What Is the Technology and Relevance of Technology?
"Technology within the long-run is irrelevant". That is such a customer of mine told me after i made a presentation to him in regards to a new product. I had been referring to the product's features and advantages and listed "state-of-the-art technology" or something to that particular effect, as one of all of them. That is when he created his statement. I realized later he was correct, at least inside the context of how I used "Technology" during my presentation. But I began considering whether he could be right in other contexts too.
What is Technology?
Merriam-Webster identifies it as:
1
a: the request of knowledge especially in a specific area: engineering 2 [Aaeon technology]
w: a capability given by the request of knowledge [a car's fuel-saving technology]
2: a way of accomplishing a task particularly using technical processes, methods, or even knowledge
3: the specialized facets of a particular field of effort [educational technology]
Wikipedia defines it because:
Technology (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, "art, ability, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) may be the making, modification, usage, and understanding of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, techniques, and methods of organization, to be able to solve a problem, improve a preexisting means to fix a problem, achieve a objective, handle an applied input/output relation or execute a specific function. It can also make reference to the collection of such resources, including machinery, modifications, arrangements as well as procedures. Technologies significantly affect human along with other animal species' ability to control and adjust to their natural environments. The term can either be reproduced generally or to specific places: examples include construction technology, healthcare technology, and information technology.
Both definitions revolve around the same - application and usage.
Technology is definitely an enabler
Many people mistakenly believe that it is technology which drives innovation. Yet in the definitions above, that is clearly false. It is opportunity which identifies innovation and technology which allows innovation. Think of the classic "Build a much better mousetrap" example taught in the majority of business schools. You might possess the technology to build a much better mousetrap, but if you don't have any mice or the old mousetrap is effective, there is no opportunity after which the technology to build a much better one becomes irrelevant. On another hand, if you are overrun with mice then your opportunity exists to innovate an item using your technology.
Another instance, one with which I 'm intimately familiar, are consumer consumer electronics startup companies. I've been related to both those that succeeded and people that failed. Each possessed unique industry leading technologies. The difference was chance. Those that failed could not discover the opportunity to develop a meaningful innovation utilizing their technology. In fact to endure, these companies had to morph oftentimes into something completely different and if they were lucky they could make the most of derivatives of their original technologies. More often than not, the initial technology wound up in the actual scrap heap. Technology, thus, is an enabler whose greatest value proposition is to help with our lives. In order to become relevant, it needs to supply to create innovations that tend to be driven by opportunity.
Technology like a competitive advantage?
Many companies list a technology as you of their competitive advantages. Is actually this valid? In some instances yes, but In most instances no.
Technology develops along two pathways - an evolutionary path along with a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary technology is the one that enables new industries or enables methods to problems that were previously difficult. Semiconductor technology is a great example. Not only did this spawn new industries and items, but it spawned other groundbreaking technologies - transistor technology, incorporated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All which provide most of the products and services we eat today. But is semiconductor technologies a competitive advantage? Looking at the amount of semiconductor companies that exist these days (with new ones forming every single day), I'd say not. What about microprocessor technology? Again, no. Plenty of microprocessor companies out there. What about quad core microprocessor technology? Less many companies, but you possess Intel, AMD, ARM, and a number of companies building custom quad primary processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, and so on). So again, not high of a competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and comfortable access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive benefit of any particular technology. Android vs iOS is among how this works. Both os's are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their technology in order to introduce iOS and gained an earlier market advantage. However, Google, making use of their variant of Unix (the competing technology), caught upward relatively quickly. The reasons with this lie not in the fundamental technology, but in how these products made possible by those technologies were delivered to market (free vs. walled backyard, etc. )#) and the differences within the strategic visions of each organization.
