> Globally, the top R&D spenders are increasingly concentrated in software and computer services
I always find these sorts of statements strange because most software is not intended to be software but rather something else. For example, Adobe's suite should be classified under 'art supplies' or 'video production'. While true that it's software, in my mind, it's like classifying a car builder as a metal fabricator.
The truth is software and computers are pervasive today. There's rarely any software (other than development tools) that are truly aimed at computers themselves. Almost all software today is used for other industries and ought to be classified under that.
Under this taxonomy, I think things would seem much more diverse.
Most people who shop at Blick don't make their own canvas, clay. Many of them wouldn't know how. They could learn and some do, but many never will. Likewise they could learn to write software but most won't.
I always find these sorts of statements strange because most software is not intended to be software but rather something else. For example, Adobe's suite should be classified under 'art supplies' or 'video production'. While true that it's software, in my mind, it's like classifying a car builder as a metal fabricator.
The truth is software and computers are pervasive today. There's rarely any software (other than development tools) that are truly aimed at computers themselves. Almost all software today is used for other industries and ought to be classified under that.
Under this taxonomy, I think things would seem much more diverse.