In response to Fred Wilson's question "What drives consumer adoption of new technologies?" (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/06/what-drives-consumer-adoption-of-new-technologies.html)

Developing new technology is the same type of endeavor as composing and recording a song or writing, filming, and editing a movie, and therefore Richard Cave's "nobody knows" problem ultimately applies to the business desire for reproducibility (Creative Industries http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Industries-Contracts-between-Commerce/dp/0674008081). While we may be able to describe in general and specific terms, after the fact, why a particular song, movie, or technology became popular, the description by nature cannot provide a basis for describing the next popular creation (it can however provide a basis for formulaic efforts like sequels and spin-offs).

A good song, says what needs to be said, says it within the context what has been said before , and says it at the right time. Consider that the themes of songs we love (or hate) really don't differ much from the songs we care nothing about (neutrality is worse than hatred for the creative). It is the timeliness, relevance, and craft of the expression of that theme that wins the day. And if a song further exhibits time*less*ness, ongoing resonance, and beauty it becomes a "classic".

This analogy neatly explains many phenomenon in popular technology: hits-based business structures, a belief in king/queen pickers, fadishness, increasing operational focus on marketing and promotion, etc. The business of new popular technology looks like the business of music and movies, because the creation of new popular technology looks like the creation of music and movies.

A few things follow from this analogy. Winning technologies like YouTube are not thematically novel (i.e. hundreds of competitors in the online video distribution space, which is ultimately thematically related to television), but rather emerge as the most timely, relevant, and well-crafted. Further, we cannot ignore the influence of resources - monetary,  power, or otherwise - on the relevancy component of the function. Perhaps most importantly, it is way too early to know whether any of these recent technologies have graduated to "classic" status yet. Even Google, while of obvious business value, has yet to exhibit the cultural longevity of Abbey Road, or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or perhaps more to the point television or the telephone. The last two illustrate the final business problem for popular technology ...successes become categorical and thus commodity.

Finally, the answer to your question as it applies to your business, Fred, is the same as in other creative businesses: prolificacy, experimentation and inspiration comprise the measure of creative capacity. The business problem is that the creative process is orthogonal to the ex post facto hallmarks of creative success (even if you substitute or add your own to timeliness, relevance, and craft). Everybody knows why a creative *product* was a success, but we can only perceive the capacity of a creative *effort* to output a large number of products all of which try to be subtly novel and "come from the heart", one of which *might* be a hit.

Gotta love it, right?!