Discussion on:

Sanity check: Is the U.S. losing its role as the world leader in information technology?

Some call putting the most-used selections at the top "user-friendly". Others call it conceited. Get over your inferiority complex.

As for the article, I'm wondering, what is the largest tech company in the world with NO employees in the US? Does such a company even exist?

You may want to look at this:

http://cuberules.com/2007/08/30/ibm-claims-largest-technology-services-company-in-india/

Your strange view that ownership of a company has something to do with where talent is located is a very strange view of the world.

IBM is a multi-national company and not owned solely by Americans (anymore), there must be share-holders (thus owners) all over the world.

I work at a biotech research site of a German multi-national company in Belgium, there are 260 employees on this site and we count 20+ nationalities...

The world is not a big as it used to be...

Well stated, but one who isn't American should come to terms that we're some of the most IMPATIENT on the planet. It's not arrogance really, but impatience seems to breed exactly that nevertheless. Where I live in Arkansas, the traffic running red lights is far worse than in years past, and don't even get me started about the speeding problems here. I possess an 30 year old X-band radar gun formerly used in law enforcement and last certified in 2000, tuning fork included. The stories it tells me of impatience can fill volumes. Yes, some of the cops here know I understand its use quite well, having been a ham for 28 years.

Now consider software installations. I agree it would be far more logical to place all nations with english as their primary language at the TOP of the list so searching for the UK, Canada, Australia, Belize wouldn't be the headache it is. As long as compiling Windows for a UK version doesn't add to their already tedious headaches of product numbers, Windows Genuine Advantage, etc, then I agree it would be a good thing to have.

Thank you for your opinion. I am an average American citizen trying to make ends meet like so many others. I know the value of things and the one thing you can't put a value on are people's opinions and ideas. I always wonder how an average citizen within another country views America. Often times citizenry is spoonfeeed by agenda touting news-wires etc. So from one human to another, thanks for your thoughts!

I have only visited a handful of States, just enough to know that America is BIG with as much diversity of language and culture as Europe. IMHO there is no such thing as an average American, just as there is no average European.

In some ways we are all completely different and in many ways all much the same. The building blocks of technology have come from many different places and new ways of using these building blocks are constantly being developed into new technologies by people all over the globe, in many cases by co-operation between different countries, one country may supply the original idea, another the finance and another the detail work and labour. The world, as we know it is becoming more and more global. For the human race to make the next big steps, a global approach with more co-operation and less resource wasting squabbles.

No matter what your music, don't stop dancing.

This message brought to you by Samuel Jackson Beer.

To offer a silly reply to a silly thread in these discussions, when 90% or more of your customers are in the U.S., you put the U.S. at the top. It's not arrogance, it's usability.

God forbid you should write a book -

I don't usually complain about spelling, context and the such.

But really, "advice" for advise, "one country in many thousands" when in reality there are about 194.

See: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm

To continue: "except" for accept.

But, I must admit you are among the worlds' diversity. That is, yourselves and others like you.

My 2 cents and you take it easy also.

Falconeer

Cheers

It seems that the small nation of Scotland has become a world leader in IT.

Sure some great inventions and tech advances have come out of the USA.

However, many of the minds that created those advances were imports that had to move to the US just to "make it big".

Many times, companies if they did not have an American office would not flourish or may have been shunned by the US consumers because they were foreign.

I think that it comes down to bullying not playing a leader role in the (IT) industry as a country.

M$ as an example cannot get visas for some programmers(what ever the reasons), have decided to open up shops in B.C., Canada and Europe for those who cannot make it into the US to work.

Take a look at the scrolling credits as an example on Adobe's products. Many of the names listed sure don't sound Anglo Saxon to me......

"many times", "many of the minds"... get real... the majority of advances in tech came out of USA... hmmm are we forgetting?? windows (the most used piece of software in the world), unix, linux, even osx all came from here, born and bred out of the minds of MIT grad-students, or by the fierce competition from within our borders... lest we not forget ENIAC(US), UNIVAC(US), IBM(the US company that pioneered business computing)... I will give credit to the UK though for Turing for the theories, but it was an american (Atanasoff) who used them to create a tangible electronic computer. also it hasn't been until the past few years that most other countries even had computers, none of which would be possible without who? ummmmmm US... just because the whole computing industry is CURRENTLY contributed to by many, many different "imports" (who by the way have just as much opportunity from their own country as they do from the US) riding on our coattails, doesn't mean anyone can undermine the roots of the digital revolution.

Technology has, historically, been driven by international collaboration (or close to). Leading examples are nuclear weapons and supersonic flight, both first demonstrated by the US but heavily dependent on expertise from the UK.

