Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V + Ctrl-X组合:)

前提:自1980年以来几乎没有新发明。

要做的第一件事是定义发明，否则你就会误入歧途。Dictionary.com对发明的第二个定义是:

美国专利法。一种新的、有用的工艺、机器、改进等，以前不存在，被认为是某种独特的直觉或天才的产物，区别于普通的机械技能或工艺。

因此，自1980年以来，计算机领域的新发明很少。都发生了什么?显然，有大量的新技术和新事物出现，但它们是什么呢?

我们不再发明了，我们只是在改进已经存在的东西。

举个简单的例子:

光盘最早出现于1977年，但直到1982年才被业界接受。此时，第一家刻录cd的工厂刚刚准备就绪。最终，到1985年，CD-ROM(只读存储器)被接受为一种媒介。5年后，CD-RW问世。(来源:维基百科)

现在怎么办呢?好吧，考虑到我们有更大的硬盘驱动器(仍然只是在范式上的改进)，我们需要更多的空间来取代VHS市场，使视频与计算机兼容。于是就有了DVD，尽管我删去了对现有CD技术的许多改进。

DVD是在1995年被“发明”出来的。(来源:维基百科)

从那时起，我们有:

可写dvd和可重写dvd 双层dvd 三层和四层dvd(尚未发布，但通过简单的驱动程序修订是可行的) hd - dvd 蓝光光盘

显然，这个列表并不包括所有的内容。但是注意新发明，记住我上面给出的定义，在那个列表中。你不能!它们都是光盘概念的变体，都是相同硬件的变体，都是现有软件的变体。

WHY?

成本。你看，对现有产品进行渐进式改进在经济上更便宜。如果我可以卖给你一张HD DVD或蓝光光盘，因为你认为它是必要的或很酷，那么我就没有必要发布我的三层或四层DVD计划。事实上，我可以收取很高的费用来获得新技术，因为您是早期采用者，您需要我的“新的和改进的!”硬件。

这就是所谓的市场营销或产品关系。

但是软件呢?

怎么了?在1980年之前，有很多软件创新在进行，但从那以后，它主要只是对已经存在的东西进行改进或重新发明轮子。看看任何操作系统或办公软件包就知道了。

结论

As far as I'm concerned, there have been virtually no new inventions in the past 29 years. I could wax long and cross a great many industries, but why should I bother? Once you start thinking about it, and start comparing an "invention" to a prior, similar product ... you'll find it is so similar that it isn't even funny. Even the internal combustion engine has been around since 1906 with no new inventions in that field since then; many improvements and variations of this "wheel" yes, but no new inventions.

甚至连美国在伊拉克部署的新武器——利用微波让人感到震惊，就像触摸灯泡一样——都不是新武器。同样的想法被用于安全系统，然后被分类并退出市场，用超声波让入侵者感到身体不适。这是一种定向形式的武器，具有不同的波长和应用，不是一项新发明。

开源社区开发。

至于编程概念，IoC /依赖注入在1988年，根在1983年。福勒在他的Bliki上对这个概念的历史做了一些注释。

更好的用户界面。

今天的用户界面仍然很糟糕。我指的不是小的方面，而是大的、基本的方面。我不禁注意到，即使是最好的程序也仍然有一些接口，这些接口要么极其复杂，要么需要以其他方式进行大量的抽象思考，而且无法达到传统的非软件工具的易用性。

诚然，这是由于软件可以比传统工具做更多的事情。但这不是接受现状的理由。此外，大多数软件都做得不好。

In general, applications still lack a certain “just works” feeling are too much oriented by what can be done, rather than what should be done. One point that has been raised time and again, and that is still not solved, is the point of saving. Applications crash, destroying hours of work. I have the habit of pressing Ctrl+S every few seconds (of course, this no longer works in web applications). Why do I have to do this? It's mind-numbingly stupid. This is clearly a task for automation. Of course, the application also has to save a diff for every modification I make (basically an infinite undo list) in case I make an error.

解决这个问题其实并不难。在每个应用程序中都很难实现它，因为没有好的API可以做到这一点。编程工具和库必须显著改进，才能在所有平台和程序上轻松实现这些工作，适用于所有具有任意备份存储且不需要用户交互的文件格式。但在我们最终开始编写“好的”应用程序而不仅仅是足够的应用程序之前，这是必要的一步。

I believe that Apple currently approximates the “just works” feeling best in some regards. Take for example their newest version of iPhoto which features a face recognition that automatically groups photos by people appearing in them. That is a classical task that the user does not want to do manually and doesn't understand why the computer doesn't do it automatically. And even iPhoto is still a very long way from a good UI, since said feature still requires ultimate confirmation by the user (for each photo!), since the face recognition engine isn't perfect.

回答“为什么新思想会消亡”和“如何应对”这两个问题?

I suspect a lot of the lack of progress is due to the massive influx of capital and entrenched wealth in the industry. Sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's become conventional wisdom that any new idea gets one shot; if it doesn't make it at the first try, it can't come back. It gets bought by someone with entrenched interests, or just FAILs, and the energy is gone. A couple examples are tablet computers, and integrated office software. The Newton and several others had real potential, but ended up (through competitive attrition and bad judgment) squandering their birthrights, killing whole categories. (I was especially fond of Ashton Tate's Framework; but I'm still stuck with Word and Excel).

怎么办呢?首先想到的是Wm。莎士比亚的建议:“让我们杀了所有的律师。”但恐怕他们现在装备太精良了。实际上，我认为最好的选择是找到某种开源计划。它们似乎比其他选择更好地保持可访问性和增量改进。但是这个行业已经变得足够大了，所以某种有机的合作机制是必要的。

I also think that there's a dynamic that says that the entrenched interests (especially platforms) require a substantial amount of change - churn - to justify continuing revenue streams; and this absorbs a lot of creative energy that could have been spent in better ways. Look how much time we spend treading water with the newest iteration from Microsoft or Sun or Linux or Firefox, making changes to systems that for the most part work fine already. It's not because they are evil, it's just built into the industry. There's no such thing as Stable Equilibrium; all the feedback mechanisms are positive, favoring change over stability. (Did you ever see a feature withdrawn, or a change retracted?)

关于SO的另一个讨论线索是臭鼬工厂综合症(参考:Geoffrey Moore):在大型组织中，真正的创新几乎总是(90%以上)出现在自发出现的未经授权的项目中，这些项目完全由个人或小团队的主动性推动(通常会受到正式的管理等级的反对)。所以:质疑权威，反抗体制。