Talk:Technology lifecycle

Needs to have Geoff Moore/Crossing the Chasm added to it. This is really the standard for the conversation in tech

This article reads like a high school essay, with copious use of 2nd person characteristic of those who let their thoughts flood out into writing.

Prior commentor, why then don't you fix it? And why don't you sign your post as requested?

Anyway, why are the stages not named as they are normally named:
 * Innovators
 * Early Adopters
 * Early Majority
 * Late Majority
 * Innovators?

As for the use of the term "State of the Art" for "Early Majority" that's not a good term. Would be much better to be called "Mainstream." The term "State of the Art" implies leading edge.

MikeSchinkel 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very poorly written and confusing article. I tried to improve it but on second thought, it needs to be scrapped and restarted. Perhaps I will find the time to do so in the near future. Quietleader 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the references? Moore, von Hippel, Christensen and others would be more useful than unsourced musings. Don't have the books in front of me to add them myself. Wseltzer 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)