Lists Home |
Date Index |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I guess PowerPoint matters. I don't have it, so I'll have to use my
> Mike Champion:
> There's little obvious differentiation on most of these potential
> predictors. What DOES differentiate is the 80:20 rule:
> As much as this matches my own preconceptions, I'd be interested
> in hearing a critique of the categorizations, rankings, and
> whether looking at a different set of "which technologies
> matter" leads to a different conclusion.
The gist your description seems like these technologies are meant
to stand in isolation, or that they can be evaluated independently
of each other as binary things. That's convenient, but doesn't
really bear scrutiny, no more than the great man approach to the
history of nations does; but such an approach does makes for a
better tale; tales matter.
Maybe there are no clear reasons why certain technologies matter.
Credit to Tim Bray for pointing out that some predictors don't seem
to matter, but I don't think he goes anywhere far enough. I suspect
that the adoption of technology largely follows a series of frozen
accidents: you might as well be predicting earthquakes as the next
big thing. No doubt someone in a business school somewhere is
working to show that computing technology adoption follows a power
law. As things stand, there's no free lunch for leading indicators
in technology or technology markets.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----