Is technology, business or industry brand name of successful technology establishments today, more important that innovation, genius and exploration?
Dear Eduard Babulak,
I think that your question reflects a deep philosophy, but in simple terms I would remark the fact that "technology, business or industry brand name of successful technology establishments today" and "innovation, genius and exploration" belong to different realities and semantic categories, which make their comparison irrelevant. It is like asking if my name is more important than myself. It is evident that there could be no brand name without an existential support, and innovation, genius and exploration are more than just existential supports, they are fundamental conditions for knowledge, technology and business creation. I think that we can correlate in many other ways these categories than by putting them into a balance of relevance and importance.
Dear Constantin,
Thank you for your valuable comment. Indeed the brand name does reflect standing, reputation and prestige. However, the competitiveness today does challenge any establishment anywhere on the planet all the time. Everything changes and it is a good practice not to put much emphasis on ones standing and reputation, but rather on challenges that one may find in the light of competition that may come in most unpredictable way. In time all changes and change is good for progress and innovation often naturally driven by genius.
I think it's a chicken and an egg issue here. Technology/business/industry and brands are built not just with a marketing budget, they are built with fulfilling needs of end users and developing a reputation. You cannot have a Google or a SpaceX without firstly having some form of differentiator, innovation being one of the many factors affecting businesses. And these businesses are built and staffed by people, the most important organizational resource there is. Have adventurous design-oriented staff, and you have an equally design-oriented value proposition. Have mediocre workforce and the output will be equally mediocre, so larger organizations are like machines - output is contingent on your input. But the more important aspect of it all is the space these companies occupy and the industrial ecosystems they build.
To reach this space, such large brands need people who are able to innovate and explore, making such businesses ecosystems of excellence. Apple today is not any more / less adventurous than a small enterprise in Silicon Valley however, it can and has the resources to reach more people and augment innovation much more by having supply chains, reach and, most importantly, a corporate culture that breeds what some may call 'genius' or 'exploratory attributes'.
Startups perhaps are indeed good sources of individual innovation, but to actually make a larger impact (what you may call building of industries) you need the larger companies to develop these ecosystems.
Innovation / genius / exploration are important attributes, especially in technology for any industrial change to take place, but you need an ecosystem around world changing products and services. Microsoft is nothing without it's 3rd party ecosystem, it is a force multiplier, it is what makes or breaks products... it is why industries exist.
In simple terms, large companies are like elephants, they form the jungle around their territory (that is an industry) and when they make or break the trees around them, it feeds smaller creatures and creates unique ecosystems. Everything is interlinked.
Genius/exploratory impulses and innovation isn't possible without some form of impetus from factors available in your environment, and these factors are built by technology businesses/brands and so forth. And once this stimuli is generated, they thus contribute to the brands/technology and impulses... it's, again, linked. You can't have one without the other.
Hope this helps.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation