Gadgets of 2002

oo7tushar writes "CNN has this article on some of the new gadgets we can expect to see in 2002. We can expect smaller MP3 players, more powerful cell phones. The biggest barrier remains the cost of the multifunction gadgets (quote - But until consumers -- and not just gearheads -- show a liking to these technologies, and their prices become affordable, some companies are focusing on devices that serve one function well. ") We can also expect evolution rather than revolution. The article has much more info."

Comments

terribly uninsightful

[cowscows]

Revolutions, particularly ones that can happen in a span as narrow as a year, are rarely predictable. It seems like a silly claim to say that they will not happen. Evolution, of course, will continue.

The whole article is pretty empty to me. The technologies that were big the past year will continue to get smaller and more powerful. Wow, I've never seen electronic devices go through that before.

Segway?

[cperciva]

Does "gadget" mean something different in North America? There's nothing which screams "gadget" to me more than a Segway.

More boxes?

[ZaneMcAuley]

I currently have everything I need going through my computer. Cable TV, local Radio, internet TV, internet radio, movies, audio, games, phone calls. Why would I want more boxes?

2002? I don't think so.

[nzhavok]

this article on some of the new gadgets we can expect to see in 2002

Or rather the article tells us the gadgets we already had and lets us in on the secret that some of these will be improved. It is full of informative advice like:

MP3 players will shrink in size but hold more songs

DVD players will be able to play audio DVDs

Tablets will be slimmer and lighter

Seriously this article doesn't discuss the cool new toys we will have; all it says is the technology we already have is likely to evolve to the next stage.

"More powerful" != "Better."

[KC7GR]

In their mad craze to make cellphones and other portable hardware smaller and lighter, manufacturers have forgotten two very critical things: (1), A great many of their potential users don't have fingers the size of Tinkerbell's, and (2); The vast majority of their potential users don't have eyes like an eagle's.

As it stands now, my own cellphone (a Motorola 'StarTac' 7868) is small enough that I keep hitting multiple keys when I'm trying to use it. Yes, I looked around for something bigger, with buttons and body sized to fit a guy with big hands, but noooooo -- everything else I found was so light and flimsy that I think even a midget would sneer at them.

Don't even get me started on functionality vs. fluff. When you start demanding that equipment do things that are not part of its intended basic purpose, then quality and durability of the device invariably suffer.

A good example of this is web-enabled cellphones. Who the frell wants to surf the web on a low-resolution dot-matrix LCD screen that's not even an inch and a half across? For that matter, why would anyone want to be so "wired" as to have a need to get to the web from their handheld in any case? The phones are enough of a distraction now without being 'net-ready. How many car accidents have been (rightfully) blamed on them to date?

Just because a manufacturer can do something with technology does not always mean that they should. Smaller, lighter, and more features that you'll never use does NOT mean "better." I think the manufacturers would do well to provide a lot less fluff and a lot more practicality and durability in their products.

Re:EEK! A COMPUTER! HIDE! RUN!

[Tryfen]

Just the sort of bigoted ignorance of HCI/Human-Factors that are holding back computers (and Linux particularly).

How hard is it to operate a Gameboy? Cart in, switch flicked. That's it!
CD player - CD in, button pressed. Music!

I don't want to have to drop to a command line to do play my mp3s on my digital hifi. I don't want to even *see* my VCR flashing <blink>12:00</blink> at me - let alone figure out a poorly translated Japanese user manual and try and set the damn thing.

That's what they are talking about. People don't want to have to fight with their toys just to get them to work. Flick a switch and off they go.

Terry

Multi-function devices not so good

[not_cub]

The biggest barrier remains the cost of the multifunction gadgets (quote - But until consumers -- and not just gearheads -- show a liking to these technologies,

No, no, no, no, no. Multi-function devices are not good. I had a nokia 9110 mobile phone that allowed access to the internet(proper internet, not just wap). It was too big to be carried, and too small to do any proper surfing. I had a 200 cd changer. It didn't play cds as well as a single cd player, and it changed them considerably worse than me (tended to get white goo all over them when it dropped them in the wrong place, and then scratch them to death). Shoes and lightbulbs are individually good devices, but the shoe lightbulb is unlikely to take off, because generally it is better to keep devices with seperate functions seperate.

not_cub