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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment