In today's bowling environment, not one company will mass produce a ball they don't have some confidence in. Whether that ball matches with your game or not is the big question. Also, newer technologies may take more time to work out the kinks, but tried and true covers will always be around. For example, when Brunswick came out with the Activator coverstock, they couldn't know for sure how the public would take to it or how it would perform after millions of games, something that is not feasible in a testing environment. After success, they now have the same cover (with some tweaks) on a lot of equipment. Now anytime someone sees a Brunswick ball with Activator as the cover, you can generally assume it will be a decent ball as long as it is drilled properly.
Most advertising is usually centered around newer technologies because that is what the company wants the bowlers to think of when buying a new ball, and these are the balls that usually cost the most. Newer technology does not mean best match up or best quality or best performance, just means new. Once a technology has served its purpose in the high priced bracket of bowling balls and has been successful, it will trickle down to the mid priced bracket and even down to the lower priced bracket. Just like the Activator on the Rattler and PK17 on anything else.
--------------------
I am not a pro-bowler, but I do play one on BallReviews.com