|
|
|
|
|
|
by IKantRead
1058 days ago
|
|
|
> Where are we in the hype cycle on this? Can we stop acting like the Gartner "hype cycle" is anything more than a marketing gimmick created Gartner to validate their own consulting/research services? While you can absolutely find cases that map to the "hype cycle", there is nothing whatsoever to validate this model as remotely accurate or valid for describing technology trends. Where is crypto in the "hype cycle"? It went through at least 3 rounds of "peak of inflated expectation" and I'm not confident it will ever reach a meaningful "plateau of productivity". Did mobile ever have "inflated expectation"? Yes there was a lot of hype in the early days but those people hyped about it, rushing to build mobile versions of their websites... were correct. The "hype cycle" is a neat idea but doesn't really map to reality in a way that makes it useful. It's only useful for Gartner to create an illusion of credibility and sell their services. |
|
|
What do you propose as a more accurate alternative, or do you think that the whole idea should be scrapped? Because personally I feel like certain tech/practices certainly go through multiple stages, where initially people expect too much from them and eventually figure out what they're good for and what they're not.
Not always a single linear process, like NFTs/crypto refusing to die despite numerous scams out there and projects that seem to go nowhere, yet people still falling for the scams due to promised profits. However, the amount of people critiquing the blockchain as a crappy database seems to suggest at least some lessons learnt along the way and hopefully some actually decent use cases.