What Is the Relevance of Technology?

“Technology, in the long run, is irrelevant.” That is what a consumer of mine advised me once I made a presentation to him about a new product. I have been talking about the product’s capabilities and blessings and indexed “today’s generation” or something to that impact as one in all of them. That is while he made his declaration. I later realized that he was accurate, at least within how I used “Technology” in my presentation. But I began considering whether he could be right in other contexts properly.

Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, “artwork, ability, foxy of hand”; and -λογία, -logia[1]) is the making, change, usage, and understanding of equipment, machines, strategies, crafts, structures, and strategies of the organization, to be able to resolve a hassle, enhance a pre-existing option to a nuisance, achieve a goal, handle a carried out enter/output relation or carry out a specific characteristic. It also can seek advice from collecting such gear, including machinery, modifications, preparations, and approaches. Technologies considerably affect humans and different animal species’ capability to manipulate and adapt to their herbal environments. The term can be implemented generally or in particular regions: examples include creation technology, clinical generation, and statistics era.

Many people mistakenly agree with its miles generation, which drives innovation. Yet, from the definitions above, that is not the case. It is an opportunity that defines innovation and technology, which enables creation. Think of the traditional “Build a better mousetrap” example taught in most enterprise colleges. You would possibly have the technology to build a better mousetrap. Still, when you have no mice, or the old mousetrap works well, there is no possibility after which the era to create a better one turns inappropriate. Alternatively, if you are overrun with mice, then the opportunity exists to innovate a product using your technology.


Another example, one with which I am in detail acquainted, is client electronics startup companies. I’ve been related to both those who succeeded and those who failed. Each possessed a specific leading facet of technology. The distinction became a possibility. Those who died couldn’t discover the opportunity tto develop a meaningful innovation using their generation. In reality, to live to tell the tale, those companies had to morph generally into something absolutely one of a kind. They could use derivatives in their authentic technology if they had been fortunate. Often, the original technology wound up inside the scrap heap. As a result, technology is an enabler whose remaining cost proposition is to make enhancements to our lives. To be relevant, it wishes to create improvements pushed by possibility.

Technology as a competitive advantage?

Many organizations list an era as certainly one of their competitive advantages. Is this valid? In some instances, yes; however, In most instances, no. Technology develops alongside two paths – an evolutionary course and a progressive route. Innovative technology enables new industries or permits solutions to previously impossible troubles. Semiconductor technology is a superb example. Not most effective did it spawn new industries and products. However, it spawned other revolutionary technologies – transistor generation, incorporated circuit technology, and microprocessor technology. All of these offer many of the goods and services we devour. But is the semiconductor era an aggressive gain?

Looking at the range of existing semiconductor groups (with new ones forming each day), I’d say no longer. How approximately is microprocessor technology? Again, no. Lots of microprocessor companies out there. How about the quad-core microprocessor era? There are not as many companies, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM, and many businesses constructing custom quad-core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc.). So, once more, there is not much of a competitive benefit. Competition from competing for technology and smooth access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive gain of any particular generation.

Android vs. iOS is a superb example of how this works. Both running structures are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used its era to introduce iOS and gained an early market gain. However, utilizing its version of Unix (a competing generation) quickly caught up. The reasons for this lie no longer within the underlying gage; however, how the goods made viable by the one’s technology had been added to the marketplace (free vs. Walled garden, and so forth) and the differences in the strategic visions of each enterprise.

Evolutionary technology is one that incrementally builds upon the bottom progressive generation. But via it is very natural, the incremental trade is easier for a competitor to suit or leapfrog. Take, for instance, the wireless mobile phone era. Company V introduced 4G products previous to Company A. At the same time as it could have had a quick-term benefit, as soon as Company A delivered its 4G merchandise, the advantage because of technology disappeared. The consumer returned to selecting Company A or Company V based on price, carrier, coverage, whatever, but now not based totally on the era. This generation might have been applicable briefly; however, it became beside the point in a long time.

Read More Articles :

This article is written from the possibility of an end purchaser. From a developer/dressmaker standpoint, things get murkier. In addition, one is eliminated from the era, and it becomes much less relevant. To a developer, the technology can seem like a product. A permitting product, but a product, and thus, it’s miles tremendously relevant. Bose uses a proprietary signal processing technology to allow products that meet a set of market necessities, and therefore, the generation and what it permits apply to them. Their clients are more involved with how it sounds, the rate, what’s the fine, etc., and not much with how it is achieved; consequently, the generation used is much less applicable to them.

Recently, I was worried in a dialogue on Google+ about the new Motorola X smartphone. Many humans on those posts slammed the phone for diverse motives – charge, locked bootloader, and many others. There have also been masses of knocks at the reality that it didn’t have a quad-middle processor like the S4 or HTC One, which have been priced similarly. What they did not draw close is that whether or not the manufacturer used 1, 2, 4, or eight cores, in the end, makes no difference as long as the phone can supply an aggressive (or maybe pleasant of sophistication) feature set, functionality, rate, and user enjoy. The iPhone is one of the maxima hit telephones ever produced, yet it runs on a twin-middle processor.

It nonetheless grants one of the excellent consumer reviews in the marketplace. The capabilities enabled by the generation apply to the purchaser, not the gage itself. Consequently, the relevance of the era is as an enabler, no longer as a product characteristic, an aggressive gain, or any myriad of different matters. Looking at the Android working gadget, it’s an impressive piece of software era, and yet Google offers it away. Why? Because it is standalone, it does not do anything for Google. Giving it away permits other organizations to apply their understanding to build products and services, acting as enablers for Google’s products and services. To Google, that is where the actual value is.

Read Previous

Nintendo DS Lite Review – The Truth Behind Its Simplicity

Read Next

China Leaps Into the Future With Next-Generation Displays