On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:37:02 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
>
> wrote:
> >Hi All,
>
> >I was just reading this article in the New York Times. =A0I feel the
> >need to rant about it:)
>
> >
formatting link
might have
> >to sign-up for access).
>
> >The summary of the article is basically...
>
> >''...the acceptance of innovative products is a random process. =A0An
> >innovator cannot predict in advance which products will be accepted
> >and which not."
>
> >I think this is ridiculous.
>
> >At the end of the article:
>
> >"Henry Kressel, a partner at Warburg Pincus and a co-author of
> >"Competing for the Future: How Digital Innovations Are Changing the
> >World," says, "You throw technologies into the market and see what
> >sticks."
>
> >See what sticks? What does he mean by "You"? Who is "You"? Is it he?
> >His Friends & Family? The innovators? The hired-gun CEO? Venture
> >capitalists hoping for a win to make up for the last 5 flops?
>
> >Statements such as these are tantamount to saying, "The innovators are
> >just as clueless as we are about what will be accepted and what not."
>
> >This statement, in some ways, is offensive to countless individuals
> >throughout history who had something good and knew it. =A0Shawn Fanning,
> >of Napster, is a good modern example. =A0I doubt that he spent all those
> >sleepless nights thinking, "Oh well, I hope users like this random
> >idea that I have, which might have some virtue but has a random chance
> >of being accepted. =A0I am particularly worried about the chicken and
> >egg problem, that it is only useful if many people are using it, =A0but
> >many people won't use it if it is not useful." Maybe I should revisit
> >the recyclable toilet paper idea instead, since it does not require
> >collective participation to be successful."
>
> >Sometimes innovators know in advance that they have a good idea.
> >Those same innovators also know that some ideas are not as good as
> >others and that the not-as-good one's might flop, but when a product
> >is *really* good, I doubt that the innovator doesn't have a clue.
>
> Almost *all* inventors think in advance that they have a good idea.
> Maybe a hundredth of a percent of them are right. So you can easily
> pick that 1 in 10000 and say he was prescient. I'd say that they were
> all about the same, but one got lucky.
I've known a few innovators. Some knew what they are doing, most didn't. Even the one's who knew what they were doing were prone to fail - lots of things can go wrong through the development process, more in getting into volume production, and yet more in finding and attracting customers,but the proposition that they are "all about the same" is scarcely defensible.
>These books and articles imply that human behavior and desire is a
> >mostly random mysterious phenomenon that is unpredictable.
Not an opinion that adverstisers share - though at least one marketing executive has admitted that at least half the money he spent on advertising was wasted, though he didn't know which half.
>So...then...is it a random process or is it not? Does overall merit
> >have any bearing on success?
> >With any rejected innovation, even a feeble, half-hearted analysis
> >will almost always reveal one or more reasons why it was rejected.
Hindsight is wonderfully clear.
>People who claim that one cannot assess the merit of a product before
> >it is deployed, and then claim, after deployment, that innovator did
> >not actually know but "got lucky", are, IMO, simply excusing
> >themselves for their lack of vision.
>
> >-Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> If it were possible to predict market acceptance of new ideas, every
> big company would do it, and all newly introduced products would be
> wild successes. Extrapolate the consequences of that situation.
They do try.Sometimes they get it right,
Remember the Edesl? New Coke? DrKoop.com? PC Junior? Bob? The last 5
> Kevin Cosner movies?
The Walkman, mobile phones?
I read somewhere that 19 of 20 new breakfast cereals are failures.
Perhaps because they don't offer any kind of innovation.
Most movies and new TV series are failures.
Perhaps because they don't offer any kind of innovation.
Most of the big success stories in technology were by individuals who
> got lucky, and you don't hear much about the tens of thousands who
> didn't. One key metric is whether the big winners, after making their
> billions, are able to do it again. Most aren't, which indicates that
> their ability to predict the directions of technology is nil. Name a
> few people who have had multiple, large-scale successes at innovation.
Alan Dower Blumlein comes to mind
formatting link
Many markets today develop bottom-up, with fads emerging from nowhere.
>
> Steve Jobs seems pretty good at anticipating, and even instigating,
> trends; he is an exception. Microsoft can't; they "embrace and extend"
> other peoples' ideas.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen