Really? Because I find it to be cherry-picked junk science. The examples seem selected in favor of the numeric pattern they best serve. 1. tv, radio: passive a

Really? Because I find it to be cherry-picked junk science. The examples seem selected in favor of the numeric pattern they best serve. 1. tv, radio: passive adoption, buy them and turn them on. the end user consumes cheaply and effortlessly, with minimal barriers to adoption. 2. telephone, cellphone: one habituates and bootstraps the other. this technology's adoption rate is the only meaningful pair of members on the list, due to the premise of the network effect of peering with fellow users. cellphones are a redundancy, with really only service provider adoption and promotion factoring into the rate of expansion. users are throttled by carrier capacity and tower coverage, not unlike copper plant expansion with land lines. 3. ipod: most egregious example of cherry-picking. flouts predecessor technologies. what about mini-disc players? what about the diamond rio MP3 players? compact discs, audio cassetes, 8 tracks all affect the demand curve of the ipod, and yet such statistics are selectively ignored. why? because they aren't useful accomplices to the desired narrative. 4. internet: facilitates several other members on the list, for which adoption becomes implicit, based on habituation to the internet. piggy-backed on existing infrastructure, adoption is partly behavioral, in that once the transmission protocols are established, adoption is very nearly reduced to buying a device, plugging into phone or tv infrastructure, and typing instead of talking. one could reduce consumer participation down to the level of TTY advances, since much of the rest is virtual and software oriented. 5. facebook, myspace, youtube: nigh-indistinguishable examples. very nearly non-examples. web sites:internet::tv shows:television. why not include tv viewing habits with tech adoption statistics? how do "I Love Lucy", "Leave It To Beaver" and "The Honeymooners" factor in with tech adoption. Are national television networks classified as individual articles of technology? ABC, CBS and NBC are empires that each command their own pool of proprietary technologies, clustered around a delivery apparatus and network of affiliates. Should the expansion of an empire be redefined to fit in with the adoption of a new discovery? 6. angry birds: a non-event, with regard to tech adoption. what about nintendo, and why not other specific examples of video games? did we chart the adoption of "Altered Beast" or "Doom" or "Mike Tyson's Punch Out"? some of those likely matched "Angry Birds" in a single christmas season. Content does not represent new technology by default. Angry Birds is not a novel technology for it's platform. It is a media template that has existed since before QBASIC GORILLAS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game) In this respect, Angry Birds represents technology that had ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED DECADES EARLIER BY MILLIONS. It does not belong on the list any more than Cousin Larry and Balki Bartokomous belong on the list due to the rapid adoption rate of the "technology" known as "Perfect Strangers" in 1986. That list is a joke, and threatens the credibility of the entire article.