Alexandre Enkerli's Library tagged "technology adoption" →  View Popular, Search in Google

I do that a lot. The Swiss or Amish version of the "wait-and-see approach." Works really well with updates.

This seems to be well-understood, now. Of course, it appears to be the focus of this post, but it's probably not the most interesting point.

Again, well-known. But good to keep in mind.

And specialized searches have two unwanted side-effects: separate blogging from the mainstream and emphasize the echo-chamber effect. (This was well-discussed on TWiT, at the time.)

My sense is that it can still take off because the best solution hasn't come up yet. Diigo (!) appears to be a good start. But there's a lot which could be done to improve it. For instance, send pings or trackbacks when users comment on a blogpost. Importing RSS feeds from other bookmarking services should be (IMVHO) Diigo's #1 priority. Making commenting more seamless with less button clicking would make the Diigo experience more bearable. Better auto-tagging and more obvious batch-tagging would also help. Some support for a kind of ubiquitous link clipboard would make it easy for both bloggers and "normal readers." Merging comment-tracking (à la cocomment) with Diigo's approach to "highlight and comment" could really make sense.
All in all, social bookmarking could be much bigger than it is but people do rely on it remaining geeky. I want it to be workflow. This is not a niche approach to social bookmarking. Even people who are relatively passive as readers (i.e., the statistical mainstream) would use social bookmarking if it's really seamless.

Excellent point. Podcatchers have it right, in terms of RSS. I sometimes wish RSS readers would be more like podcatchers and/or podcatchers could integrate more content types.
Although... One reason podcatchers work for me is that I eventually found the right number of podcasts to subscribe to. I haven't been able to do this with blogs and other non-podcast RSS feeds.

Yup! I don't use them.

Information overload (IO) in general is a big issue. Yahoo! Pipes could help, but I haven't really been attracted to it enough to go on its learning curve (despite @ericbaillargeon talking about it so much). Some new RSS readers take a more radical approach to reducing IO, but they still don't seem to work so well.
I guess what I need is an adaptive RSS reader which will help me be more selective in the number of things I read. The reverse of StumbleUpon, in a way, though SU could probably help. Put simply, I want an RSS reader which "knows" me and which can help me decide what I want to do with a given piece of text: put on my "to read" list? Send to someone who might care? Keep on the backburner as a potentially interesting idea? Read actively? Blog about? Respond to? Send to my handheld for reading or listening while I do something else? Add to a "pile" with auto-indexing so the next time I want some info about this, the full text of the original will come up?

Well... I do have this problem and I do think I need a tool to deal with this. But RSS Readers don't work, for my needs. My interests are too disparate, my attention to the blogosphere is too occasional... This is actually one context in which Twitter is helping me focus.

I don't really like the wording (too fake-science-y) but I agree with the principle. We can probably now go into the "listening to what users need" tirade but I would prefer it if it were more ethnographic/insightful in terms of the relationship between technology adoption and innovation (invention+adoption=innovation), in social terms. It's not a "natural need" for "young people." It's "a common practise in a significant portions of different populations."

YES! Options, not features!

Too bad it's such an absolute/quantitative statement. Sure, adoption numbers matter, in meetings with investors. But what's more important in terms of the adoption timeline may be based on the network effect and on the social butterfly effect. The same tool can be used differently by different people (unintended uses are the killer app?) if they already adopt that tool for some other reason. If it's out of peer-pressure or just because of the invisible influence of an acquaintance, it still matters a lot in terms of making the thing "viral."
We're talking about networks, here, not a standardized population.

Cheap and misleading.

Not a bad point and somewhat funny given the whole "make Robert Scoble cry" jokes of a few months ago. But, at the same time, Scoble is fairly good at being a cog in the wheel. People think of him as a direct influence on his "followers" (not just on Twitter). What seems to be more important, from his work, is that he has been able to get some people to think differently about some tools and companies. He's definitely not like a journalist but it's not accurate to think of him as the central point of a pack of geeky early adopters who would adopt those tools anyway. He's someone who says a lot of things and some of them "don't fall on dead ears" (is that the expression in English?). The reason he influences people, very often, is because there's a fit between what he says and what people are open to hear. Not that he "says what people want to hear." But he says things which find a fertile ground, partly because those who first hear them run with it.
Much of this about Scoble is "old." I get the perception that, at this point, he's mostly getting "followers" who are following him because of his notoriety. Especially marketers and social capitalists. Problem with this is that these people don't necessarily listen so much. They don't really adopt. They sell.