How Does a Poor Economy Affect Tech Innovation?

sshuber writes "It's no secret that the US and other parts of the world are currently having some economic problems. How is this affecting new technologies under development? With the large numbers of layoffs, are we seeing projects, such as things under R&D, that are being axed? Are companies playing it safe and sticking with what they know sells in lieu of pushing the envelope? Finally, how is this affecting the open source community, either positively or negatively?" A lot of open source work happens with the backing or at least the sufferance of corporations. Do laid-off tech workers contribute fewer cycles to open source projects, or more?

Comments

Depends...

[EastCoastSurfer]

When gas was 99c/gallon, people weren't all that interested in new fuel technology. Now with oil going up and up, I expect we'll finally start seeing some real break throughs in alternative energy research.

OSS should also benefit from a slower economy. Why pay MS 100k for MSSQL licensing when I can get postgres?

Innovation won't stop and will continue to happen. It just might be in different areas.

Re:Depends...

[Darkness404]

As much as I'd like to believe you, the train-wreck of Vista was supposed to usher in the year of the Linux desktop...

Look around you, Linux adoption is higher then ever. Ubuntu has made Linux easy, Dell has Linux installed on normal PCs (along with some other computer makers), the gPC is many times sold out at Wal-Mart, the eeePC with Linux is quite popular, and the use of Linux-based tablets such as the N800 is on the increase. Never before could you get Linux so easily, it still isn't as common to walk into a large retailer and find computers pre-installed with Linux but if you spend 5 minutes hunting around, Linux is easy to find.

Depends on how long the downturn lasts

[daveywest]

Consider the small telecommunications company I work for. Our big projects are years in the making -- like trenching a fiber optic line across 3 states through a mountain range. You can't just put that on hold for 2-3 years.

We're cutting back on extravagances. I'll probably wait one more year for the new computer I was supposed to get last month.

An economic downturn will kill an already unhealthy company, but a good employer with a stable balance sheet knows how to weather the storm.

Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy?

[ergo98]

Remember, when you (the top 5%) can't afford your second SUV for your family it usually means the rest of the world is hurting badly. I think even rural America sees things differently than you.

Aside from tremors, China is doing fantastic. India is much the same. Europe is doing pretty much the same. Russia is recovering nicely from their economic doldrums.

I would guess that there are far fewer people worldwide living in poverty today than there were 10, or even 5, years ago, despite some speculative food price run-ups.

However, disparity of wealth distribution isn't even the point in contention (no one disputes that it is a real problem). This submission is quite clearly playing upon the current "the economy is in the gutter" meme, but it just isn't supported by the numbers. Things aren't great, and there's some bouncing atop a potential recession, but it's actually remarkably robust given some of the inputs over the past couple of years, which many expected to yield much worse conditions.

Large numbers of layoffs?

[Cutie Pi]

Have there really been large numbers of layoffs in the tech industries? I thought many tech companies, particularly those with large overseas businesses, were doing pretty well. See IBM for example.

This whole question reeks of someone wanting the Slashdot community to do their research for them, starting with some pretty questionable assumptions. Maybe the answer to this question is better served by looking at how past recessions hit the tech industry and their innovation output.

Re:Is It Really A Poor Economy?

[drinkypoo]

Stop all this "organic" and "natural" treehuggery. Because that's all it is. Well, that and money grubbing on the part of the people selling you that overpriced stuff.

"Organic" means almost nothing in the USA thanks to the influence of the USDA, and "Natural" means less than nothing.

However, you are sadly mistaken about the basic realities of farming...

"Organic" and "natural" crops cannot even remotely compete in terms of volume of perfectly safe, edible food with the genetically modified, pest free varieties.

The following things are true:

1. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as agriculture which was not "organic", because we did not turn petroleum into fertilizer or, for that matter, pesticide.
2. The use of shallow tilling of soil, especially when done with heavy machinery, creates hardpan.
3. The use of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers (as well as other artificially-sourced pesticides etc) harms soil diversity. Good soil is over 60% organic material (ideally, over 80%!) and can be 20% or more living matter. The chemicals with which you are so enamored harm beneficial insects, the worms which we depend on to create soil (they are also defeated by our tilling practices) as well as nematodes and mycelium.

Enough facts, I don't want to confuse anyone with them. Let's get back to the battle. Again, a hundred years ago it was all "organic" farming. Therefore "organic" itself doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're fertilizing only with poop and the like you can still be horribly harmful to the environment by simply allowing topsoil to wash into rivers. Or, for that matter, by tilling it and leaving it uncovered, which allows it not just to wash away, but even to blow away. This results in harm to air quality and thus to our ability to breathe - living in agricultural areas is no fun. I am living in Lake Country now; I was living in Marysville last. Here it's vineyards, and you can find them south (Napa) or west (Hopland) where various items are sprayed on the plants - and into the air, where we get to breathe them. That shit sets off my asthma every time, so I really don't want to hear about how "safe" your inorganic farming is.

Now, let us discuss the issue of sustainability in more depth. "organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. ... Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization." This is amazingly empty-headed cheerleading bullshit. In fact, organic farming restores mineral balances through fertilization, but in conventional farming techniques (those of the so-called "Green Revolution") instead of correctly amending the soil with those things which it requires, and allowing natural forces to fix those nutrients and make them available to your crops (these "natural forces" are also called "other plants" or, by the ignorant, "weeds") we spray ready sources of the food into the soil and feed the plants. Feeding the soil is a basic tenet of true (i.e. nothing to do with the USDA) organic gardening, but I understand that there is always a temptation to simply ignore facts in the pursuit of a good argument.

It just so happens that in my yard there is an organic garden which produces food crops at an extremely economical rate. It is based on compost, poop (steer, llama, seabird, bat, and chicken shit) and the usual range of organic soil amendments including alfalfa meal, blood meal, bone meal, feather meal, seaweed meal and so on. Those with an eye for detail will note that much of this is actually recycled refuse from animal processing and the like - I'm no space cadet from Vega. The soil is better this year than it was the year before - it's been obvious for months because the cover crop (mustard) was about four times taller this year in spite of similar (if anything, less ideal) conditions otherwise.

Now, let me address the issue of