Are usually Relevance of Technology?

"Technology in the long-run is irrelevant". That is what a customer connected with mine told me when I manufactured a presentation to the pup about a new product. I had been dealing with the product's features in addition to benefits and listed "state-of-the-art technology" or something fot it effect, as one of them. Then he made his statement. My partner and i realized later that he seemed to be correct, at least within the wording of how I used "Technology" in my presentation. Butcheck hereand i began thinking about whether maybe he is right in other situations as well.

What is Technology?

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

1

any: the practical application of knowledge particularly in a particular area: engineering a couple of

c: a capability given by the particular practical application of knowledge

a couple of

: a manner of accomplishing a job especially using technical functions, methods, or knowledge

a few

: the specialized aspects of a certain field of endeavor

Wikipedia identifies it as:

Technology (from Traditional , techne, "art, talent, cunning of hand"; and also -, -logia[1]) is the making, modification, use, and knowledge of tools, equipment, techniques, crafts, systems, and also methods of organization, in order to fix a problem, improve a current solution to a problem, achieve a target, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a certain function. It can also refer to the gathering of such tools, like machinery, modifications, arrangements in addition to procedures. Technologies significantly have an impact on human as well as other animal species' ability to control and to help their natural environments. The concept of a can either be applied generally or even specific areas: examples include development technology, medical technology, and also the precise product information technology.

get more infoinvolve the same thing - application in addition to usage.

Technology is an enabler

Many people mistakenly believe it is technological know-how which drives innovation. Nevertheless from the definitions above, that is definitely clearly not the case. It is prospect which defines innovation in addition to technology which enables creativity. Think of the classic "Build the mousetrap" example taught for most business schools. You might have the particular technology to build a better mousetrap, but if you have no mice or maybe the old mousetrap works well, there is not any opportunity and then the technological innovation to build a better one will become irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are full of mice then the opportunity is present to innovate a product utilizing your technology.

Another example, one particular with which I am intimately well known, are consumer electronics startup corporations. I've been associated with both those which succeeded and those that was unable. Each possessed unique innovative technologies. The difference was prospect. Those that failed could not chose the opportunity to develop a meaningful invention using their technology. In fact to outlive, these companies had to morph frequently into something totally different if they were lucky they could benefit from derivatives of their original technological innovation. More often than not, the original technology ended up in the scrap heap. Technological innovation, thus, is an enabler whoever ultimate value proposition is always to make improvements to our lives. In order to be related, it needs to be used to create enhancements that are driven by possibility.

Technology as a competitive benefits?

Many companies list a technological innovation as one of their competitive positive aspects. Is this valid? In some cases without a doubt, but In most cases no .

Technological know-how develops along two walkways - an evolutionary course and a revolutionary path.

New technology is one which makes it possible for new industries or makes it possible for solutions to problems that were recently not possible. Semiconductor technology is a great example. Not only did it offspring new industries and items, but it spawned other innovative technologies - transistor technologies, integrated circuit technology, processor technology. All which present many of the products and services we ingest today. But is semiconductor technology a competitive edge? Looking at the number of semiconductor firms that exist today (with brand-new ones forming every day), I'd say not. Consider microprocessor technology? Again, number Lots of microprocessor companies around. How about quad core micro-pocessor technology? Not as many companies, nevertheless, you have Intel, AMD, HAND, and a host of firms building custom quad central processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). So again, almost no of a competitive advantage. Opposition from competing technologies and access to IP mitigates typically the perceived competitive advantage of any kind of particular technology. Android versus iOS is a good example of exactly how this works. Both systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their technologies to introduce iOS as well as gained an early market benefit. However , Google, utilizing their version of Unix (a contending technology), caught up relatively rapidly. The reasons for this lie not really in the underlying technology, however in how the products made possible through those technologies were taken to market (free vs . walled garden, etc . ) and also the differences in the strategic ideas of each company.

Evolutionary engineering is one which incrementally forms upon the base revolutionary engineering. But by it's very mother nature, the incremental change is very simple for a competitor to match or maybe leapfrog. Take for example cordless cellphone technology. Company Sixth v introduced 4G products ahead of Company A and while it may well have had a short term edge, as soon as Company A presented their 4G products, the bonus due to technology disappeared. The client went back to choosing Company Some sort of or Company V based upon price, service, coverage, what ever, but not based on technology. Therefore technology might have been relevant for the short term, but in the long term, became unimportant.

In today's world, technologies tend to get commoditized, and within any kind of particular technology lies the actual seeds of its own demise.

Technology's Relevance

This article had been written from the prospective of the end customer. From a developer/designer perspective things get murkier. The actual further one is removed from the actual technology, the less appropriate it becomes. To a developer, typically the technology can look like a merchandise. An enabling product, nevertheless a product non-etheless, and thus its highly relevant. Bose runs on the proprietary signal processing engineering to enable products that satisfy a set of market requirements thereby the technology and what the idea enables is relevant to them. Buyers are more concerned with how this might sound, what's the price, what's the high quality, etc ., and not so much along with how it is achieved, therefore the technology used is a lot less relevant to them.

Lately, I was involved in a discussion upon Google+ about the new Motorola X phone.check hereof the individuals on those posts criticized the phone for various factors - price, locked shoe loader, etc . There were additionally plenty of knocks on the fact it didn't have a quad-core model like the S4 or THE ALL NEW HTC One which were priced in the same manner. What they failed to grasp is whether the manufacturer used one particular, 2, 4, or 6 cores in the end makes zero difference as long as the phone could deliver a competitive (or possibly best of class) feature fixed, functionality, price, and end user experience. The iPhone is one of the almost all successful phones ever generated, and yet it runs with a dual-core processor. It still gives one of the best user experiences available on the market. The features that are enabled through the technology are what are highly relevant to the consumer, not the technologies itself.

The relevance associated with technology therefore , is as a good enabler, not as a product function or a competitive advantage, or any type of myriad of other things - a good enabler. Looking at the Google android operating system, it is an impressive computer software technology, and yet Google provides it with away. Why? Because separate, it does nothing for Search engines. Giving it away allows other programs to use their expertise to develop products and services which then act as enablers for Google's products and services. For you to Google, that's where the true value is.

The possession involving or access to a engineering is only important for what it lets you do - create innovative developments which solve problems. This is the real relevance of engineering.