David Brooks mistakes schlocking product, which has existed since the birth of the technology industry, and those folk who make the cold calls, pitch the sales, close the deals and drive the horizontal market in tough economic times such as these, with the scientists and avant-garde visionaries who kindle the fire for technology innovation. His article on the technology camels reads more as an outsider’s view on the trickle theory of information dissemination to the mediocre middle, which assumes that is they who drive “innovation” to the masses. I think he profoundly misapplies the word. There are those ideas and products that are truly innovative, and then there are those ideas and products that help business earn more profit. One has nothing to do with the other. I think what the article seems to focus on is the latter, which while extremely important and beneficial for innovation to continue in a healthy industry, is not itself innovation.
True innovation is a gestalt phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts. The Internet, or more specifically, the World Wide Web is the last, best innovation on a global scale and nothing since then has even come close (although the internet itself was merely an evolution in the communication industry, just as the creation telegraph, radio, and television were to their respective industries).
The article is spot on, however, about the shirt scene in these circles. Those of you who are /were in the industry know this from experience. If anything screams techno-drone or worker bee, it’s cheap cotton polo shirts emblazoned with a company logo. Which is why I’ve always saved company gifted logo shirts to clean the tires on my car.
