[kazinator]

> A technology needs to be 10x better than a previous one for widespread adoption. It has successfully explained many failed technologies and products.

A hypothesis about failure, on the other hand, has to account for the failures and successes. This one doesn't. While it can plausibly explain failed technologies and products, it doesn't explain the historic success of junk that is worse than its predecessors.

A technology can be hyped into widespread adoption. It can be dumped on the market for widespread adoption. It can ride on top of cheap hardware for widespread adoption. It can be bundled with something else, achieving widespread adoption. A technology can be falsely evaluated as 10X better by a large number of complete idiots, resulting in widespread adoption among idiots, resulting in pressure for non-idiots to adopt.

All these effects can overcome the barrier of having to be actually, objectively 10X better. The "10X better adoption barrier" is only faced by honestly promoted technologies whose campaign consists of "try this because it's better for these objective reasons".

[0x0]

"Better" can mean a lot of things including "cheaper", "easier to use", "better marketed", etc. Explains why sometimes "worse is better", I think :)

[kazinator]

Yes; "worse is better" rings true when the "worse" on the left hand side is the antonym of a different meaning of "better" from the right hand side "better"; i.e. an equivocation on the word is going on (not to deceive but to create a play on words).