To say that IT was all done by US brainpower is disingenuous at best. You can probably claim that the work took place on US soil, by US corporations/institutions, but that does not make the inventions purely US. There will have been much input from 'imports' throughout the history of US tech innovation.

As has been said already (I think), the US can claim responsiblity for the radical commercialisation of IT rather than technological superiority.

Oh, and Linus Torvalds is Finnish btw.

I really do not want to get involved in this US v England pissing contest.

I will grant that some tech advancements are the result of international collaboration. BUT a blanket statement of "Technology has, historically, been driven by international collaboration (or close to)" is just plain wrong. Historically technological development was driven by individuals and only recently (historically speaking) by corporations.

The first IC based CPU was developed by Intel Corp. in Texas, USA. Ditto with the next IC based CPU, the 8008. Every major CPU has been developed in the USA, the 4004, 8008,8080,z80, 8086, 80x86 and the AMD's. The first actual computer, discounting the abacus, ws developed in europe by Blaise Pascal, the next in the early 1900's was developed in the US for the US Census and later used by the US Postal service.

The US held the title, hands down, in supercomputing until Craig Seymor (Cray Computer Corp.)died. Then for a short time supercomputing went to Japan, that is until IBM developed Deep Blue - again in the US. IBM holds the title today.

To assert disingenuousness is frivolous. Quite playing nationalism and you might be heard!

bwt: Linus Torvold's developed Linux from Minux which was a simplified version of Unix and was used to teach Operating System development to students.

Babbage's Difference Engine, the Jacquard loom spring to mind...

It's individuals within corporation who drive any advance.

I disagree with your position on who drives advance. Such is life. Eventually it is accounting that decides within the corporation just what gets developed, but the idea comes from an individuals mind and is generally pushed to prototype by the same. Unfortunately it is the corporation that has the funds to do the research. Different perspectives.

I had forgotten about the Babbage Difference Engine and the Jacquard loom - I stand corrected.

Norm

conducive to innovation, or not.
One of teh big problems with R & D for innovation nowadays is that it costs so much money, without a corporation, government or some such, you can't possibly finance it.

Low hanging fruit picked, until a new sort of tree comes along. Even with a totla paradigm shift, the corps will fence off the tree, harvest it, then chop it down to make chipboard, before the guy in the basement gets another sniff at it.

It all depends on your definition of computer, a clockwork musical box could be considered a 'prom' device in some respects.

I grant that innovation, meaning R&D costs a fair amount. What happens when someone takes the R&D and uses it in an innovative way to capture that low hanging fruit. All technology is built upon older technology.

Take a look at some research that had shown that the leading edge of a photon changes color while it is moving. At the minimum, this suggests that the constant of the speed of light needs to be re-examined What will happen when some kid that is not locked into the constant speed of light, as we are, comes along and figures out, entirely on his own, how to leverages that idea into a new technology. It took a lot of thought, no company or government money because the research has been done and is public knowledge, and it spawned a new industry.

I agree that a clock or music box could be considered a a mechanical prom. However, a prom does not make a computer - it does not branch program execution based on previous calculation, can not do logic branches, and can not sum numbers.

therefore it can 'do' those things.
A music box can't simply because of it's limited instruction set.
It's not that less complicated than say the pic controller in a washing machine.

The Brittish in cracking German Enigma
built first Digital computer but being
Brittish thought that this was way too
clever for public use and quietly tucked
everything away in top secret cupboard, but
not before their US allies had had a chance
to see it.

using your data:
"Many of the people who designed the early computers were both geniuses and eccentrics of the first order, and the English mathematician Alan Turing (1912-1954) was first among equals. In 1937, while a graduate student, Turing wrote his ground-breaking paper ?On Computable Numbers with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem.? (try saying that quickly). One of the premises of Turing?s paper was that some classes of mathematical problems do not lend themselves to algorithmic representations, and are therefore not amenable to solution by automatic computers. Since Turing did not have access to a real computer (not unreasonably as they didn?t exist at the time), he invented his own as an abstract ?paper exercise.? This theoretical model, which became known as a Turing Machine, was both simple and elegant, and subsequently inspired many ?thought experiments.?"

http://www.diycalculator.com/cool.shtml

Now the real story from the same site:
"John Vincent Atanasoff and the ABC
We now turn our attention to an American mathematician and physicist, John Vincent Atanasoff (1903-1995), who has the dubious honor of being known as the man who either did or did not construct the first truly electronic special-purpose digital computer. A lecturer at Iowa State College (now Iowa State University), Atanasoff was disgruntled with the cumbersome and time-consuming process of solving complex equations by hand. Working alongside one of his graduate students ? the brilliant Clifford Berry (1918-1963) ? Atanasoff commenced work on an electronic computer in early 1939, and had a prototype machine by the autumn of that year (this machine was called the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, or ABC for short)."