Evolutionary technology is one which incrementally builds upon the bottom revolutionary technology. But by it is extremely nature, the incremental change is simpler for a competitor to complement or leapfrog. Take for instance wireless cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G products just before Company A and while it might have had a short phrase advantage, as soon as Organization A introduced their 4G items, the advantage due to technologies disappeared. The consumer went to choosing Company A or Company V depending on price, service, coverage, whatever, although not based on technology. Thus technology might have been relevant for the short term, but in the long phrase, became irrelevant.
In today's globe, technologies tend to quickly turn out to be commoditized, and within any particular technologies lies the seeds of its death.
Technology's Relevance Aaeon
This article was written in the prospective of an end client. From a developer/designer standpoint points get murkier. The further the first is removed from the technology, the actual less relevant it becomes. To some developer, the technology can seem like a product. An enabling item, but a product nonetheless, and therefore it is highly relevant. Bose uses a proprietary signal processing technology make it possible for products that meet some market requirements and thus the actual technology and what it enables is pertinent to them. Their customers tend to be more concerned with how it seems, what's the price, what's the standard, etc., and not so much with how it's achieved, thus the technology used is a lot less relevant to them.
Lately, I was involved in a discussion on Google+ concerning the new Motorola X phone. Many of the people on those posts slammed the telephone for various reasons - cost, locked boot loader, etc. There were also plenty of knocks on the truth that it didn't have a quad-core processor such as the S4 or HTC One that have been priced similarly. What they didn't grasp is that whether the maker used 1, 2, 4, or 8 cores ultimately makes no difference as long since the phone can deliver a competitive (as well as best of class) function set, functionality, price, and person experience. The iPhone is probably the most successful phones ever produced, but it runs on a dual-core processor chip. It still delivers one of the greatest user experiences on the marketplace. The features that are enabled through the technology are what are highly relevant to the consumer, not the technologies itself.
The relevance of technologies therefore, is as an enabler, less a product feature or the competitive advantage, or any numerous other things - an enabler. Taking a look at the Android operating system, it is an impressive software program technology, and yet Google provides it away. Why? Because separate, it does nothing for Search engines. Giving it away allows others to use their expertise to build services and products which then act as enablers for Google's services and products. To Google, that's where the actual value is.
The possession of or use of a technology is only important for what it allows you to do - create innovations that solve problems. That is the actual relevance of technology.Aaeon Sweden
What is Technology?
Merriam-Webster identifies it as:
1
a: the request of knowledge especially in a specific area: engineering 2 [Aaeon technology]
w: a capability given by the request of knowledge [a car's fuel-saving technology]
2: a way of accomplishing a task particularly using technical processes, methods, or even knowledge
3: the specialized facets of a particular field of effort [educational technology]
Wikipedia defines it because:
Technology (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, "art, ability, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) may be the making, modification, usage, and understanding of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, techniques, and methods of organization, to be able to solve a problem, improve a preexisting means to fix a problem, achieve a objective, handle an applied input/output relation or execute a specific function. It can also make reference to the collection of such resources, including machinery, modifications, arrangements as well as procedures. Technologies significantly affect human along with other animal species' ability to control and adjust to their natural environments. The term can either be reproduced generally or to specific places: examples include construction technology, healthcare technology, and information technology.
Both definitions revolve around the same - application and usage.
Technology is definitely an enabler
Many people mistakenly believe that it is technology which drives innovation. Yet in the definitions above, that is clearly false. It is opportunity which identifies innovation and technology which allows innovation. Think of the classic "Build a much better mousetrap" example taught in the majority of business schools. You might possess the technology to build a much better mousetrap, but if you don't have any mice or the old mousetrap is effective, there is no opportunity after which the technology to build a much better one becomes irrelevant. On another hand, if you are overrun with mice then your opportunity exists to innovate an item using your technology.
Another instance, one with which I 'm intimately familiar, are consumer consumer electronics startup companies. I've been related to both those that succeeded and people that failed. Each possessed unique industry leading technologies. The difference was chance. Those that failed could not discover the opportunity to develop a meaningful innovation utilizing their technology. In fact to endure, these companies had to morph oftentimes into something completely different and if they were lucky they could make the most of derivatives of their original technologies. More often than not, the initial technology wound up in the actual scrap heap. Technology, thus, is an enabler whose greatest value proposition is to help with our lives. In order to become relevant, it needs to supply to create innovations that tend to be driven by opportunity.
