Technological Paradigms: Blackberry and Microsoft

In both my classes this fall we will be talking a lot about technological paradigms.  For better or for worse, in the last week we have two news stories that highlight technological paradigms.  Blackberry, which just a few years ago was the hottest technological gadget around, is in huge trouble and is trying to find someone to buy it.  At Microsoft, Steve Ballmer is retiring as the head of the company, after 13 years of unsuccessfully trying get Microsoft back into a competitive position against Google and Apple. 

Why does this happen?  Why do successful companies fail to meet new challenges?  Joe Nocera of the New York Times provides one explanation.  Creators of technologies sometimes want to stick with the technology that led to their initial success.  A little more subtle way to put it would be that companies sometimes see new technologies in light of their technology, and in that light it often looks bad.  The Blackberry was great for doing email, the Iphone wasn't.  But people saw that the Iphone could do so much more than email that they were willing to forgive its weaknesses there.

Microsoft has had a similar problem.  Now, it is hard to believe that in 1998, the US Department of Justice sued Microsoft claiming that it had too much power.  It is perhaps even harder to believe that in 1995, when Microsoft introduced the Microsoft Network, which was at the time its own version of the Internet, many people thought that Microsoft was going to destroy the Internet. 

Both the story of Microsoft and Blackberry are cautionary tales about how being successful in a certain technological paradigm, may make a business unable to compete in the next paradigm that comes along.  The power of technological paradigms to shape thinking and business strategies makes Apple's ability to develop new technologies that cannibalize its existing businesses all the more remarkable. 

The Political Engineering of the F-35

We talk a lot in class about the social construction of technology.  There is a great example of it in the F-35 fighter.  The Washington Post recently ran a story on it.  While the F-35 has some impressive technical features, what is equally impressive is how the Air Force and the contractors have designed the plane politically.  They spread the work over 45 states (History 341 remember Angle of Attack), so very few people in Congress will be willing to cut jobs in their own state. They also began manufacturing the plan before development was complete.  This will make the plane very hard to cancel.  Incidentally, some people think this will be the last manned fighter plane ever developed by the United States--think of our discussion of the Industrial Revolution.  

Ray Kurzweil and Technological Utopianism

Ray Kurzweil is perhaps one of the foremost technological optimists in the world today.  He says that we are nearing a period where technology will transform what it means to be human.  Here is a question and answer with him from the New York Times.  We will talk about the Industrial Revolution as one of the fundamental changes in human society.  Kurzweil says what is coming will be even bigger.  He thinks humans will live forever.  (It is interesting that Stephen Jobs said that death was the greatest invention.)  Do you think that people living forever would hurt society? 

Disney and Information

One of the themes of the history of technology is how information has become a more and more important aspect of every part of American life.  Yesterday the New York Times had an article about how DisneyWorld is introducing digital bracelets to all its guests that may transform the experience of Disney World.  Guests can use the bracelets to make purchases.  Disney can use the bracelets to track every part of a guest's visit.  (How many times did someone go down Thunder Mountain?)  Is this big brother or a really neat thing that will add to people's enjoyment?   Walt Disney was someone who was very interested in how technology would develop in the future, but I don't think even he understood how central information technology would be.