Does the industry support only the profitable innovation?

I spent some time thinking about this topic and found out that almost every innovation supported by the industry has been commercialized. It just doesn't make sense for the corporations to spend millions in research and development that can't be sold for a price. Then I wondered one of the biggest powerhouse of innovation (NASA) does spend some money for the advancement of technology. But my guess is that NASA does sell most of its technology to the Military and corporations.

The consequential question : Is this good for the mankind?

Yes, Industries do support only profitable innovation. Nowadays, the first question which is on the queue when an idea is presented is "Is this(idea or technology or something) commercially(practically) viable?" Forget technology, even patents are sold for a pompous sum.This definitely leads to the slow(but steady) destruction of mankind.For instance consider this example. You might have heard about "smart bullets"(not to be confused with missiles, these are bullets which are used in SMG's ,revolver's etc.) which can track the target and shoot it perfectly and thus the accuracy is not of great concern. This might definitely go into the hands of those idiotic terrorists(who may buy this technology from the "definitely greedy" inventor)with which they can easily wreak havoc.

What use is innovation without application?
And those applications, however niche they might be at first, will be better utilized if it comes to be mass produced or available to the general public.

It just doesn't make sense to invest a large amount of money and other resources to find something new, if that new thing is not considerably better than what we have currently. Better in some way.. Perhaps cheaper, may be more reliable or safer or easier to use or a hundred other things which can be considered an improvement. If an innovation doesn't offer any of these things, there's no point pursuing it.

So, innovation with a practical use can be otherwise called innovation 'for profit'. There is nothing wrong in it..

We cannot generalise this question.
If the innovation is done keeping a problem in perspective, then it is meant to solve the problem. Thats when may be you can relate application/buinsess/profit with it.
But most of the innovations are futuristic, where applications are 'built' on innovation, so in such cases we cannot exaclty estimate what money it would rake?
For example- radio active elements - was need of energy / weapons what triggered discovery and research on this material?? It was rather other way around.
And sometimes, developing applications to meet few requirements might by itself trigger innovation .

Here, Theortical scientist Sean Carrol; who is currently authoring a book about the Higgs-Boson particle and Large Hadron Collider during the talk, answers generic questions such purpose of such euqipment which 'might not' be useful for non-scientists /physicts

#-Link-Snipped-#

In a perfect world, innovation would have been done with the sole intention of using it for the "greater good". Making money should be an added bonus.

Alas we live in a practical world where "innovators" are paid great sums if they are able to discover/invent the next best thing since sliced bread. And there is nothing wrong with this - everyone has to pay their bills at the end of the day (or the starting of the month 😁)

However, the problem starts when companies start "limiting" these innovations for even more profit.

For example, have you noticed that most brand new laptops carry a 1 year warranty. But the batteries come with a 6 month warranty only. 😀 Don't tell me that billion dollar companies are incapable of developing new batteries that last a little longer?