3 ms·
Its interesting to note that the results of early stage enabler technologies are worse than the previous generation technology its trying to mimic and surpass.
by 31reasons 14y ago
Its interesting to note that the results of early stage enabler technologies are worse than the previous generation technology its trying to mimic and surpass.
e.g
1. Digital cameras producing lower quality images than film cameras
2. Computer memory chips holding less memory than actual books.
3. Digital Printers producing low quality prints compared to the printing press.
4. 3-D printed records sounding awful compared to actual records.
5. ?
- nsns 14y agoMobile apps?
- 31reasons 14y agoIf you are comparing it to the PC Apps, they will always be much more powerful than Mobile apps simply because they have more screen real estate and processor power available to them.
- tsunamifury 14y agoIts also interesting that the technologies developed to close the gap between digital systems and their physical counterparts eventually create the efficiencies for them to surpass them in the long run. For example: Noise, image sharpness and sensitivity algorithms applied to early CMOS 2 and 3 megapixel sensors eventually allowed 8-65 megapixels sensors to far surpass the quality of their physical counterparts (a current 8mp sensor is better than 35mm film, 65mp sensors are far better than medium format film even though their resolutions are roughly comparable) Its like stepping backwards to digitize it forces the development of efficiencies required later to create a far better product.
- chimeracoder 14y ago> Its interesting to note that the results of early stage enabler technologies are worse than the previous generation technology its trying to mimic and surpass. This is nothing new - the question is whether the potential of the enabler technology is larger than the potential of the "old" technology (which, presumably, has been maxed out or is getting close).
- 31reasons 14y agoI am sure there are technologies that died out in the labs because they looked promising at first but never became commercially feasible.
- lukasb 14y agocongratulations (no snark) - you're Clay Christensen http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356046845&sr=1-1&keywords=the+innovator%27s+dilemma http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chang...
- 31reasons 14y agohaha thanks. That book is on my list for years!
- geoffschmidt 14y agoThis turns out to be a key component of Clay Christensen's original theory of "disruptive technology" (before it became a buzzword.) The theory is that the disruption comes in part because existing producers ignore the new technology, since initially it is only of use to a tiny niche in the market that doesn't care about performance. The niche is left to bit players, but it turns out to provide them enough oxygen that they can invest in R&D and improve the technology, eventually to the point that it's the best choice for all but the highest-end applications. http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244 http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chang...
- Colliwinks 14y agoWeb "Apps"