I'm surprised to find such a superficial piece of HBR. It makes a very half-assed argument about technology requiring business to succeed in the market, but som

I'm surprised to find such a superficial piece of HBR. It makes a very half-assed argument about technology requiring business to succeed in the market, but somehow, despite this point being self-evident, I'd say the article actually fails to make a case for this, by relying on a collection of half-truths, misunderstandings and illogical reasoning. Some sample killer sentences: while the software industry is obviously innovative, it's the pricing model that has made it profitable, as it offers a ready source of cash flow. But when technology began to be created and diffused through the introduction of intellectual property rights (IPR), a new dawn in human history was born. That pursuit of technology innovation continues to change the world. Intel created an illusion of performance exclusivity with their highly-acclaimed marketing campaign "Intel Inside," which launched in 1991. In those days, any machine without that label was immediately considered a second tier computer, because it had not been powered with an Intel microprocessor. These, and many other (in fact, most of the article) statements are downright WTFs. The author seems to display only the most superficial understanding of the technology industry, which completely disqualifies him from making any comments about it.