Shareholders will boot Tim Cook if he even thinks of that..
Apple bought CUPS (printing) and now owns it and hired the original developer (who left at some point):
seldom good ever happens in ... the universe
Goodness is a human invention, and a rather young one at that.
Profit drives innovation, and more importantly makes technology accessible at scale. Do you think most of the world would have access to washing machines (which are of ridiculous utility, especially when you factor in their price with profit margins and all!) if it were not for some schmuck wanting to line his or hers of pocket? Because it would not.
At its heart, capitalism is a (greedy) solution to a planet-scale resource allocation problem, and there are no viable alternatives (give or take some modifications/variations).
Tl;dr: Economics 101.
But yes, people make the most incerdible stuff without being paid to do so.
I am pretty certain we had economics for millenia before capitalism has emerged about three hundred years ago.
Local agent behaviour may be greedy, but this could still result in something approaching a global optimum - the economy could work like Ant Colony Optimisation in aggregate.
Isn’t this Adam Smith‘s theory?
Yeah, like US cable and telco companies like to remind you every time they do an anticompetitive move.
And despite that, who is helping move the telco world forward? Pointing to one mediocre example is certainly not proof that profit doesn't drive innovation.
More interesting is what people would achieve if their time wasn't dedicated to profit seeking. The measure of success then may be the subjective usefulness of someone's contributions. It is a big subject but waving it away as you have isn't a satisfactory answer at all
My personal take is that in practice most of the innovation we see in tech comes from the universities. E.g. the tech in search engines, smart phones, the internet, LLMs and AI etc.
The tech is then, in practice, given to the private sector. There the profit motive is used to commercialize rather than innovate.
Commercialization does often require some innovation around the edges, which companies often get by hiring talent from academia.
I realize this is unlikely to be a super popular opinion for some HN readers. But to me it's the one most defensible by evidence.
100% false, normally the people that created the tech while in university are the ones that create the business using the test (see facebook, google, etc), it is their tech to begin with it was not given to them
In most cases the University is also either paid a fee, or is part owner in the company as a startup, cashing out when funding starts.
Nothing is "given away"
now I personally think anything developed using Government Grants should be Public domain, non-patentable, non-copyright, 100% public domain, but ....
Yes, a lot of discoveries (not "most innovation", but besides the point!) happens at Universities. But so what? Universities are either for-profit themselves, or they are financed through taxes which depends on the profitability of businesses in the economy which they exist in and contribute to. And like a sibling comment pointed out: Researchers are often the ones commercializing a discovery. Moreover, I specifically stated that "[the commercializing actor] makes technology accessible at scale."
Your statement that "the profit motive is used to commercialize rather than innovate" is a half-truth, because the profit motive is very much present once you consider more than the first-order effects.
I 100% agree that commercialization of new techology (again, innovation is a lot more than bleeding-edge research) e.g., search engines, smart phones, the internet, LLMs and AI, is optimally done through some kind of interaction between univiersities and commercial actors – but to the mutual benefit of a spiderweb of stakeholders affiliated with both academia and commercial actors, and not some quasi-altruistic act of sacrifice on the part of the university.
Alas, me having the business acumen of plankton means I'm easy calories for the vulture capitalists. Sigh.
Sadly, they are both extinct beasties, these days...
> Which is why seldom good ever happens in the land of profit-driven business.
Many responses disagree with this comment. My knee-jerk reaction is the same.
OTOH, there is truth to the comment in that many examples of "good" are examples in which a business is driven by vision or value, not by profit first.