In this case the advances must be seen not only as an expense, but as a real cost of survival in a competitive marketplace.
Geezus, I wish I was as succinct and focused as you are...
You're absolutely right in that we're seeing product lifecycles accelerated to the point where it is becoming difficult to grasp. Whether it be Moore's law, or the increase in attenuation range for fiber optic signals, we're seeing technology grow at such leaps and bounds that companies are forced to upgrade solely in order to remain viable as competitive operations.
I'll take Corvis as an example. Apparently, if I recall correctly, their optical switching systems permit ranges in the thousands of miles between hubs. The fact that certain companies will derive a competitive advantage over their peers by reducing overhead costs (having fewer hubs) is a tremendous motivator in the upgrade or die mentality.
The very nature of this cut-throat competition displays some the reasons for the current profit recession. However, when the shakeout is over, those corporations still left standing will be the ones who have the tremendous revenue and profit potential.
The Europeans and Asians seem to be standing by the sidelines, waiting to see what standard is eventually arrived at, while the US leads the way in this technological revolution. But they may be taking a serious risk in not stepping forward more aggressively in decentralizing their economic systems and promoting entrepreneurial ingenuity. (btw, I'm not saying they are completely backward, but just lagging US emphasis on technological improvements and offering few alternatives of their own).
Regards,
Ron |
