Slashdot Mirror
Has The "Technology Bounceback" Begun?
jg21 writes "Has the 'return of technology' begun, asks this article in the wake of all the coverage of CES both here on Slashdot and elsewhere. But just as it's difficult to gauge how many swallows make a summer, how do you measure a technology bounceback? JDJ's suggestions include indicators from 2004 such as the doubling of Google's share price in just 6 months, the mega-sucess of the iPod, and the success of the Blackberry." Decent article that asks a good question; you'll have to wade through the ads to get to the real text.
Anyone who believes so probably thought the dot com boom would last forever........
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
that the "bounceback" is begining. I know many individuals who have no intrest in buying new tech products. They are quite happy with the last generation and see no reason to upgrade yet. Just because there is a new product does not mean that people will buy it.
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
Is it really "technology bounceback" or a new term for "dotcom bubble reinflation" ??
Not that it would be a bad thing.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
When the tech industry is starting to offer better products for more reasonable prices, I call that a bounceback.
By that standard, it's hard to say. The video card industry is looking really good right now, but so far there hasn't been all that much competition to IPod, so that just seems like an entrenchment of a single popular product (and experience suggests this leads to stagnation more than innovation). Plus, Google's stock doubling doesn't really seem to have all that much impact upon technology so much as the world of business. We get the benefits of their technology in their services, sure, but it's not like google is all of a sudden THAT much better than it's been for the past few years.
Frankly, when it comes to technology, I'd say that software is having the resurgence, not hardware. Open Source solutions are as strong and available as ever, meaning that Microsoft has had to pick up the pace in terms of the innovations it provides (or claims to, anyhow). And how spoiled are we that we can look at a game like Doom3 and be bored?
Rather than "must have gadgets", how about gaugeing a technology recovery by numbers of unemployed/underemployed technology workers?
TFA just says 'Is the dot-com boom back? We've published several technology stories this week, here are links to them'.
I might get into journalism, has to be easier than working for a living.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Yeah. I've been living in Asia for a few years, and everybody talks about how bad the economy is here. Most people seem to believe that the economy is in the tank seriously.
In reality, The economy grows steadily at 2-3%. This is reasonable and sustainable, but many want a return to the heyday of double digit growth. It won't happen and they'd better come to accept that.
Many (non-IT) folks I talk to also look back to that time when stock prices were through the roof, everyone's 401K was looking good, and politicians were talking about how to spend all the extra money. They, too, just need to get over it.
I hope that IT comes bak in a small way, but nothing like the 90s should ever happen again...
Dan
Put identity in the browser.
According to my Cisco teacher the tech industry experiences and up and down pattern about every ten years. First there was PC, and then the Dot Com bubble each followed by a period of less investment but public confidence in the technology. I predict there will be another boom in high tech possibly in Free/Open software. Which will (like the PC and Web boom before them) create a public confidence in Open Source even if investment drops. So you will lose the battle but win the war.
Its funny how everyone talks of the dot-com crash as if the entire industry was almost wiped-out. It was just a correction, an economic cycle. I mean, I'm showing my age here, but I remember a time when I had to get online with a 300-baud modem, and only about 10 people besides myself had a computer at my entire high-school. And we all new each other. Technology never went away. Its so far ingrained into everyone's life now. The Dotcoms may have gone bust, but I can buy a 50 dollar DVD player now thats better than the 300 dollar one I got in 2000. The internet and telecom is not technology, just a subset of it. I wish people would remember that fact, and not base the entire tech sector on just a few areas.
Technology never went away, even if there was a reduction in investment and a slowdown in markets. The reason is very simple: civilization is now so deep into technological dependency that it is quite impossible for the first world to function without its modern accoutrements. That makes any apparent breaks or slowdowns in the march of technology merely temporary and largely illusory anyway --- engineers and scientists continue doing their thing regardless of investor indifference. In adverse economic conditions, their efforts come to life in products later rather than sooner, that's all.
Technological progress has something equivalent to inertia, in that it resists any attempt to stop or even slow it down. In part this is because insight and innovation occurs more in the head than in the lab, and budget cutbacks never stopped anyone thinking. On top of that, science and technology is subject to positive feedback and exponential growth not just in scale but in number of dimensions as well, so it's no surprise that technology sees almost no slowdown regardless of the lack of helpful but non-critical investment.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I'm an early adopter and I don't see anything I'm going to buy. My next computer purchase might be one of the $500 apples if they can get me one before I read a sucky review (like review of a cheap video chip in the new imacs). I don't need any more disk space. I'll buy a gig sd card when they are below $70 and not before since I've never used most of my current sd memory or my usb memory stick but having a gig of tiny memory would be cool for some stilly reason.
.55tb I can't use right now (thanks sun!). Maybe I'm getting to old for the toys but I haven't seen anything real impressive in a while.
I don't need another mp3 player. In fact I've given away at least two and the ones around the house never get used. (but I'm going to hack one for underwater use if I can get the oregon sci replacement headsets).
So Mr toy makers... impress me or you won't see my money. Get me a postscript color laser printer for $200 or get me a 7 inch LCD touch screen that will work in a midwest summer in a car. I don't need fancy software unless its real cool and I'm not into security snake oil. I would by security dongles if you provided open source source code to talk to the thing but I'm installing your binaries on my box. I don't need bigger hard drives since I've got nearly
I'm not so sure that the "bounceback" is begining.
