Strong and Weak Technologies
cdixon.org
cdixon.org
The problem is that for every iPhone, there are 99 other technologies that are not adapted to the world, and fail as a consequence (3D TV where you have to wear polarising glasses at home or sit at exactly the right angle to the screen, anyone?). It's not a hard problem to look back at what has already happened and explain it with your pet theory, as long as your theory is sufficiently flexible. Using a theory to predict what's not happened yet, and getting it right - now that's where the real money is. The model as presented here doesn't seem very strong at identifying what upcoming technologies will be the strong ones, but really good at explaining things retroactively. As an investor at least, that's of limited use.
On blockchains specifically, I can imagine a world where in 10 years' time bitcoin has completely collapsed. In fact, Satoshi has the possibility to create such a world if they still have the private key to their initial coins. I can also imagine a world where private/regulated chains are widely used and permissionless ones less so, or one where permissionless chains have taken off in a way they haven't yet. It's really too early to tell, although the Ethereum/DAO experiment makes me pessimistic.
In the case of hybrids vs. electrics, it's fine if you want to say hybrids are like the Blackberry - an initiating technology that prepares the market for a sweeping, fundamental change. But that's certainly different from Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, two technologies that aim to accomplish different things, or streaming music vs MP3 downloads, which offer two different value propositions in the lease vs. own models.
The idea needs to be more specific, like initiating technology vs. mature technology or evolutionary technology vs. revolutionary technology. One could say the Blackberry or the Palm Pilot was actually the revolution, where the iPhone was the right evolution of that technology to fully capture the market. But now I'm just trying to backfit a backfitted concept.
Spolsky's old "Amazon vs Ben and Jerrys" is in my opinion a more mature categorisation of what strong/weak is getting at here: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-...
I think Paul Graham had an article too on how venture capitalists are not looking for "does this have growth potential" (there are already more traditional capitalists for that called "banks") but "could this have a 1% chance at being the next facebook, even if it has a 99% chance of failing?" In this particular sense, I guess the more radical something looks, the better.
I also remember a HN article a while ago about "how Trello could have been a success" where success means "going unicorn", to which commenters rightly pointed out that Trello IS a success at what it set out to do. Trello would come under "weak" / "ben and jerrys" in this categorisation I suppose, although it's one of the cloud services I use every day and a lot more than most others.
As another example, we see this play out in real time with SaaS. I certainly believe web delivery to be a strong tech. And most users prefer its advantages over the alternative. Which is usually some frankenstein hybrid of legacy app servers delivered via virtual terminals on remote windows desktops. Yet the economic activation gap is sufficient, despite rapid development frameworks such as React / Flutter, that investment in a new interface and training and data migration is deemed unnecessary. User pain is subservient to short term cost savings. And so the weak avoid obsolescence much longer than their organic shelf life would warrant.
The article thesis is, "technologies usually arrive in pairs, a strong form and a weak form". It's not a value judgment, and it's not predictive. Meaning: It's not a given that strong forms will be successful. As the article notes, "weak forms of technology can be successful" and may even receive more focus when the strong form falters since "weak technologies appear nearer to mainstream adoption".
> iTunes is doing fine last time I checked.
It's not about iTunes "doing fine", but that selling tracks and albums is just a digital version of the old retail model that's been around forever. Streaming, on-demand music is "strong" (according to the author) because it's a new model for music consumption, and requires changes in both the industry and consumer behavior.
I'd reframe it as: Technologists come in two flavors, the ones who think their current era is fundamentally distinct from earlier eras, and the ones who don't.
Augmented reality is all about augmenting the real, physical world you live in.
Virtual reality is about stepping into another world that (usually) has nothing to do with your real, physical surroundings.
It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations.
By the same token, the experience of going to the theatre, seeing the actors live in person, being impressed by someone belting out a song (if it's a musical) for the umpteenth time that week and it still sounding amazing, feeling like a part of the action thanks to things like audience participation — things that you can't always get in CGI. Every time I watch a play, I always come away with a bizarre sense in my gut that I associate with disappointment that the experience is over; I don't feel the same thing with movies.
Same thing with AR and VR. Yes, you might be able to do many more impressive things immersed in VR space — but there's a certain quality associated with the real world, what's directly in front of your eyes rather than a picture, that cannot and should not be ignored.
There's nothing like a live performance and there's nothing like the real world (not even a simulation of it).
By this definition, I disagree that music streaming is a strong technology. Streaming succeeded because it appealed to non-enthusiasts, who are a bigger market. Technology enthusiasts were early adopters of MP3 downloads, and I think they are still generally in favor of owning their own music.
Surprised he didn't have "automobiles" in the strong category and "horses" in the "weak" category.
A few of these (cloud and blockchain) touch on current technologies but this is a really twisted (and cheap) way to demonstrate his key point that truly innovative technology means thinking outside of current norms. No kidding!
The "strong" technologies are those that benefit from technology improvements and competition / contributions from many parties ("volatility"), and the "weak" technologies are those that are dependent on a single company or ecosystem, and don't benefit from improvements in bandwidth.
It's super hard to close the loop on a technology.
It was often said that the companies who benefit the most from one type of technology are not the first to innovate but the last to innovate, e.g. Facebook not For etc.
It's because what creates the finest working loop is hard to design into existence and tweak into motion.
Streaming (only) implies DRM. DRM-free downloads (Bandcamp) are always better. So it's a bad example, where some technology made things worse.
Another interpretation is that "weak" technology is designed to be immediately usable and useful, while "strong" technology expects the world to adapt and succeeds in this expectation.
Perhaps using the word "compatible" or a synonym would be more appropriate.