innovation

Note: The philosophical musing in this blog post is hidden behind a couple of really nerdy anecdotes. Feel free to skip to the punchline.

A couple of years ago I started writing a CMS. I wasn't happy with any that I had found, and I was convinced that I could do a better job. the first iteration was light and fast, database driven, and extremely customizable. But it still required too much hand coding.

I learned a ton from that attempt, so I decided to give it another go. Version 2.0 would be modular and extensible. I decided to build a module for every feature I wanted but hadn't found in a CMS. I was well on my way to the CMS dreams are made of when my external hard drive bit the big one, leaving me with no backup. Then my laptop was stolen, and my CMS was gone forever. 2.0 never made it to a production server.

A recurring theme in the short history of modern computing is the response to innovation. Innovators get the shaft.

Alexey Pajitnov, the inventor of Tetris, didn't receive any royalties for his game until 1996. Because VisiCalc wasn't patented, its developers earned a pittance compared to the copycat 1-2-3. The operating system that formed the basis for MS-DOS was purchased for far less than it was worth. Microsoft turned around, with very little work, and licensed it for millions. IBM's open architecture was copied and capitalized upon by enterprising clone makers, soon pushing IBM from the market.

The story of the computer industry is, at its heart, a story about a couple of kids in a garage. All of the big stories seem to have humble beginnings. Gates and Allen got their start writing BASIC for an unlikely hobbiest home computer. Wozniak and Jobs built a PC in a wooden case. The vast empires built by Apple and Microsoft didn't start with grandiose corporate visions and vast multinational leanings. They started as a good idea to fill a niche that most people didn't know existed.

The computer industry is, indeed, a market for individuals, an industry for underdogs. The availability of information and the neutrality of the medium with which to distribute it provide a nearly level playing field for all contestants.