I've spent a lot of time recently wondering about short-term vs long-term thinking. In politics, I've heard people say that the important decisions are all "long-term", which they define as 2-3 years (Canada). In technology and science, "long-term" seems to also mean 2-3 years for so many people (the author of this article excluded, obviously). The Apple/Samsung/Google blog posts that dominate tech media almost all reek of this thinking.
It's very bizarre. In these domains, why is the prevailing thinking not that "short-term" = 2-3 years, and "long-term" = 20-30-500 years? I think the world would be a significantly better place is more people thought about what the world will look like, and how their actions will affect it, 50 years out.
Neither politics nor economics enable long-term thinking structurally.
"Long-term" is useless in economics since everything depends on your next earning call(s). If your figures are bad, you will probably let go, and there is no way to ensure continuity, since there can be no assurance that your successor(s) won't "pivot", as it is so nicely described here.
"Long-term" is equally useless in politics, were the next election date replaces your next earning call. You can promise all sorts of things that are supposed to happen after the next election, however, there is no way to ensure continuity. Your political successor(s) might continue, or they might not, instead reversing your policies and decisions. (edit: A good example is the UK's David Cameron right now, who promises a EU-referendum once he gets re-elected (and really, it should be if). Will he be elected? We will have to wait and see.)
Both our political and economic systems discourage long-term planning and thinking by focusing on short-sighted goals in the interest of present interests (be they stockholders' interests or politician's interests). Both systems are geared towards cementing one's own position of power (whether through money or policymaking), and long-term thinking is not particularly useful for that, simply because the further into the future the projected plans reach, the more uncertain they become.
Long-term thinking is actually a big part of politics in the United States. Quite a few fights revolve around it.
Debt and entitlement fights are about how policy decisions made today will affect the solvency of programs like Medicare or Social Security decades from now.
Intellectual property fights are about whether making IP less lucrative will affect the rate of innovation over the long term--again, looking at decade time scales.
Tax fights are about the long-term impact on economic growth. No one thinks taxing the rich a few more percentage points will kill all the businesses overnight. The fear is that over time, it will reduce the pool of available capital to fund "big bet, big risk" investments.
Even fights over social issues like gay marriage are about the long-term moral health of our society.
A lot of these are expressed as short-term fights over self-imposed deadlines like the fiscal cliff, the debt limit, or the continuing resolution. But the reason the fights are so vicious is because both parties believe they are the ones truly thinking long-term.
I'm pretty sure AAPL's selloff has less to do with long term thinking and more with retail investors/hedgies who rode the wave seeing the stock go down and decide the party's over, it's just time to get out and take profits. Rinse, repeat. AAPL's current valuation is absurdly pessimistic of the company's future prospects.
I sold my apple stock when I heard about the iPad mini. To me its an indication that there's no more radical innovation at Apple. They're going to try to ride on their past successes. I'm sure some new things will come out in the next few years, and i'm sure they'll make a billion dollars doing it, but they won't have that "Steve jobs" touch that made people want to wait outside in cold weather for days in advance to buy them.
How the hell did this make it to the front-page of HackerNews?
TLDR; (Last paragraph of the article)
"So my feeling is that Google is playing the long game in mobile while Apple is missing the cloud piece and Samsung is just a hardware player at this point. And the stock market understands that."
It all seemed reasonable enough to me, except for the fact that after talking about long-term thinking so much he posted a graph of a 24 month period, and for more than half of that Google and Apple were very close in value, contradicting what he said.
re: "You can change handsets pretty easily when all your data is in the cloud."
True enough. I was up and running in minutes when I upgraded an old Droid to a Samsung S III. I just had to install the couple of apps I use and logon to my Google account, then wait a few minutes. Everything was there.
This reads to me like the classic market share pitch--if you get a big enough user group, you're bound to get rich someday. A lot of Internet companies have thought this way in the past. Only a few of them have actually made it happen.
Google has made a ton of money from search, but never made much money from maps or Gmail on the desktop, despite massive market share. I don't see any specifics that explain why it will be different on mobile.
It's very bizarre. In these domains, why is the prevailing thinking not that "short-term" = 2-3 years, and "long-term" = 20-30-500 years? I think the world would be a significantly better place is more people thought about what the world will look like, and how their actions will affect it, 50 years out.