Apparently you brits are correct on the theoretical side but making fiction on the production side. If we wish to include mechanical computers which is fair game since I brought it up, try the Abacus and Davinci - also on the site.

Just re-iterate, I am not disputing some of the great innovations that have come out of the US however, if you wanna make it big, you better have a US face to really be global.

There are probably too many examples to rhyme off right now, but you get my drift

I guess for a play on words, it is about HIS-story and not history eh?

If it weren't for Russians and other Europeans you wouldn't even have a NASA.

In 1992, I published an article in the Canadian "Silicon Valley News" about the so-called "BRAIN DRAIN" - where US firms were stealing the best and brightest Canadians with the lure of high salaries and low taxes.

Were it not for the ability to import brains, many aspects of the so-called "US technology industry" would still be in the stone age.

Let's give some credit where credit is due.

"In German und English I know how to count down,
und I'm learning Chinese, says Werner von Braun." -Tom Lehrer

If you say so...and Linux came from the mind of Linus Torvalds, a Finn. Pretty much blew the legitimacy of your post for me.

America is a nation of immigrants. We would not have the tech advances we have without many of those immigrants. And at one time or another, every one of the ethnic groups those immigrants belonged to was unwanted by somebody who was already here.

Windows IS an advance in that it brought easy computing to the masses... theres a reason it's the most sold and used piece of software in the world... Also, as was pointed out by someone in an earlier post, linux is just a port of unix and i just said it to exemplify one of the many *nix languages... which are all based on something out of the mind of... who? that's right, Americans!

Also... america WAS a nation of immigrants. We have far supplanted most of our original heritage and culture with the one that most of the world can't stand. I myself have roots in europe. We may not have a long history, but we have one... and i think we've done pretty damn well in the 230 or so years we've been here.

...theres a reason it's [Windows] the most sold and used piece of software in the world.

That reason is marketing.

...linux is just a port of unix...

ummmmm no

If Linux is a port at all, it is a port of MINIX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/linux-the-big-picture.html
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Edit: runaway italics

In the past, the best engineers have wanted to move to the U.S. because that's where all of the best tech development was going on. That only happens when you're the leader.

That is changing somewhat, but it's undeniable that that's how it's been for the past several decades.

Technology came to US because at first as
that was where the funding was available. a
large part of this funding was available
due to the politics of the cold War years.
Cold war is now over. New technology is now
being driven by investment from companies
who require tangable reward for effort
expended at lowest possible cost and often
this can be best found in the rapidly
developing counties with well educated
workforce and government input to encourage
investment in technology

the reason technology flourished here has many reasons, but all those reasons ultimately come to the same point... it happened here because of what was going on at whatever time, nowhere else, period. (wow i should be a politician... statements that say nothing)

this issue is just like the MS security flaws issue... when your on the top, your gonna have way more people trying to knock u down.

dont just hate on the world superpower.

buddy...yeah we were the leader in technology a little while back, but you can't argue anymore that is the case.

bc Mr. Jason said so!

they move here to US b/c of the money...money available for research and money they get paid compared to their countries of origin.

Because cost a lot less do do same work in
India. No point to do work in US because
costs are higher. In US in the past much of
big money was from Government funded
research in Cold War days

read something for crying outloud before you start pretending to know what you are talking about:

-http://searchcio.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid19_gci1263183,00.html
- http://www.diamondconsultants.com/PublicSite/ideas/perspectives/downloads/Diamond2005OutsourcingStudy.pdf
- http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9589_22-5681252.html
- http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/042505-outsourcing.html?ts

In the 1990's US companies purchased local
IT companies to get software development
done faster cheaper and better than they
where getting in US. Trimble Navigation has
a significant presence locally. Outsourcing
is not new and not confined to any one
industry. Fisher & Paykel, local a
whiteware manufacturer has outsourced all
manufacturing to Asia to stay competitive
many US firms will be doing the same,
designing products locally but
manufacturing offshore. If designing
becomes a cheaper option that will go too,
and companies, will become a collection of
bean counters and marketing dept. locally,
all real work being done offshore. stuff
the local workforce, the the managements
responsibility to shareholders is to make
biggest proffit possible, nothing else. IT
is just another product, with managers sole
responsibility, maximum proffit. You can
pull up all the articles you want but, IT
Jobs are going to India, India has their
fare share of clever well educated people,
they know how to work hard, India and China
both have rapidly expanding economies, the
US (like New Zealand) has a stagnating
economy, with imports in excess of exports.
As time goes on they will learn what they
from other counties as fast as they can but
as time goes on an overall standard of
living goes up, the size of the Indian,
Chinese, Asian market will be such that
what
is going on in the US will have lessening
significance.

