A lot of comments here assume the research is to scam people. But if we want to understand Adobe’s research, I think it’s important to keep some things in mind.
If you’re an expert in the field of computer graphics, you probably find it thrilling to be surrounded by like-minded people, surrounded by people as skilled as you or even more skilled. This is something that Adobe understands. That is why Adobe invests in hiring bright minds to do research.
Is Adobe going to use this research to create extractive products? You bet! But the research itself is open to anyone.
This is similar to how Bell Labs is a corporation and yet it gave us innovations like transistors, Unix, and languages like C and S.
In general, if you’re at the bleeding edge of your field, it’s harder to find places and communities that are enabling and motivating for your work. That is why scientists like Galileo or Kepler would work for rich patrons: the patrons would give them access to money and connections that enabled the scientific work. This is not to say that this arrangement is perfect, but it reflects the historically-grounded decisions that people often choose to take.
Whether we like it or not, today’s rich patrons are corporations (and nation states). And those are the places that today’s bright minds often choose to go to so that these bright minds stay in the bleeding edge.
Of course, I don’t want to minimize the fact that Adobe is scummy and scammy. I just want to distinguish between patrons/capitalists and bright minds. They are motivated by different things. Basically, one wants profits and the other wants to advance their field.
I think the challenge ahead of us is how to minimize things like scummy corporate behavior and how to maximize bleeding edge research. Here are some potential solutions that I like: open source and libre software, open-access scientific journals, the entrepreneurial state, and mission economies.
A lot of comments here assume the research is to scam people. But if we want to understand Adobe’s research, I think it’s important to keep some things in mind.
If you’re an expert in the field of computer graphics, you probably find it thrilling to be surrounded by like-minded people, surrounded by people as skilled as you or even more skilled. This is something that Adobe understands. That is why Adobe invests in hiring bright minds to do research.
Is Adobe going to use this research to create extractive products? You bet! But the research itself is open to anyone.
This is similar to how Bell Labs is a corporation and yet it gave us innovations like transistors, Unix, and languages like C and S.
In general, if you’re at the bleeding edge of your field, it’s harder to find places and communities that are enabling and motivating for your work. That is why scientists like Galileo or Kepler would work for rich patrons: the patrons would give them access to money and connections that enabled the scientific work. This is not to say that this arrangement is perfect, but it reflects the historically-grounded decisions that people often choose to take.
Whether we like it or not, today’s rich patrons are corporations (and nation states). And those are the places that today’s bright minds often choose to go to so that these bright minds stay in the bleeding edge.
Of course, I don’t want to minimize the fact that Adobe is scummy and scammy. I just want to distinguish between patrons/capitalists and bright minds. They are motivated by different things. Basically, one wants profits and the other wants to advance their field.
I think the challenge ahead of us is how to minimize things like scummy corporate behavior and how to maximize bleeding edge research. Here are some potential solutions that I like: open source and libre software, open-access scientific journals, the entrepreneurial state, and mission economies.