Further to my musings about the Web as it was in 1994, GMSV pointed me to this site which offers a web emulation of early browsers. When I went to it, though, I got this message:
Nice recursive joke, that.
I’ve been pondering the prospects for Chinese superpower status and came on Gary Becker’s thoughts.
He opens by rehearsing previous predictions — e.g. that Germany and Japan were all set to overtake the US economically — which turned out to be vapourware, and then continues:
None of this proves that China will not be an exception, and continue to grow well beyond other nations, but these examples do suggest caution in conceding the next 50 years or so to China�s economy. Countries invariably discover that it is much easier to grow rapidly when they are economically way behind since they could then import the knowledge embodied in technology and human capital developed by leading countries. As a country begins to catch up to the knowledge frontier, a simple transfer of knowledge is no longer productive. It then has to participate in the generation of new technologies and approaches, which is far harder than simply using advances made elsewhere.
To be sure, China has considerable strengths that should enable it to grow relatively rapidly for much longer. China has an abundant, hard-working, and ambitious labor force. The government also radically liberalized the incredibly rigid labor markets under its old style central planning toward flexible markets that allow companies to hire and fire easily. Also workers now have the freedom, they did not before, to find jobs that best suit their talents and interests. China has opened its economy to foreign investments and domestic entreprenuers, something the Soviet Union, Japan, or even Germany never really did, and China has been learning from the new technologies brought by these investors.
He concludes:
I am not saying that China will not become the leading economic nation, but rather that it is far too early to tell. The many failed predictions about Japan and other nations should make us modest about such long-term predictions. Perhaps India will become the leader-it has strengths (and weaknesses) that China lacks- or maybe Brazil if it can finally get its act together.
Or indeed, perhaps the US will continue to be the most dynamic economy. Many economists and others wrote off this economy during the 1970�s and some of the �80�s when productivity growth declined and the economy faltered. Since I do not believe countries necessarily age the way species do, the US can continue to do well- productivity started growing rapidly about 10 years ago- if it provides a good environment for new companies, flexible labor and product markets, sizeable investments in human capital and technology, and an open attitude to new ideas, immigrants, and different ways. Those of you alive in 20-30 years will be able to discover if my skepticism and analysis will be borne out by events.
Amen.
Wow! Not sure I really believe this…
Chip-maker Intel has joined forces with the makers of the $100 laptop.
The agreement marks a huge turnaround for both the not-for-profit One Laptop per Child (OLPC) foundation and Intel.
In May this year, Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of OLPC, said the silicon giant “should be ashamed of itself” for efforts to undermine his initiative.
He accused Intel of selling its own cut-price laptop – the Classmate PC – below cost to drive him out of markets in the developing world…
My hunch is that the negative PR that resulted from Craig Barrett’s aggression proved too much for the Intel Board. Wonder who brokered the peace deal?
Ed Felten has some interesting thoughts about why Universal was threatening to pull out of iTunes…
The political implications of Universal’s threat are pretty interesting. For years the major record companies have been arguing that the Internet is hurting them and that policymakers should therefore intervene to protect the majors’ business. iTunes’ success has supplied the major counterargument, suggesting that it’s possible to sell lots of music online.
Walking away from iTunes would cause a big political problem for Universal. How could Universal keep asking government to prop up its online business, when it was walking away from the biggest and most lucrative distribution channel for digital music?
And it’s not just Universal whose political pull would diminish. The other majors would suffer as well; so to the extent that the majors act as a cartel, there would have to be pressure on Universal not to pull out of iTunes.
Most likely, Universal was just bluffing and had no real plan to cut its iTunes ties. If this was a bluff, then it was most likely Apple who leaked the story, as a way of raising the stakes. It’s bluff having failed, Universal is stuck doing business on Apple’s terms.
One can’t help wondering what the world would be like had the majors moved early and aggressively to build an online business that customers liked. Having failed to do so, they seem doomed to be followers rather than leaders.
That last paragraph echoes my own puzzlement ever since Napster appeared in 1999. The record companies could have had it all to themselves. Why didn’t they see the potential of the Net?
Here are some candidates for an explanation:
1. They were managed by troglodytes.
2. Their top management didn’t understand the technology. Those who did were too far down the management chain.
3. Their senior management was dominated by lawyers and accountants — who were viscerally obsessed with intellectual property and ‘assets’.
4. Their senior management was remunerated and incentivised in terms of the old business model — which was about ‘shipping atoms in order to ship bits’ (as Nicholas Negroponte used to put it). So their only interest lay in selling discs.
5. The economics of the CD business meant that selling singles (‘tracks’) became uneconomic — so the industry focussed on forcing customers to buy albums. But the demand for tracks was always there — it was just that the industry didn’t see an economic way of meeting the demand. So it left a huge demand unsatisfied. Eventually something cropped up which could supply tracks: it was called Napster.
On reflection, I don’t really believe 1, much as I’d like to. So we’re left with some combination of 2 to 5. Or have I missed something?