How can they benefit from innovation that has been stifled?
a) how are you measuring “innovation”?
b) how are you measuring the “benefit”, and for who?
Regulations and standardization can hold back an existing company from trying a new idea, however, they are also the only thing that creates true, lasting, interoperability, and interoperability is what let’s new companies enter markets.
i.e. Theoretically, Apple may be held back if they want to innovate their charging port because they have to make it compatible with USB-C.
However, now new companies that aren’t apple that want to innovate on cables and chargers can enter the market, and they’ll benefit from a consistent specified interface and not having to design a million proprietary variants, and they’ll be able to plan their products in a stabler, longer term environment, that will make it easier to attract investment.
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Stifle wasn’t the right word. Sorry about that, I wrote my comment too fast amd English isn’t my first language.
Innovation isn’t an all or nothing thing.
There is a difference between removing all the red tape and saying “fuck it” and making sure that the said innovation isn’t outright dangerous. If we need to take thing slower to make sure that people aren’t killed directly or indirectly, then so be it.
deHaga@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
That’s not what people like Draghi think.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draghi_report
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If we burn the planet for more economic productivity, we made more money but made human life worst.
So what is the point of economic productivity if it makes our everyday live worst?
deHaga@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
It needs to be sustainable obviously