Relevance of Technology

 Many companies point to technology as one of their competitive advantages. Is it legitimate? In some cases yes, but in most cases no.

Technology evolves along two paths – an evolutionary path and a revolutionary path.

A revolutionary technology is one that can support new industries or solve problems that were previously impossible. Semiconductor technology is a good example. It gave rise not only to new industries and products, but also to other revolutionary technologies – transistor technology, integrated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. 

All of them provide many of the products and services we use today. But is semiconductor technology a competitive advantage? Given the number of semiconductor companies that exist today (new companies are being formed every day), I would say no. What about microprocessor technology? Again, no. There are many microprocessor companies. 

What about quad-core microprocessor technology? There aren't many companies, but you do have Intel, AMD, ARM, and many companies that make custom quad-core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc.). Again, not much of a competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and easy access to IP reduce the perceived competitive advantage of any given technology. 

Android vs. iOS is a good example. Both operating systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used its technology to introduce iOS and gain an early market advantage. However, with their version of Unix (a competing technology), Google caught up relatively quickly. The reason for this is not the underlying technologies, but differences in how the products that those technologies enable are brought to market (free vs. walled gardens, etc.) and the strategic vision of each company.

Evolutionary technology is an incremental technology based on revolutionary technology. But by their very nature, incremental changes make it easy for competitors to match or leapfrog. Take wireless cell phone technology, for example. Company V launched 4G products before Company A. Although there may be short-term advantages, after Company A launched the 4G product, the technological advantages disappeared. Consumers in turn choose Company A or Company V based on price, service, coverage, etc., not based on technology. So technology may be relevant in the short run, but becomes irrelevant in the long run.

In today's world, technology is becoming increasingly commoditized, and any given technology buries the seeds of its own death.

Relevance of technology

This article is written from the perspective of the end customer. From a developer/designer's perspective, things get a little more sinister. The further removed from technology, the less relevant it is. To developers, technology can look like a product. A suitable product, but still a product, so it is very relevant. Bose uses proprietary signal processing technologies to implement products that meet a range of market needs, so the technologies and functions they implement are relevant to them. Their customers care more about how it's implemented, rather than its sound, price, quality, etc., so the technology used is of little relevance to them.

Recently, I joined a Google+ discussion about the new Motorola X phone. Many of these posts slam the phone for various reasons - price, locked bootloader, etc. There are also many who think it doesn't have the same quad-core processor as the S4 or HTC One which are priced similarly. What they fail to understand is as long as the phone offers a competitive (even best-in-class) feature set, functionality, price and user experience. The iPhone was one of the most successful phones of all time, but it ran on a dual-core processor. It still offers one of the best user experiences on the market. The functionality enabled by the technology is relevant to the user, not the technology itself.

So technology is relevant as an enabler, not as a product feature or competitive advantage, or any of a myriad of other things—as an enabler. Take a look at the Android operating system, it's an impressive piece of software technology that Google has abandoned. Why? Because it's independent, it doesn't do anything for Google. Giving it away allows other companies to use their expertise to create products and services that then act as enablers for Google's products and services. For Google, this is where the real value lies.

Owning or acquiring a technology is only important for what it enables you to do – create problem-solving innovations. This is the true meaning of technology