"Technology in the long-run is irrelevant". That is what a customer of mine told ME after I created a presentation to him a couple of new product. I had been talking about the product's options and advantages and listed "state-of-the-art technology" or one thing to that impact, as one of them. That is when he created his statement. I realized later that he was correct, at least within the context of however I used "Technology" in my presentation. But I began pondering whether or not he may be right in different contexts additionally.
What is Technology?
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
1
a: the practical application of information particularly in an exceedingly explicit area: engineering two <medical technology>
b: a capability given by the practical application of information <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially exploitation technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a explicit field of endeavor <educational technology>
Wikipedia defines it as:
Technology (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to resolve a retardant, improve a preexisting answer to a drawback, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific operate. It can conjointly talk over with the gathering of such tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures. Technologies significantly have an effect on human as well as different animal species' ability to manage and adapt to their natural environments. The term can either be applied usually or to specific areas: examples embody construction technology, medical technology, and information technology.
Both definitions revolve around the same factor - application and usage.
Technology is an enabler
Many individuals erroneously believe it's technology that drives innovation. Yet from the definitions on top of, that is clearly not the case. It is opportunity that defines innovation and technology that allows innovation. Think of the classic "Build a higher mousetrap" example tutored in most business colleges. You might have the technology to make a higher mousetrap, but if you have no mice or the recent mousetrap works well, there is no opportunity and so the technology to make a higher one becomes immaterial. On the other hand, if you are overrun with mice then the chance exists to introduce a product exploitation your technology.
Another example, one with which I am intimately acquainted, are shopper physics startup firms. I've been related to both people who succeeded and people that failing. Each possessed distinctive leading edge technologies. The difference was chance. Those that failed couldn't realize the chance to develop a meaning innovation exploitation their technology. In fact to survive, these companies had to morph frequently into one thing completely completely different and if they were lucky they may benefit of derivatives of their original technology. More typically than not, the original technology tense within the scrap heap. Technology, thus, is an enabler whose final worth proposition is to build enhancements to our lives. In order to be relevant, it needs to be accustomed produce innovations that square measure driven by chance.
Technology as a competitive advantage?
Many firms list a technology as one of their competitive benefits. Is this valid? In some cases yes, but In most cases no.
Technology develops along 2 methods - Associate in Nursing organic process path and a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary technology is one which allows new industries or allows solutions to issues that were antecedently not attainable. Semiconductor technology is a ideal. Not only did it spawn new industries and product, but it spawned different revolutionary technologies - semiconductor device technology, integrated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All which offer several of the product and services we have a tendency to consume nowadays. But is semiconductor technology a competitive advantage? wanting at the amount of semiconductor firms that exist nowadays (with new ones forming each day), I'd say not. How concerning microchip technology? once more, no. Lots of microchip firms out there. How concerning quad core microchip technology? Not as several firms, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM, and a host of companies building custom quad core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). So again, not much of a competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and simple access to information processing mitigates the perceived competitive advantage of any explicit technology. Android vs iOS is a ideal of however this works. Both operational systems square measure derivatives of UNIX system. Apple used their technology to introduce iOS and gained an early market advantage. However, Google, utilizing their variant of Unix (a competitive technology), caught up relatively quickly. The reasons for this lie not within the underlying technology, but in however the product created attainable by those technologies were brought to market (free vs. walled garden, etc.) and the differences within the strategic visions of every company.
Evolutionary technology is one that incrementally builds upon the base revolutionary technology. But by it's terribly nature, the incremental modification is easier for a contender to match or leapfrog. Take for example wireless cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G products previous to Company A and whereas it's going to have had a brief term advantage, as soon as Company A introduced their 4G product, the advantage due to technology disappeared. The consumer went back to picking Company A or Company V supported worth, service, coverage, whatever, but not based mostly on technology. Thus technology would possibly have been relevant within the short term, but in the future, became irrelevant.
In today's world, technologies tend to quickly become commoditized, and within any explicit technology lies the seeds of its own death.
Technology's Relevance
This article was written from the possible of an finish client. From a developer/designer standpoint things get murkier. The further one is removed from the technology, the less relevant it becomes. To a developer, the technology can look like a product. An facultative product, but a product nevertheless, and thus it is extremely relevant. Bose uses a proprietary signal process technology to change product that meet a set of market necessities and so the technology and what it allows has relevancy to them. Their customers are a lot of involved with however it sounds, what's the worth, what's the quality, etc., and not so abundant with however it's achieved, thus the technology used is abundant less relevant to them.
Recently, I was involved in an exceedingly discussion on Google+ concerning the new Motorola X phone. A lot of the individuals on those posts slammed the phone for varied reasons - worth, locked boot loader, etc. There were also many knocks on the actual fact that it did not have a quad-core processor just like the S4 or HTC One that were priced equally. What they failed to grasp is that whether or not the manufacturer used one, 2, 4, or 8 cores in the finish makes no distinction as long because the phone will deliver a competitive (or even better of class) feature set, functionality, price, and user experience. The iPhone is one of the foremost successful phones ever made, and yet it runs on a dual-core processor. It still delivers one of the simplest user experiences on the market. The features that square measure enabled by the technology square measure what square measure relevant to the shopper, not the technology itself.
The relevance of technology so, is as an enabler, not as a product feature or a competitive advantage, or Associate in Nursingy myriad of other things - an enabler. Looking at the golem package, it is a formidable piece of software technology, and yet Google provides it away. Why? Because standalone, it does nothing for Google. Giving it away allows different firms to use their experience to build product and services that then act as enablers for Google's product and services. To Google, that's wherever the real worth is.
The possession of or access to a technology is only vital for what it allows you to try to to - produce innovations that solve issues. That is the important relevance of technology.
0 comments:
Post a Comment