[_lex]

This article makes a ton of sense for people in smaller companies that aren't worried about rapidly shifting markets and the long time-to-delivery of new functionality that is made possible by technology. He's effectively arguing "why build android when j2me already exists". The problem is that when the iphone comes out, you want something you can quickly retool into a competitive product - otherwise you might get killed by the movement of the market itself. See blackberry & windows mobile for what happens when you're too late to the game.

Now, you could argue that it makes more sense to try to make the iPhone instead of a me-too system like android originally was. But most companies aren't apple of 2005, and they know it. They know they aren't really leading in anything - they just don't want to be left in the dust. So they ask their tech teams to investigate stuff that might be transformational, like the blockchain, because if it did create a new green field, they want to have access to the new market and at least near-first mover advantage.

[todayispotato]

I'm afraid you then might have missed my point by a little bit. Let me try and clarify.

I think new technologies are awesome. But I think you shouldn't look at a technology and ask "which problems should I solve with this?", but rather at the problems you have and then consider "which technologies should I use to solve this problem?".

The last one does mean you have to become good at identifying problems in your company or product offering, which is much harder than finding technologies. But I think that is a very worthwhile goal.