Big companies are looking closer term, and even the most technological companies spend less than 1% of sales on research. Startups have suffered the burst bubble.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The market is so competitive. There are so many products that are similar. So we are forced to invest in innovative research in new products that are one or two years ahead of the market.
IBM isn't investing billions of dollars every year into research and development - and winning more patents than our top 10 competitors combined for more than a decade - as an academic exercise. But research is now being driven much more by what people need rather than just by what is possible.
Most companies don't have the luxury of focusing exclusively on innovation. They have to innovate while stamping out zillions of widgets or processing billions of transactions.
Tech companies don't exist in a bubble; they draw from and feed into a larger community. Ideally, the relationship is symbiotic.
Big companies have trouble with innovation. Innovation is about bad ideas, or ideas that look like bad ideas. That's the fundamental thing.
We're starting to see a renaissance of investors embracing the idea that scientists can build businesses.
Big companies such as Google and Facebook buy startups at ridiculously high prices - not for their products, but for their people.
Why is it that big companies fail when the technology changes? It happens in every industry, so what's the pattern? What are they all doing wrong?
Small businesses are more nimble and innovative than large corporations, and as a result are much more likely to develop the breakthrough ideas we need for global competitiveness.
The bigger a company gets, the more people are involved in decisions, the slower decisions get made. Look, the whole theory of startups is that three motivated people can go and do something that every company can't.
No opposing quotes found.