The other things to consider though is the
effect that this rapid expansion is having
on the limited resources available on the
planet. Both China and India have large
populations, the biggest on the planet. As
the average Indian or Chinese citizen moves
toward the situation where they want to
consume, for example as much oil per person
as a citzen of the US things could become
difficult as because of the shear size of
these populations oil reserves and other
energy sources will come under pressure
like never before. Both these countries
have nuclear weapons and missile
technology, China has even launched a man
into space, so they have serious missile
technology. The US in these case won't be
able to try the "Iraq" method of of taking
steps to take control of any oil reserves
needed. As I see it, though you and others
may see it differently, this is the start
of a shift in not just technology
leadership but of quite possibly political
leadership, the scary part for us
bystanders how intelligently these changes
that are coming are handled. This could
happen quickly or it may take time, But I
feel it has started

Knowledge is a product of society, not by a single inivudual. Anglos by them selves, could not develop their minds, if slaves did not provide food for their bodies. Knowledge and technology are agregates of all human kind not just some small groups. What could we do without the almost free oil from the middle east, for almos a century (until 1973)? So check our history in order to better understand each other better. My only concern is that few people now want to own knowledge (MS, USA, etc.) and create patents, for instance, to stop other people from generating more knowledge, and therefore stoping the very basic attribute of science, its social charateristic.

Funny how this post's attempts at being derogatory, actually become compliments:

"many of the minds that created those advances were imports that had to move to the US just to "make it big"."

And that's a problem, why? It would have been better for that 'imported person' to stay in his/her close-minded, change-resistant, possibly war-torn society rather than come here and reach his/her full potential? Thank you for pointing out the opportunities that are here, and our willingness to accept ideas other than our own.

"I think that it comes down to bullying not playing a leader role in the (IT) industry as a country."

Why thank you! Since the US is no longer number one, I guess that means we're improving and not being the bully any more.

"Many times, companies if they did not have an American office would not flourish"

Dude, that's the same in any country you choose to speak about. If you don't have a local office, you don't do as well. Period. That said, you are welcome for allowing companies wishing international exposure to flourish on our shores.

"Take a look at the scrolling credits as an example on Adobe's products. Many of the names listed sure don't sound Anglo Saxon to me......"

This one is not only complimentary, it's HILARIOUS! Last I looked, the US was not an 'Anglo-Saxon' country. Take a look through any US phone book, and you'll see names from all over the world.

Thanks for the smiles, Nap.

Its a global phenomenon - 'Smith' is no longer the the most common name in the English telephone directory.

A major part of the US problem is the legal environment. Between Homeland Security, governments demanding information and companies who's major product is suing over intellectual property, it's a wonder any new IT products get developed in the US.

Right now, the US is unfriendly towards innovation, and industry.

- Federal government demanding information and access to company records.
- Limitations on what can be exported due to "national security interests".
- Any operations in the US coming under the scrutiny of Homeland Security. They are a huge deterrant to foreign capital and knowlege. You need to protect yourself, but at what cost?
- Limitations on importing qualified workers - the US is great on turning out MBAs and lawyers - not so great on people with technical knowlege that want to work. Notice Microsoft opening development centres in Canada so they can get workers. Personally, if I was Bill Gates I would move my corporate headquarters out of the US to a freer country with less restrictions like Canada or the UK (and less possibility of being sued).
- Companies who only exist to sue other companies over intellectual rights. The legal risks in the US are extreme and damaging. You can develop a product only to discover it's similar to something else and your're getting sued.
- Corporate culture in the US is totally disfunctional. It amazes me how many IT complaints are about the way companies operate, people are renumerated, projects are managed, among others. A lot of US companies are managed for the stock price - they forget that you actually have to make something to be viable longterm. More of the discussions seen to be about HR and personal issues than about technical issues. That tells me that something is very wrong.

I could go on...but most of you are probably aware of the problems...

The US may have a somewhat stricter set of limitations they also have a lower tax rate which presents a more favorable business environment than the countries you mention.

With Global companies, the company simply goes to or does the work in the country with the best skill set and the least restrictive ruleset.

