Have monopolies slowed down innovation?

[Will be deleted]

Feels innovation is significantly slower today compared to what it once was in like 1960s and during that time there don't seems to have been as much problem with mega corporations and monopolies as there is today, so could that co-relate?

[𝕎𝔸𝕃𝕋𝔼ℝ]

no

[vexviron]

Technology is more complicated and requires a higher education to be innovative these days.

[Dracoco OwO]

Yes and no, even in markets that aren't monopolies it can be beneficial to artifically make products mediocre for profit and limiting the amount of ressources to innovate in those fields might be a mean to maintain profit.

[Will be deleted]

Originally posted by vexviron:

Technology is more complicated and requires a higher education to be innovative these days.

Seems true, advancement made between 1899 to 1925 seems to me more impactful than those made between 1999 to 2024.

[Utiviroo]

The short answer for this is, the patent/copy right system, has been co-opted and corrupted, in the sense mega corps use the law, to create legal moats, that new businesses/idea can not surpass.

So your OP is partially correct, in that regard. A lot of promising stuff never gets pursued now, its cheaper to litigate than innovate. Status quo all over again.

[Hairy Hands Harry]

Yes. Competition drive innovation. The biggest innovations in history have come from wars. Wars are the ultimate in competition.

[$2 Hero]

Originally posted by Hairy Hands Harry:

Yes. Competition drive innovation. The biggest innovations in history have come from wars. Wars are the ultimate in competition.

You get it.

[Andros]

This thread is a diamond in a pile of crap.

[Hobbit XIII]

I'd like to make Victorian and earlier type of tools for people so if power cuts happen they can still have a basic sense of civilisation.

The space to do it though costs money.
find a place, pay the deposit, pay the rent, pay the council rates, pay the VAT or anyother type of taxes / expenditures they can throw at you.

Then make the tools / appliances and electricity free goods.
hope to sell and be able to cover the next rental period and so on.

With the way economics of scale works (even if i was to manufacture my own brand of electric appliances) I would be permanently at a disadvantage with all the cheap ♥♥♥♥♥ that gets pumped out.

Take the old style stuff of the 50s and 60s even up to the 80s, solid appliances, lasts a long time and those sort of things no longer are wanted. its all about cheap quick bang.

I'll stop moaning.

[vkobe]

Originally posted by Will be deleted:

Feels innovation is significantly slower today compared to what it once was in like 1960s and during that time there don't seems to have been as much problem with mega corporations and monopolies as there is today, so could that co-relate?

yes, example oil company often slow down nuclear and renew energy and also because them we are multi decade behind good not oil car and truck

second example usa when they artificially help apple when try tried to ruin huawei, because that instead to have nice cheap iphone we are stuck with very expansive iphone because huawei cant force apple to be smarter and innovate to sell us better phone at good price

third example microsoft and window, dont know for you, but feeling window regress since window xp, it look unfriendly to use

fourth example is youtube, youtube become trash

fifth example steam, i prefer the old steam before 2018, current steam is really a mess UI, before 2018 steam UI was enjoyable to use, now it is like something stuck when you try to scrown down

[michaelplehner]

Innovation hasn't slowed down however the quality of almost everything has gone down. Reliability has taken a huge hit..

[ZZZZZ]

isnt that literally part of the definition of monopoly?

[Duck Twacy]

Originally posted by Will be deleted:

Feels innovation is significantly slower today compared to what it once was in like 1960s and during that time there don't seems to have been as much problem with mega corporations and monopolies as there is today, so could that co-relate?

They have.

IBM did an analysis in the late 60s, and they concluded that it took nearly a million dollars to move a box from one end of the company to the other because of a lot of red tape.

Corporations have bought up ideas, tried to copyright names and words they didn't use, and bought and shelved innovative inventions.

Thank goodness for the net, and thank goodness for crowd funding that came a few years later, because now any inventor or innovator can take their idea straight to market with legal protections.

It's why you have an explosion of games, books, music, other media, and newer and newer ways to camp, fix your car, fix your PC, fix your phone, cook, keep your house clean, take care of your pet ... just everything.

Corporations have helped society, but they're like massive governments, and everything needs approval, and if something or someone did something illegal in the past, everyone passed the blame onto someone else. Those days are going away as I type.

Corporations aren't evil like they were, but thank goodness for the free flow of ideas, good and bad, because the good will win out.

[R-S!N]

well, there's really not much more to innovate, AI will supposedly do that part for us.

It's been said that humans are nearing (or have actually already reached) their peak.

Everything in existence has it's own peak(climax) and a decline(downfall). AI will too.

Humans may very well be on the verge of decline from hereon.
AI will take over more and more.
ehhhhhhhh so be it, it's quite blatantly part of our evolution.. our "continuum" of existing.

[Triple G]

Nah - the technological progress makes it harder to make new breakthroughs, to recognize something as "really new thing".

Like You wouldn´t even see most innovations, as 99% of all products fail, and most never reach the consumer market.

And nowadays You have data analysis, which means You don´t even need to be innovative, as You can see and calculate what people want and buy. The big companies will produces what the masses demand. Capitalism. Define a target audience, and get their money.

And of course competition works better, when there are more equal participants in the market, and then it might be that way, that some companies take more risks, to have an advantage, till they have it, and only need to defend their market leader position to dictate the prices. But capitalism is not about competition, or to distribute goods for the people - it´s about maximizing profits.

Also: which monopolies are there? But is certain branches one or two companies are so strong, that it´s hard for anyone else to compete, especially when not everyone has the opportunity, to distribute their workforce all over the planet for the cheapest prices.