It really annoys me when any anything gets applied the as the "killer for x" moniker. I mean, it seems like if all new products will be revolutionary, and will come to supplant all that came before them.
Most often than not, most often than not those products fail to do so and end up finding a place along some of those products they were supposed to replace. Just look to tablets, they were suppose to completely replace PCs, and laptops, and ended up finding a niche. People seem to get over excited about some products, and don't seem to think thing through before coming with those grandiose claims about how this or that new product will just replace what came before it.
While there some examples that prove to be correct, those are the exception rather than the rule. Mainly, those examples can be found where moving to that new product is not a choice to the end user. The move is dictated by an imposition, where there is no real option not to make the change or the benefits of making the change are really that good to be ignored.
For me, it seems that "killer" moniker has become little more than a marketing ploy to get attention, or used by fans to praise their new toy.
In order to be sure if a product earns that title we have to wain, it's something that takes time to determine. And let's not forget that nothing has to become a "killer" product to be successful, and there is no reason why it can't live along with established technologies.
All technologies will be replaced with something better with time, yet not all need to be replaced with a the next one by a "killer" technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment