“Technology in the long-run is irrelevant”. That is what a consumer of mine told me when I made a presentation to him about a new product. I had been talking about the product’s characteristics and rewards and listed “state-of-the-art technology” or something 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 how I utilized “Technologies” in my presentation. But I began pondering about whether or not he could be ideal in other contexts as properly.
What is Technology?
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
a: the practical application of understanding specially in a specific location: engineering two
: a manner of accomplishing a task specially making use of technical processes, techniques, or understanding
: the specialized elements of a certain field of endeavor
Wikipedia defines it as:
Technologies (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, “art, skill, cunning of hand” and -λογÎ¯α, -logia) is the producing, modification, usage, and expertise of tools, machines, strategies, crafts, systems, and solutions of organization, in order to solve a dilemma, strengthen a preexisting solution to a trouble, achieve a objective, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, such as machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures. Technologies significantly affect human as effectively as other animal species’ capacity to manage and adapt to their all-natural environments. The term can either be applied generally or to precise places: examples consist of construction technologies, health-related technologies, and details technologies.
Both definitions revolve around the similar issue – application and usage.
Technology is an enabler
A lot of individuals mistakenly think it is technology which drives innovation. However from the definitions above, that is clearly not the case. It is chance which defines innovation and technologies which enables innovation. Believe of the classic “Construct a superior mousetrap” instance taught in most business schools. You may well have the technology to construct a greater mousetrap, but if you have no mice or the old mousetrap operates effectively, there is no opportunity and then the technology to create a better 1 becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are overrun with mice then the opportunity exists to innovate a item working with your technologies.
One more example, a single with which I am intimately familiar, are consumer electronics startup companies. I’ve been related with both these that succeeded and these that failed. Each and every possessed exceptional major edge technologies. The difference was chance. These that failed could not find the chance to create a meaningful innovation using their technologies. In fact to survive, these companies had to morph oftentimes into something completely distinct and if they were lucky they could take advantage of derivatives of their original technologies. Much more often than not, the original technology wound up in the scrap heap. Technology, as a result, is an enabler whose ultimate value proposition is to make improvements to our lives. In order to be relevant, it requires to be made use of to build innovations that are driven by opportunity.
Technology as a competitive benefit?
Numerous organizations list a technology as 1 of their competitive benefits. Is this valid? In some circumstances yes, but In most cases no.
Technologies develops along two paths – an evolutionary path and a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary technology is one which enables new industries or enables solutions to complications that were previously not doable. Semiconductor technologies is a great instance. Not only did it spawn new industries and goods, but it spawned other revolutionary technologies – transistor technology, integrated circuit technologies, microprocessor technology. All which provide quite a few of the products and solutions we consume these days. But is semiconductor technology a competitive benefit? Looking at the number of semiconductor companies that exist now (with new ones forming every single day), I’d say not. How about microprocessor technology? Again, no. Lots of microprocessor providers out there. How about quad core microprocessor technologies? Not as numerous companies, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM, and a host of businesses constructing custom quad core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, and so on). So again, not much of a competitive advantage. Competitors from competing technologies and quick access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive advantage of any specific technology. Android vs iOS is a excellent example of how this operates. Each operating systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple utilized their technologies to introduce iOS and gained an early marketplace advantage. On the other hand, Google, utilizing their variant of Unix (a competing technology), caught up somewhat promptly. The causes for this lie not in the underlying technology, but in how the items created attainable by these technologies had been brought to market place (no cost vs. walled garden, and so on.) and the variations in the strategic visions of each business.
Evolutionary technology is one which incrementally builds upon the base revolutionary technology. But by it is really nature, the incremental adjust is much easier for a competitor to match or leapfrog. Take for instance wireless cellphone technologies. Firm V introduced 4G products prior to Firm A and when it could have had a brief term advantage, as soon as Business A introduced their 4G goods, the advantage due to technology disappeared. The customer went back to choosing Company A or Firm V based on cost, service, coverage, whatever, but not primarily based on technologies. As a result technologies could have been relevant in the quick term, but in the long term, became irrelevant.
In youtube to mp3 converter , technologies have a tendency to promptly grow to be commoditized, and within any certain technology lies the seeds of its own death.
This report was written from the prospective of an finish client. From a developer/designer standpoint points get murkier. The further a single is removed from the technology, the significantly less relevant it becomes. To a developer, the technology can look like a product. An enabling item, but a solution nonetheless, and therefore it is hugely relevant. Bose makes use of a proprietary signal processing technology to enable items that meet a set of market place needs and as a result the technologies and what it enables is relevant to them. Their buyers are a lot more concerned with how it sounds, what’s the cost, what is the high-quality, etc., and not so considerably with how it is achieved, as a result the technology used is a lot much less relevant to them.