“Technology is irrelevant in the long term.” When I gave a presentation to a customer about a new product, he told me that. I had been describing the attributes and advantages of the product, and one of them had been “state-of-the-art technology” or something similar. He made his statement at that point. Later, I came to understand that he was accurate, at least in terms of how I utilised “Technology” in my presentation. But I started to wonder if he might also be correct in other situations. For more details, please click here https://info-menarik.net/
According to Merriam-Webster, it is:
Application of knowledge in practise, particularly in one area: engineering Medical technology 2
b: a skill acquired by the application of knowledge in the real world, such as a car’s fuel-saving technology.
: a method of carrying out a task, particularly one involving technical procedures, techniques, or knowledge
the technical elements of a specific field of activity, such as “educational technology”
According to Wikipedia, it is
Technology is the making, modifying, using, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organisation in order to solve problems, improve preexisting solutions to problems, achieve goals, handle applied input/output relations, or perform a specific function. Technology is derived from the Greek words techne, “art, skill, cunning of hand,” and -oÎ, -logia. It may also refer to a group of such instruments, such as equipment, adjustments, arrangements, and procedures. The capacity of humans and other animal species to regulate and adapt to their natural settings is substantially impacted by technologies. Both a wide and specialised use of the term is possible; examples include information technology, medical technology, and construction technology.
The focus of both definitions is on application and usage.
Technology is a facilitator.
Many people incorrectly think that innovation is fueled by technology. However, it is evident from the definitions above that this is not the case. Innovation is defined by opportunity, and technology makes innovation possible. Consider the famous “Build a better mousetrap” parable that is taught in the majority of management schools. Even if you had the means to create a better mousetrap, it won’t matter if you don’t have any mice or if the current model works just fine because there won’t be any need for it. On the other side, if you have too many mice, you have a chance to use your technology to design a new product.
Another illustration—and one I am particularly familiar with—includes start-ups in the consumer electronics industry. I’ve been involved with both successful and unsuccessful people. Each one had distinctive cutting-edge technologies. The key distinction was chance. Those that fell short were unable to seize the chance to use their technology to create a significant invention. In order to survive, these businesses actually frequently had to change completely, and if they were fortunate, they could have been able to capitalise on derivatives of their original invention. The original technology frequently ended up on the scrap heap. Therefore, technology is a facilitator whose primary goal is to enhance our quality of life. It must be used to develop innovations that are motivated by opportunity in order to remain relevant.
Using technology to your advantage in business
A technology is cited by many businesses as one of their competitive advantages. Is this true? Sometimes, yes, but typically not.
Evolutionary and revolutionary paths are the two ways that technology advances.
A revolutionary technology is one that opens up new markets or makes it possible to find answers to issues that were previously unsolvable. The development of semiconductors is a prime example. It not only gave rise to new businesses and goods, but also to other ground-breaking innovations including transistor, integrated circuit, and microprocessor technology. Many of the goods and services we use every day are provided by all of these. But is the development of semiconductors a competitive advantage? I would say no, based on the sheer amount of semiconductor firms that are now operating (with more emerging daily). How about computing with microprocessors? No once more. There are many microprocessor manufacturers. How about the use of a quad-core processor? There aren’t as many, but there are a number of businesses creating unique quad core CPUs, including Intel, AMD, ARM, and others (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). Thus, there isn’t really a competitive edge. The apparent competitive advantage of any specific technology is reduced by competition from other technologies and simple access to IP. A nice illustration of this is the Android vs. iOS comparison. Both operating systems are UNIX-derived. Apple acquired a competitive advantage by introducing iOS using their technologies. However, Google quickly caught up thanks to their Unix variation (a rival technology). The underlying technology is not the cause of this; rather, it is the manner in which the products made available by those technologies were commercialised (free vs. walled garden, etc.) and the disparities in the corporate strategic orientations.
Technology that is evolutionary builds gradually on the breakthrough technology it is based on. However, the incremental change is simpler for a rival to replicate or surpass by nature. Consider wireless cellphone technology as an example. Company V launched its 4G products before Company A, and while this may have given it a temporary advantage, as soon as Company A launched its 4G offerings, the technological advantage was lost. The consumer went back to choose Company A or Company V based solely on technology instead of pricing, service, coverage, or any other factor. Therefore, although technology may have been important in the short term, it lost its significance over time.
Today’s society has a tendency for technologies to swiftly commoditize, and each technology contains the potential for its own demise.
Relevance of Technology
This essay was written from the viewpoint of the final consumer. From the developer/perspective, designer’s things get more hazy. The technology becomes less important the further one is from it. The technology may appear to a developer to be a finished good. It is a product, although an enabling one, and is therefore very pertinent. The technology and what it enables are relevant to them because Bose uses a proprietary signal processing technique to enable goods that meet a set of market requirements. The technology employed is considerably less important to them because their clients are more interested in how it sounds, what it costs, how good it is, etc. than in how it is accomplished.
I recently took part in a conversation regarding the new Motorola X phone on Google+. Many of the commenters on those posts berated the phone for a variety of factors, including the cost, a locked boot loader, etc. There were several complaints that it lacked a quad-core processor like the HTC One or the S4, which were similarly priced. They overlooked the fact that it doesn’t matter how many cores were ultimately used by the manufacturer as long as the phone can give a competitive (or even best-in-class) feature set, functionality, price, and user experience. Even though the iPhone is one of the most popular smartphones ever made, it only has a dual-core processor. It continues to provide one of the top user experiences available. The consumer is more interested in the features that the technology makes possible than in the technology itself.
Therefore, technology is only relevant when used as an enabler and not as a product feature, a competitive advantage, or any of a multitude of other things. Even though the Android operating system is a remarkable feat of software engineering, Google freely distributes it. Why? It has no effect on Google when used alone. Giving it away enables other businesses to utilise their skills to create goods and services that then support Google’s goods and services. That’s where the real value resides, according to Google.
Owning or having access to a technology is only significant if it allows you to innovate and solve challenges. The true value of technology lies in that.