To summarize what I read in your post, you are complainng that in the US "Money talks and ******** walks." Apply it to what you wrote.

Otherwise, not a bad post.

In theory global companies should look to countries with the best skill set and least restrictive rule sets to do business in since it would mean a better bottom line in the long run. But, most companies tend to go to countries that have the cheapest labor costs and the least restrictive rule sets to improve the next quarter reports. Global companies are becoming to concerned with the bottom line and less concerned with providing a quality product. It is a sorry state of affairs when global companies have thrown away the idea of multi-year plans in favor of short term stock increases to allow sub-standard CEO's to stay in office. But, it is pretty much inevitable as most countries move from a quality controlled business model to a fast food business model.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but
the UK and the EU have come down harder on
M$ for "monopolistic" practices than the US
has. Why would that motivate "Billy" boy to
move there? Also, in recent news, "Billy"
boy is pulling back on calling the shots in
M$, and is focusing more now on "the
Gatesway" foundation and other
anthropological interests.

Oh..back to the topic... I don't think the
US has ever been the leader in coming up
with new Technology, just the leader in
exploiting it....and trying to make it
illegal for other countries to do the same.
Something that I am sure will backfire
someday, and maybe already has, just that we
haven't lost enough blood yet to realize our
foot is bleeding.

Just to bolster your argument...

Let's start with a role call of the Manhattan Project.

Then let's go through a definition of 'Brain Drain'. (Speaking of which, will this continue if the US economy continues to tank or will the brains be drained to the EU or ...gasp... Canada?)

Technology leadership is about making better products, more innovative products, and products that consumer wants, and other people wants to copy. Technology leadership is not about making more, making cheaper, and making faster - unless you are doing manufacturing technology.

Technology leadership does not mean there are lots of people doing it and making a lot of money either. Having an industry that is attractive to young people to join in is, of course, beneficial, as there is a much larger talent pool. However, people attracted to an industry because it paid well are usually not that dedicated, don't have the motivation, and don't have the stamina to be really creative. Steve Job made the first Apple not because he thought it will make him a lot of money, just because it would be fun to do so. IBM's team to build the first PC was very small, under funded, and was not expected to make money. IBM did it just for fun. Even IBM's venture into computers was not because of profit, just because it was technically challenging.

Therefore, for the US to maintain its leadership in IT, or any other technology, the Americans, not the government, must maintain their open mind, curiosity, and the sense of having fun doing very difficult things.

The only thing that was invented for a specific purpose, and not just because it would be fun to do so, was the atomic bomb.

The other thing that maintain leadership is discipline. India was good at IT because Indians don't mind having a discipline. Many other nations have the creativity, technical know how, and tenacity, but were not as good as India, because of their lack of discipline. The "cow boy shop" mentality created too many failure in product quality. Things works, sort of, type. Americans must strengthen in this area, so that IT failures are less spectacular. This would increase funding and support from the moneyed people.

The future of IT depends on how well it will integrate with other technologies. The integration with the manufacturing technologies and material sciences is spectacular. The transportation industry is doing quite well, but need to be better. IT people should pay attention to the life science, chemistry, biochemistry, and other sciences, to borrow their techniques, exploit their inventions, and seek out new markets. However, too many IT people in US don't even have good understanding of basic college math and physical sciences. Some even to the point of ignorant about trigonometry and geometry - necessary skills to do real good graphics, maps, etc. To many commercial programmers don't understand basic optimization and searching algorithms, and algorithmic theory to really do their job adequately, not to mention creatively.

So, keep the American curiosity, and make sure your children learn their basic math and sciences, and expose them to various fields of technology, science, culture, social sciences, and literature. A people of varied interests and passion is what keeps America the technology leader, not cheap labour.

And, last but not the least: Think long term. Think about your children and grandchildren, not yourselves.

Note that many of the recent failed products are coming from companies based outside the US: . For example, who do you know who has a Nokia taco phone? Or an LG Choklit?

The spectacular failures have been economic failures related to greed, a lack of ethics, or both.

I agree with your opinion, though. The problem is that the longest term any of the MBAs and other bean-counters running the American companies can think is the next quarterly statement.

it does ultimately stymie innovation.

However, I believe that public companies can think long-term, they just aren't in the habit of doing it right now (partly because of job hopping trends). A truly good leader knows how to balance the long term and short term. I just think we have a bit of a dearth in truly good leaders, and a lot of the good leaders are hopping jobs and so only focusing on short term results to make themselves look as good as possible in order to hop to a bigger, better gig.

Frequent job hopping leads to accepting roles that are beyond your level of competence.