I have so many examples that shows quite the oposite. Great tech down the drain, because it was not market well enough. VHS versus Betamax. Intel versus Mac. DAT never made it really, but was by far superior to any other recording medium at that time, because again, not marketed well. Need I say more? To win is: Great tech addresssing the needs, and all the normal business activiteies in bringing the techn to the market, and help the potential customers to use it, and when needed, run projects to get the tech integrated to the cusomters tech.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If that great tech didn't produce great benefits, then no amount of marketing would create commerce.
Tech isn't product. It's a means of creating awesome product. Marketing is just letting people know there is a wonderful new kind of product, in the end. The product, not the tech, is what is marketable.
Also, skullduggery by clever marketers impacts markets, as it did in the VHS/Beta market. I once competed with Michael Dell for networking contracts with the State of Texas, and he kicked my ass.
I wouldn't bribe anyone, or use any of the other means of ingratiating purchasing managers for state agencies. I'm not accusing Dell of corruption, but that's what I think happened. These things matter a lot in certain markets. I'm not competitive in those markets, and it doesn't matter what tech or products I'm moving.
If content creators can't make money on Hive, they're going where they can make money. That's why so many dissidents are still on Youtube, even self-censoring to cling to that platform.
We seem to be from two different worlds :) Agree to disagree.