Technology like a competitive advantage?
Many companies list a technology as you of their competitive advantages. Is actually this valid? In some instances yes, but In most instances no.
Technology develops along two pathways - an evolutionary path along with a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary technology is the one that enables new industries or enables methods to problems that were previously difficult. Semiconductor technology is a great example. Not only did this spawn new industries and items, but it spawned other groundbreaking technologies - transistor technology, incorporated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All which provide most of the products and services we eat today. But is semiconductor technologies a competitive advantage? Looking at the amount of semiconductor companies that exist these days (with new ones forming every single day), I'd say not. What about microprocessor technology? Again, no. Plenty of microprocessor companies out there. What about quad core microprocessor technology? Less many companies, but you possess Intel, AMD, ARM, and a number of companies building custom quad primary processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, and so on). So again, not high of a competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and comfortable access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive benefit of any particular technology. Android vs iOS is among how this works. Both os's are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their technology in order to introduce iOS and gained an earlier market advantage. However, Google, making use of their variant of Unix (the competing technology), caught upward relatively quickly. The reasons with this lie not in the fundamental technology, but in how these products made possible by those technologies were delivered to market (free vs. walled backyard, etc. )#) and the differences within the strategic visions of each organization.
Evolutionary technology is one which incrementally builds upon the bottom revolutionary technology. But by it is extremely nature, the incremental change is simpler for a competitor to complement or leapfrog. Take for instance wireless cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G products just before Company A and while it might have had a short phrase advantage, as soon as Organization A introduced their 4G items, the advantage due to technologies disappeared. The consumer went to choosing Company A or Company V depending on price, service, coverage, whatever, although not based on technology. Thus technology might have been relevant for the short term, but in the long phrase, became irrelevant.
In today's globe, technologies tend to quickly turn out to be commoditized, and within any particular technologies lies the seeds of its death.
Technology's Relevance Aaeon
This article was written in the prospective of an end client. From a developer/designer standpoint points get murkier. The further the first is removed from the technology, the actual less relevant it becomes. To some developer, the technology can seem like a product. An enabling item, but a product nonetheless, and therefore it is highly relevant. Bose uses a proprietary signal processing technology make it possible for products that meet some market requirements and thus the actual technology and what it enables is pertinent to them. Their customers tend to be more concerned with how it seems, what's the price, what's the standard, etc., and not so much with how it's achieved, thus the technology used is a lot less relevant to them.
Lately, I was involved in a discussion on Google+ concerning the new Motorola X phone. Many of the people on those posts slammed the telephone for various reasons - cost, locked boot loader, etc. There were also plenty of knocks on the truth that it didn't have a quad-core processor such as the S4 or HTC One that have been priced similarly. What they didn't grasp is that whether the maker used 1, 2, 4, or 8 cores ultimately makes no difference as long since the phone can deliver a competitive (as well as best of class) function set, functionality, price, and person experience. The iPhone is probably the most successful phones ever produced, but it runs on a dual-core processor chip. It still delivers one of the greatest user experiences on the marketplace. The features that are enabled through the technology are what are highly relevant to the consumer, not the technologies itself.
The relevance of technologies therefore, is as an enabler, less a product feature or the competitive advantage, or any numerous other things - an enabler. Taking a look at the Android operating system, it is an impressive software program technology, and yet Google provides it away. Why? Because separate, it does nothing for Search engines. Giving it away allows others to use their expertise to build services and products which then act as enablers for Google's services and products. To Google, that's where the actual value is.
The possession of or use of a technology is only important for what it allows you to do - create innovations that solve problems. That is the actual relevance of technology.Aaeon Sweden