I'm not sure the question is even meaningful. Like all first-world countries, the US will continue to consume new technology at the maximum rate its consumers and corporations can afford, because it is no longer possible to even contemplate living without it.
The bigger question is whether the US will be creating much of it, rather than merely consuming what the rest of the world delivers. I think that there's every likelihood that it won't be creating anywhere near as much new technology as it used to, simply because in the last few years it has created for itself an utterly stiffling regulatory environment that benefits only lawyers and megacorps, and so breaks the widespread positive feedback that fuels innovation.
It doesn't look good to me, not for the US nor for the rapidly self-immolating Europe. This century seems to be tipping in favor of the far east.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I am by no means an Apple basher. I did not like Apple until years ago when I worked in a computer store that sold both Macs and x86 PC's. I saw that there were a distinct group of people whose copmuter usage habits dictate that they would be better off with a Mac. While I would personally not prefer a Mac, I grew to respect what they had to offer.
That being said, I think that your post is biased and short-sighted. The Mac platform is not for everyone. While Apple has arguably done more for the computer industry as a whole than any other single company, the fact remains that they are not going to take over a majority of the PC market with their current model. I know it's theit corporate philosophy that they want to be in charge of everything that goes into a Mac (the OS, the software, the add-ins, upgrades, etc.) to maintain quality control over the whole process, but that philosophy doesn't work in our capitalist system. Since they are the pretty much only company that says what goes into a Mac, (I know there are exceptions to this) they don't have as much incentive to decrease prices. Their only motivating factor is making enough profit to keep the company afloat. (which they can do by keeping a small market share and inflating their prices to make a large profit on each unit sold) They will continue to come out with revolutionary products (iMac, iPod, Firewire, etc.) which other companies will eventually copy and bring over to the PC side for half the price. I do not believe that Apple will ever have a majority user base in the PC industry again. The iPod has helped sales, but it's not going to get people to give up their cheaply made PC's.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
GOOG is fueled by hype, and a GMail system that is STILL in beta. Institutional investors would rarely put GOOG as part of their list of stocks, even though GOOG's initial share price is indeed targetting thouse. The iPod is not exactly the same because it's more of a portable music device such as a walkman or discman. The Blackberry is more an ugly cell phone but with hormone-enhanced SMS. Returning of technology? THAT should be judged by technology spending at the corporate level, not a couple consumer gadgets plus a overhyped stock.
It's hard to see a single company's stock price validate a recovery of an entire economic sector; Google's a unique company and many people may see such a "brain trust" as valuable simply because there may be much that comes out of it.
As for iPods and Blackberry? iPods are consumer electronics and have little business relevance -- big-screen TVs have been doing well for over a year now (LCD RP, DLP, and more recently ED plasma) and no one thinks of that as an economic recovery checklist entry, just the portion of the economy that has done well buying toys (and perhaps those that haven't done well commiting credit suicide).
Blackberry isn't a terribly expensive complex technology to roll out until you get to multi-server enterprise levels and can be done with home ISPs. It's also a major upper management status toy, and since when has the technology downturn denied that particular economic segment anything?
I'll believe a technology turnaround when *hiring* becomes more common, *salaries* start to get a boost, and business start investing in large, long-term IT projects. Up 'till now it's been small projects and keep-your-head-above-water stuff to prevent total obsolecense, not big-spending projects.
"The internet and telecom is not technology, just a subset of it. I wish people would remember that fact, and not base the entire tech sector on just a few areas."
Actually, you're wrong. We don't build any of the electronic gadgetry you see sitting on the shelves of Best Buy. We don't even design most of it anymore. This is all done in various parts of Asia. Software and telecom are all that's left in the USA. Therefore, software and telecom are what defined the tech bubble for us. If you want to say that "internet and telecom" are just a subset of our tech sector, feel free. However, that "subset" is the primary things that made our bubble.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
It depends on what you mean by loyalty. I don't think that the loyalty these people are talking about is what you took them to mean.
When I think of employee loyalty, I don't think of the guy who puts in his 40-45 hours of good work and then goes home. This should be expected of each and every worker at every company. When I think of loyalty, I think of the guy who works 60 hours of good work, or more if necessary, because he cares about doing a good job, and he cares that the company is succeeding because of his work. That's more than a resource. That's a reliable worker who you can count on not to keep pushing when things get tough rather than jump ship at the first sign of rough water.
And for loyalty like that, an employee should be able to expect a little bit of a kickback. A loyal company would let him take a day off after two weeks of 60+ work hours. A loyal company would give higher wages, or at least bonuses to employees who have to be on call. I don't think such things are too much to ask.
Wow, you really scream liberal (in the worst sense of the word).
I agree with the grandparent, but I don't tend to think of myself as a liberal. But if holding the opinion that it's generally bad to take advantage of people at every opportunity, and not wanting to work at a company that does that, makes me a liberal, then so be it.
I guess the F-117 Raptor was built by a telecom company? And the M-1 tank was built in the Philippines? And Intel didn't design any of its CPU's using American Engineers? Apple designed the Mac's in Thailand?
a ccelerator_list.html
Maybe most of it isn't "Assembled" here. But there are still a lot of things designed in the US.
A lot of pure research is still done in the US and Europe: http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/Informationen/
There is no loyalty from the company to you.
And if you're smart, you won't be giving any loyalty to the company in turn. Remember that although YOU are a resource and nothing more where the company is concerned, the COMPANY is nothing more than a resource to YOU. They don't, and never will, deserve anything like loyalty.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?