This pretty much expains why so many people in the tech industry (corporations, analysts, journalists, bloggers, commenters etc.) end up being wrong about the market. The article goes into how alot of technocrati are in other businesses/organisations and tend tend make spectacular failures such as the Dot-com bust.
I had to cut some of it out because it was just too long (which is a shame because I felt I was cutting up pure Win). Anyway you can read the whole post here:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-technocrati/
|
[...] I love my family, and I am not criticizing the engineer personality so much as showing why it keeps leading off a cliff ultimately. Ever since the Computer Revolution, many engineers have gotten quite a swelled head. They are no longer engineers. They find themselves as a type of Neo Aristocrats. They imagine all of society changing and morphing with the next wave of computer technology. They do not see technology as an instrument of Human Nature but as a molder of it. I call them the Technocrati. The Technocrati believe they are the genius explorers who will bring down “technology” from a mountain and reshape society. It is not so much that the Technocrati are obsessed with technology as they are obsessed with technology riding the horse of Human Nature. Ultimately, they are wrong. It is Human Nature who is the driver, it is Human Nature who is riding the horse of technology. Disruption is so prevalent because of the Technocrati. A *better* disk is not better to the consumer’s jobs to be done. The Wii’s success is because the console fit Human Nature better than the PlayStation 3. Breaking down the walls in interface was removing a choke point while increasing the graphics was increasing a point in the pipe that was well wide enough already. [...] What I find funny about the Technocrati is that when one great “next revolution” sputters out, they just invent a new one! When that one sputters out, it is replaced with yet another one. Prior to the NES, the Technocrati believed that the home computer would control all appliances including refrigerators and washing machine (computers may be in them, but they are certainly not controlled by the main PC). Five years ago, investors, Sony, and Microsoft believed that living rooms would be controlled by a video game console (however, the price of the screen dropped and now there are screens everywhere. The living room cannot be controlled). When Little Big Planet came out, which received hype because it was going to change everything about video games, it did not do so well and certainly hasn’t changed anything. When Spore came out, there was massive hype about that, and its reception was very poor. User Generated Content is yet another Technocrati dream. The “Game Industry” was all excited because the “Game Industry” is composed of Technocrati as are many other industries. Lately, it is being bandied about that content no longer matters, only ‘user-generated content’ does. This is being pointed at with comments on websites, on blogs (such as this one), and everywhere else. This will ultimately be ended up being proven wrong as content does matter as people don’t want to consume other people’s garbage. But it is exciting to the Technocrati because it is a technology innovation they believe will “change society”. The Technocrati are so out of it that they believe the Internet “invented” user-generated content. Apparently, they missed the letters-to-the-editor or pamphleteering that has gone on for centuries. Human Nature does not change. Reality is not Star Trek. Now, the “next revolution” is said to be ‘digital distribution’. It, of course, will “change society” as all these “next revolutions” will ‘change society’. But digital distribution is not an exact word. CDs, for example, were digital information that was distributed on disc. Disks, of course, were digital distribution. Obviously, they do not mean ‘digital distribution’ in itself but should be called ‘disk-less distribution’. But leaving in the word ‘digital’ makes it sound as if it is part of the next wave of the Silicon Revolution and to oppose it would be the same as to oppose the very name of progress! Digital distribution is desired by the Technocrati for one reason only and it is really nothing about costs. Putting out a freaking disc is not that hard. AOL used to mail out free discs to all the mailboxes in America (remember those?). Digital distribution is all about control. Whose control? Why, the Technocrati’s of course. Retailers will have no control over what product is put out because they are out of the loop. There will be no used goods since the consumer has no control over the product. The consumer doesn’t even have control if he or she can play it at a friend’s house. The Technocrati saying that digital distribution is the ‘future’ because of iTunes is, in traditional Technocrati ways, missing the point. The success of iTunes had nothing to do with ‘digital distribution’. It had everything to do with CUSTOMERS IN CONTROL. The Music Industry was trying to control their consumers. They would intentionally put a single good song with many bad songs in a CD and hope everyone would buy it for that one good song. The Music Industry was trying to prevent people from ripping the songs off their own CD and playing it in any order they want. With iTunes, consumers could buy the song they wanted instead of buying songs they did not want. They could re-arrange music in any way they want. For proof that iTunes is about consumer control and not “digital distribution”, look at the DRM. Steve Jobs is having Apple fight DRM that the Music Industry wants to slap onto everything. Apple is fighting DRM because it prevents consumers in how they want to arrange their music. The Music Industry, who does not want to lose control, is resisting. The Game Industry is acting exactly the same way as the Music Industry is. Digital distribution is nothing about greater convenience for the consumer or lower prices. If it were, you would be able to rip your games and play them digitally like you did with CDs. The PSP Go is illustrative that lower prices are not the impetus. It is about control. And “digital distribution” gives the Game Industry dictatorial control over its games. The consumer has no rights with “digital distribution”. The consumer only has ‘privileges’. The consumer will be privileged to play the game when he or she wants to. The consumer will be privileged to make a back-up copy of the game in case the company goes bankrupt. The consumer will be privileged to take the game at a friend’s house. The consumer will be privileged to sell away his or her version of the game (hah! you know this isn’t going to happen). At a dinner party, a programmer I know began talking gloriously about the future. His work involves wireless technologies. He even began speaking excitedly about OnLive and how “it will change everything”. At this moment, I stopped him. I said, “Not once did you ever mention consumers. Who is going to buy this thing if not the consumers?” It was like I splashed cold water on him. I believe, at that moment, was the first time he actually began thinking about consumers. I said, “You know, consumers may not want to buy something where they cannot own.” Decades of consumer habits are not going to change overnight. Gamers are used to owning their games, not renting them. When someone points out cable services, I say, “Look at the behavior of the gamer. They do not play games continuously as they watch television. Often, games are kept in the back of the closet and it comes out now and then. Gamers tend to be heavy gaming in spurts. Unlike TV, life makes it difficult to be a constant gamer all the time.” Regardless, the fact that such a thing of OnLive has gotten this far without anyone talking about the consumers shows just how prevalent the Technocrati are. Today, gaming no longer talks about gamers. It talks only about the “industry”. “The Wii is not going the path of the Industry,” they said in a very disdainful tone. But it was going the path of consumers, and that is what ultimately matters. The Industry does not exist on its own free will. It exists entirely on the pleasure of the consumers. The Technocrati do not take consumers seriously. Either they are idiots or they are Luddites to “progress”. Consumers, to the Technocrati, often end up being seen as obstacles to overcome. When you first heard and understood disruption, you likely got very excited because it showed how consumers control the future. Ironically, Clayton Christensen says every time he talks about disruption, the room of executives look with fear and panic. There is one common thread that makes up the entire Silicon Revolution. The common element found in every part of the computer and internet revolution is CONSUMERS TAKING GREATER CONTROL. Unlike what the Game Industry says, it is not the opposite of the “Industry” taking control away from the consumers. That is not going to work. Games, in many ways, will be disc less. But they will be in total control of the consumer. Consumers will not bow down to dictatorial control of their games. What may be “revolution” to an industry will be seen as “control” to the people. The consumers will insist they be in control. And they will win because they pay the bills.
|
