For 50 years, Moore’s Law has served as a guide for technologists everywhere in the world, setting the pace for the semiconductor industry’s innovation cycle. Moore’s Law has made a tremendous impact not only on the electronics industry, but on our world and our everyday life. It led us from the infancy of the PC era, through the formative years of the internet, to the adolescence of smartphones. Now, with the rise of the Internet of Things, market researchers forecast that in the next 5 years, the number of connected devices per person will more than double, so even after 50 years we don’t see Moore’s Law slowing down.
As chipmakers work tirelessly to continue device scaling, they are encountering daunting technical and economic hurdles. Increasing complexity is driving the need for new materials and new device architectures. Enabling these innovations and the node-over-node success of Moore’s Law requires advancements in precision materials engineering, including precision films, materials removal, materials modification and interface engineering, supported by metrology and inspection.
Though scaling is getting harder, I am confident Moore’s Law will continue because equipment suppliers and chipmakers never cease to innovate.
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently released a report that attempts to provide a “holistic view” of the so-called sharing economy, including how it is unfolding “across both business and consumer landscapes.” While an exact definition of the “sharing economy” can be hard to pin down, it generally refers to the concept of using information technology to allow consumers to rent or borrow goods, especially those that are underutilized, rather than buy and own them. Undoubtedly, the sharing economy is an important and innovative approach to commerce, especially having given rise to wildly popular services such as Airbnb and Lyft. More broadly, the sharing economy can boost economic welfare by allowing the economy to more efficiently utilize goods and services.
Given all this, we certainly need thorough analysis of the sharing economy to fully grasp its potential. Yet PwC’s report errs badly in at least one important respect: It conflates unlawful sharing of digital media with legitimate peer-to-peer activities.
With regards to the challenges of the sharing economy in digital media, PwC writes:
“The ambiguity of the sharing economy is particularly evident in entertainment and media, where consumers are open to ‘sharing’
Innovation is frequently underemphasized in the economics literature because it is qualitative by nature, and qualitative changes are hard to measure. A new NBER paper by three economists, Lakdawalla, Reif, and Malani, makes some progress toward a better measure of innovation, specifically innovation in health care. They show that by ignoring the way medical innovations help reduce risk, previous studies have tended to underestimate the true value of medical innovations—by as much as 30-80%.
To arrive at their estimates the authors use a new way of valuing risk. Our health is inherently risky, which is why we have health insurance for smoothing expenses out over time and between people. Innovation is also risky, which is why investors in startups often expect high returns and we often look to the government to fund basic research. But Lakdawalla, Reif, and Malani show that risks don’t always add up—sometimes they cancel out. Risks taken to innovate and create new health products and treatments can reduce health risks for people, because new innovations help keep us safer and healthier.
When risks taken in health innovation pay off, the reward they bring isn’t just the
This article was originally published in The Huffington Post. It is co-authored by Val Giddings and Jon Entine
Recently on the Huffington Post we came across a disturbing article – an attack by Jeffrey Smith on two respected university professors who apply a critical eye to the claims made by various advocates alleging dangers to human health linked to genetically modified organisms (GMOs.)
Smith, if you are not familiar with him, heads up a one-man band rabidly anti-GMO organization known as the Institute for Responsible Technology–he and his organization are controversial to say the least, but more on that later.
The subject of the attack piece was co-written by University of Illinois emeritus professor Bruce Chassy and University of Melbourne geneticist David Tribe. It appears on the website of AcademicsReview, an independent non-profit set up by the scholars to address the maelstrom of misinformation that passes for debate on the GMO issue. In one of their most pointed and heavily circulated critiques, Chassy and Tribe examine one of Smith’s two self-published books that supposedly ‘prove’ that GMO foods are reckless and dangerous.
Chassy and Tribe’s critique titled “Yogic Flying
Earlier this week the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) published what purports to be an investigative look at broadband competition, speed, and prices, concluding that “U.S. Internet users pay more and have fewer choices than Europeans.” This is a common myth that we at ITIF have long worked to dispel, but apparently some myths die hard.
CPI duplicates the usual argument made in this space, attempting to compare a handful of French and U.S. cities, claiming that because French cities offer more broadband “choices,” they have lower price, and higher adoption. CPI suggests that the supposed success demonstrated in their “snapshot” should push us to emulate France’s open access policies. There are a number of problems with this picture.
CPI compares a set of advertised broadband rates in a handful of French cities to American cities. Let’s start by pulling back a bit and looking at country-wide data. If you are going to opine on national policy direction, it’s worthwhile to at least take a passing glance on the statistics at a national level, instead of comparing five French cities with five American ones. Compiled below are