"Long-term technology is irrelevant". That's what my client told me when I introduced him to a new product. I had been talking about the features and benefits of the product and recorded "latest technology" or something for that purpose, as one of them. That's when he made his statement. I later realized he was right, at least in the context of how I used "Technology" in my promotion. But I started thinking about whether he could be right in other contexts as well.
What is technology?
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
a: practical use of knowledge especially in a particular field: engineering 2
: Methods for performing tasks specifically using technical methods, methods or knowledge
: specialized elements of a particular field
Wikipedia defines it as:
Technology (from Greek frequency, technology, "art , skill, cunning "; and -λοÎ¯ ¯α, -logia ) is the making, modification, use and knowledge of tools, machines, technologies, crafts, systems and methods of planning, solving problems, improving in solving problems, achieving goals, handling applied input / output capacity, or performing a specific action. It may also refer to the collection of such tools, including machines, modifications, arrangements and procedures. Technology has significant effects on both humans and other species and # 39; the ability to control and adapt to its natural environment. The term can either be applied in general or in specific areas: examples are construction technology, medical technology and information technology.
Both definitions are about the same – usage.
Technology is enabler
Many people mistakenly believe that it is technology that drives innovation. Yet from the above definition, this is clearly not the case. It is an opportunity that defines innovation and technology that enables innovation. Think of the classic "Build the Better Mouse Speed" example taught in most business schools. You may need the technology to build a better mouse, but if you don't have a folder or the old mouse works well, there's no chance and the technology will build better, irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are overrun with mice then there is a chance to utilize a product that uses your technology.
Another example I am often familiar with is the consumer electronics startup business. I have been linked to both those who succeeded and those who failed. Who owned a unique leading technology. The difference was an opportunity. Those who fail could not find the opportunity to develop meaningful innovation using their technology. Indeed, surviving, these companies often had to do something completely different, and if they were lucky they could use derivatives of their original technology. More often than not, the original technology ended in the junk. Technology, enabler is the ultimate value proposition to improve our lives. In order to be relevant, it needs to be used to create innovations driven by opportunities.
Technology as a competitive advantage?
Many companies list technology as one of their competitive advantages. Is this valid? In some cases, yes, but in most cases no.
Technology develops along two paths – development path and revolutionary.
Revolutionary technology is the one that allows new industries or solutions to previously unimaginable problems. Semiconductor technology is a good example. Not only did it make a new industry and product, it hosted other revolutionary technologies – small technology, integrated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All that provides many of the products and services we consume today. But is semiconductor technology a competitive advantage? When I look at the number of semiconductor companies that are today (with new pictures every day), I don't say. What about microprocessor technology? Again, no. Lots of business microprocessors out there. What about a quad core processor technology? Not as many companies, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM and a number of companies that build custom quad core processes (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). So again, not much of a competitive advantage. Competition from competitive technology and easy access to IP reduces the competitive advantage of a particular technology. Android vs. iOS is a good example of how it works. Both operating systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used its technology to promote iOS and gain early market advantage. However, Google, relatively quickly, achieved their variant of Unix (competitiveness technology). The reasons for this are not under technological progress, but in the way the products available through this technology were transferred to the market (free vs. fortified park, etc.) and the difference between the strategic vision of each company.
Developmental technology is one that gradually builds on revolutionary technology. But, naturally, the relative change is easier for a competitor to match or run. For example, take wireless mobile technology. Company V introduced 4G products for company A, and while it may have had a short-term advantage, while company A introduced its 4G products, technology was retained. The consumer again began choosing company A or company V based on price, service, coverage, anything, but not technology-based. Thus, technology could be of significance in the short term, but in the long run became irrelevant.
In today's world, technology tends to quickly become commoditized, and within a certain technique lies the seeds of its own death.
Importance of Technical Division
This article was written by the appearance of customers. From the developer / designer point of view things get dark. Next, it is removed from technology, the less it becomes. To developers, technology can be like a product. Active product, but product but still, and so it is very appropriate. Bose uses a custom label processing technology to make products that meet market demands and then technology and what it does matter to them. Their customers are more concerned about how it sounds, what price, what is quality, etc. And not so much with how it is achieved, so the technology used is much less appropriate for them.
Recently, I joined the discussion about Google+ for the new Motorola X phone. A lot of people in these places slammed the phone for various reasons – prices, locked boot loads, etc. There were also plenty of knockouts on the fact that it didn't have a Quad-core processor like the S4 or HTC One that were priced the same way. What they failed to understand is that the manufacturer, who is using 1, 2, 4 or 8 core at the end, does not matter as long as the phone can deliver competitive (or even the best) class features, functionality, pricing and user experience . The iPhone is one of the most popular phones ever manufactured, but still runs on a dual core processor. It once again delivers the best user experience in the market. The technology-enabled features are what matters to consumers, not technology itself.
The importance of technology is therefore like an enabler, not as a product characteristic or a competitive advantage, or a lot of other things – enabler. Looking at the Android operating system, it's a great piece of software technology, yet Google delivers it. Why? Because it is independent, it does nothing for Google. By giving it away, other companies can use their expertise to build products and services, which then serve as a foundation for Google's products and services. To Google, where the real value is.
Technology or access to technology is only important for what you do – create innovations that solve problems. It is a real value technology.