Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I guess PowerPoint matters. I don't have it, so I'll have to use my imagination :) > 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 iQA/AwUBPJexzeaWiFwg2CH4EQLh6gCggH642VUUIRGtN08mlOe4MtrKN/QAn1l7 VdPp892xsIxZTWtaLQZYgAs6 =qg/A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
