deppending on the business area it can worth the money or not, it's really up to "you" to decide that, so I don't think it matters the size of the company, what matters is the feasibility of the project and the RoI you will get by investing that extra time and effort doing it.
Bottom line, if you want to innovate you need MONEY!
|
|
|
|
|
Those who have the financial reserves to take risks and survive failure
|
|
|
|
|
Did you write these words of truth?
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
No, thats why I mentioned in the subject as,
Found this interesting in the optional text answers...
If my guess is correct, you have written this right?
|
|
|
|
|
Chill out home-slice.
I was just asking a question. By the way, I had given you a 5 on your original post...now I wish I didn't vote.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Any one who claims to be and is the author of this optional test answer is welcome for my 5.
Note: I am not yet a high rep user, so my 5 might be worth less, but still is a token of appreciation.
|
|
|
|
|
or how the organisation is structured.
If you want innovation you get a bunch of motivated people, give them an almost impossible target, give them all the resources they need and let them get on with it. Protect them from idiots, from interference, from stupid paperwork, just give them cake and praise once a week and leave them alone.
If you don't want innovation;
- employ boring and fearful people,
- don't give them enough to do,
- ration all resources,
- have layers of useless bureaucracy,
- micromanage,
- provide the cheapest coffee,
- use worn-out office furniture,
- encourage bullying,
- allow nepotism
In every kind of organisation you can see both kinds.
------------------<;,><-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly what I was thinking. Innovation isn't defined by organisational structure, but by the individuals within it and giving them freedom to do their jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends how you see it. In my experience engineers are motivated because they really like doing their jobs. You can't make them motivated, but you can prevent other people from de-motivating them.
An easy target is boring. Almost impossible, not impossible. I mean things like, the job needs 9 months but we only have 6, let's show them what we can do.
I choose my words carefully as a rule (I'm an engineer). Paperwork is fine, I said stupid paperwork. Like having to book your hours every day on a slow and useless SAP machine, with a new mini-project-number every 3 days. Or filling in 6 forms to get some 100 dollar tool. Or having to book your own business trips...
All the resources they need means (to me) up-to-date software tools, fast computers, things like Incredibuild, a saintly admin. We use Doors and a few other tools that make us so much more productive, but I know of projects where they still use Excel. To use (for example) Doors you need a Doors person who has done all the courses.
Sorry I wasn't more expansive before, I am used to being with other engineers and being concise.
------------------<;,><-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Most innovative: individual I'd say - small startup ... as soon as they passed the initial design/innovation phase, they'd be just too busy simply to get the product out in the market.
Least innovative: asian firms where developers dedicated 150% of their time just churning out half finished software trying to meet impossible deadline on tiny budget.
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Which sounds stupid to lots of people here (and I can't say I completely disagree), but they do have the resources available to them to be innovative.
Some examples:
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.
Avatar[^] was innovative and boosted 3D television. James Cameron could pull it off because he was an established name and had a budget that went through the roof.
I think World of Warcraft[^] pretty much challenged every game norm they could challenge (successfully) and Blizzard was able to do this because they had the money and the power.
Now certainly I believe Microsoft was innovative with the .NET Framework, Apple was innovative with iTunes, iPod, iPad iWhatHaveYouNot, and Google was innovative with GoogleMaps, StreetView and stuff like that.
Sure, small companies can be much more innovative, think of new stuff, make it all better and perhaps they already have. But it's the large companies that usually make the 'new and innovative' the 'old and chewed out'. And if the small companies think of something new and amazing and become successfull with it it is usually only a matter of time before they become the large and established corporation themselves
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
I voted the second option at first, but your post made me to change my mind.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
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. *****
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
