[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Maybe "technology" is selected in the same way purchasers engage other
technical buying decisions? That is, the preconditioned environment sets
the stage for acceptance. Marketing literature abounds on this topic.
Many free magazines exist to condition targeted audiences to the
capacities a particular well formed product could provide? The articles
tell of the problems and attempt to explain the technology even before the
products under development become available for sale.
Marketers just love to send those free maganzines out, so that buying
managers will only accept products that they have "read in print" meet
acceptable requirements (the preaudience effect)?
Many times the actual acceptance requirements has little to do with the
real needs of the buyer, and as a result the best product for the buyer
is eliminated from competition at selection time. This is generally true
because the buyer has no relevant experience whatsoever in the field at
the time that they buy.
The best technology [for whom?] is a moving target. It is subject to
insertion within a particular set of buyer needs, but it does not meet
the general needs of all buyers.
A "best technology" type of definition generally does not yield
researchable market definitions.
Instead, the marketing questions should be more along the lines of
"expected results from particular application types",
capacity of the buyer to learn within the time needed for the
application,
the benefits of the application is the product is applied to it, and
things like that.
Take a look at Netscape 01, it replaced the governments browser in just a
few months. At the time about 3 million users were on line because it was
learnable, free, distributed without cost by download, and more user
friendly and because three million users interacted to teach each other
how to use it. The government browser preconditioned the audience to use
a Browser and clearly demonstrated the limitations of text only type
technology.
I wonder if Netscape had been the first browser if it would have
succeeded? The reason is that on the old 300 baud dial up type networks
it slowed things down quite a bit.
sterling
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> Thinking about the various means the web uses to select technologies,
> they typically come down to 'the wisdom of crowds' meme (eg, PageRank,
> EigenTrust) and reputations. Given the individual and therefore the
> crowd tendancy to choose against the negative and affirm that which they
> already believe, I don't think the web is ever capable of choosing the
> best technology. It won't recognize it if it is something entirely new
> and if it is old, it is seldom worth reselling. There is some threshold
> where an idea or technology is not oversold but sufficiently represented
> that it takes the lead and at that point, lock-in occurs even if there
> are better options for some measure of better. Pachinko.
>
> The web tends to mediocrity not excellence. It makes a good stew for
> the masses but is incapable of creating an optimized application for a
> narrow scope. Some work requires deep expertise, not consensus and the
> web can't think that deeply on any given topic.
>
> We have XSD because it got the most votes at the time. It's that
> simple. The damming thing is, that is what the web does, not best or
> worst, but simply does at all. Worse is better because that is all it
> is capable of. Chalk up another win for objectivism.
>
> len
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
