9.4 Purifying Innovation and Technological Replacements

Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.

In spite of its evident significance, the concept of purifying innovation remains largely unexplored in academic literature. To my knowledge, there is no conceptualisation of innovation and technological evolution based on the evolutionary process of purifying selection in academic literature. This lacuna is perplexing given the prevalence of purifying processes during major technological transitions.

Examples of such transformative shifts abound, from the transition from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles to the current transition from hydrocarbon-based energy sources to renewable energy (Ehlhardt, 2016). The replacement of such established technologies has attracted academic interest for decades. However, the concept of “disruptive innovation” has largely monopolised the debate, casting a significant shadow over the equally pivotal process of “purifying innovation”.

Unfortunately, the connection between purifying innovations and evolutionary theory has largely gone unnoticed by scholars. Consequently, we have potentially overlooked broader implications and insights linked with this evolutionary process. Rogers was one of the few academics interested in the obsolescence and discontinuation of technologies. Despite not employing an evolutionary analogy, Rogers captured some aspects of purifying selection in his discourse on technological discontinuances: “Discontinuance is a decision to reject an innovation after it has previously been adopted. Discontinuance may occur because an individual becomes dissatisfied with an innovation or because the innovation is replaced with an improved idea” (Rogers, 2003).

The observations conducted in this thesis contradict Rogers’ characterisation of individuals who tend to discontinue or reject innovations. The findings challenge the notion that those who reject and discontinue innovations are simply resistant to change. According to Rogers, later adopters are more likely to discontinue innovations than earlier adopters:

High discontinuers are characterised by less formal education, lower socioeconomic status, and less change agent contact, which are the opposites of the characteristics of innovators (…) Discontinuers share the same characteristics as laggards, who indeed have a higher rate of discontinuance (Rogers, 2003).

However, the diffusion of touchscreen smartphones challenges this view, indicating that early adopters can play a pivotal role in promoting the discontinuation of established technologies, particularly when confronted with groundbreaking, disruptive innovations. As previously discussed, Apple pioneered a new smartphone form factor that effectively eliminated the need for physical keyboards (Sections 6.3 and 6.4). While Apple was not the original creator of capacitive touch, this technology was relatively unknown and under-utilised until Apple decided to incorporate it into the first iPhone in 2007 (Walker, 2012).

The iPhone’s form factor made the device highly appealing to innovators and early adopters. Eager to embrace new technologies, these demographic profiles can act as catalysts for change, driving the shift away from older technologies. In addition, these groups are more likely to acquire the latest, often more expensive, technological offerings. This was the case during the introduction of touchscreen smartphones, which were priced significantly higher than their non-touchscreen counterparts. As slate smartphones diffused, the market began to gradually phase out alternative form factors, including different keyboard layouts and previous touchscreen technologies (Figure 9.4.1).

The transition from piston engines to jet engines and from resistive touchscreens to capacitive touchscreens demonstrate a common theme: While these technologies underwent decades of incremental refinements, they eventually reached a point where their inherent limitations prevented further advancements.

During the 1950s, piston engines and propellers were nearing their physical limits (Crouch et al., 2020). Compared to the reciprocating movement of pistons, jet engines were mechanically simpler and operated more smoothly. As explored in the section “The Jet Age Disruption?”, the jet engine was indeed a technological discontinuity, as it was developed from “an entirely new and different knowledge base” (Foster, 1986, p. 36). This new technological foundation underwent rapid evolution, reaching performance levels that were unattainable with piston engine technology (Crouch et al., 2020).

The new engines proved to be more reliable than their predecessors, the piston engines, which had too many moving parts and were prone to overheating and failure (Pandey, 2010). As a result, the aviation industry promptly transitioned to jet-powered engines, resulting in the swift displacement of piston engines from commercial passenger service (Figure 6.6.1). At present, piston engines are only used in small aeroplanes and a few types of agricultural aircraft.

Similarly, the technology of resistive touchscreens, although in production since the late 1970s and in use in mobile phones since the early 2000s, was fundamentally constrained by several shortcomings. The user experience with resistive touchscreens was generally suboptimal due to (1) their poor durability, as their plastic top surface was easily damaged, (2) their inferior optical quality, (3) the high amount of force required for touch input, and (4) the lack of multi-touch support (Walker, 2012).

These inherent limitations made the emergence of capacitive touchscreens all the more disruptive. The historical dominance of resistive technology began to change in 2007, with the introduction of the first iPhone. Despite not being the first touchscreen smartphone, the iPhone did “revolutionise” the industry by featuring the first-ever capacitive touchscreen incorporated into an all-glass display. The iPhone’s architecture was highly influential, setting the standard for the dominant design that would be adopted by most smartphones that followed.

As seen in Figure 9.4.1, the emergence of this new form factor (the touchscreen slate) led to a rapid replacement of once-dominant features. Physical keyboards, commonly found on devices like Blackberries, were quickly replaced by virtual keyboards. Alternative form factors that did not conform to the all-glass, touchscreen design started to become obsolete. And resistive touch, despite its historical dominance, began to fall out of favour. By 2010, only three years after the iPhone was introduced, capacitive touch technology had already surpassed resistive technology in revenue generation, and then in the following year, it also surpassed resistive touch in terms of units sold (Walker, 2012).

To conclude, the evolution of these two distinct industries reveals an interesting interplay between purifying and disruptive innovations. Frequently, the emergence of novel technologies prompts the obsolescence and replacement of previously dominant technologies and product architectures. When disruptive technologies diffuse, they often spark waves of creative destruction, purifying markets from established yet inferior technologies. This cleansing process embodies the essence of purifying innovation, a crucial mechanism in the evolution of both species and technologies.