Slashdot Mirror
Are Information Technology's Glory Days Over?
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that computer science students with the entrepreneurial spirit may want to look for a different major, because if Thomas M. Siebel, founder of Siebel Systems, is right, IT is a mature industry that will grow no faster than the larger economy, its glory days having ended in 2000. Addressing Stanford students in February as a guest of the engineering school, Siebel called attention to 20 sweet years from 1980 to 2000, when worldwide IT spending grew at a compounded annual growth rate of 17 percent. 'All you had to do was show up and not goof it up,' Siebel says. 'All ships were rising.' Since 2000, however, that rate has averaged only 3 percent. His explanation for the sharp decline is that 'the promise of the post-industrial society has been realized.' In Siebel's view, far larger opportunities are to be found in businesses that address needs in food, water, health care and energy. Though Silicon Valley was 'where the action was' when he finished graduate school, he says, 'if I were graduating today, I would get on a boat and I would get off in Shanghai.'"
Well considering his creation - siebel - is one of the biggest steaming piles of crap i've ever seen... why would i listen to him?
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Siebel is absolutely right: IT's "glory days" are over. And good riddance, I say: the spectacular growth of IT has attracted all the wrong people and stifled real innovation. And "all the wrong people" includes people like Siebel himself.
If there is less of a get-rich-quick mentality, maybe people can return to focusing on innovation and long term planning again.
Technical progress often takes the form of a repetitive S-curve [see figure 4 in the .pdf] It could be that we're just in a somewhat horizontal part of the curve now, and the industry will experience another boom in the near future.
Let's not forget that computing is now accepted as a new way of doing science--going beyond experiments and theorizing (and way beyond what we can do with mathematics in complex, highly interacting multi-agent systems. Data mining is exploding; just take a look at Freakonomics and there you have it: a hotshot economist who does nothing but interesting data mining.
Then along comes this suit and brings this stupid false dichotomy: because there is demand for other stuff, like food; demand for IT is stabilizing?
I am from Brazil (thank you for your sympathy) where global demand for food will probably benefit our economy (and hurt other industries like IT, due to a rising currency), but seriously, WTF? The only news here is that this dude cannot reason very sharply and shouldn't be invited again.
No IT is actually mature. And with a mature industry there are less opportunities.
BUT, what also can be said is that without IT there is no industry. IT is at the heart of every industry, and hence the focus has changed. Namely you would focus on the industry and make sure that you know IT.
So if you were to seek out a niche in energy, good for it, but you better know how to use a computer, and potentially write a program.
And if you are going to do IT, you better learn a programming langauge that can be applied to a specific industry. For example I am in the financial industry. And I am not having a hard time looking for work. Why? Because I am act as a junior trader. I know how to place trades, watch the market and manage my positions. And on top of it I can write all of the data mining routines that our hedge fund needs.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I'm glad someone has the balls to say it: Universities are still pumping out IT graduates into an already crowded job market. It's like these kids have shown up to the California Gold Rush after all the gold has gone. IT has well and truly jumped the shark. There will still be jobs, but not enough to support the hordes of unemployed IT people out there. The parties over. Sorry you didn't score, but it's time to go home anyway.
But fear not, because Uncle CuteSteveJobs has a backup plan for you: Biotech. Bioinformatics is a new are and lets even little old you try and crack the genetic code. Hunt through DNA. Discover proteins. Build new drugs, all on your PC. Open source your discoveries, or sell out to Big Pharma.
You'll need to learn a bit of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics. Take heart: It's said Bioinformatics is closer to IT than it is to either of the former. Think of it as learning another language. That .NET isn't exactly cutting it these days, is it?
You'll be curing people and doing far more to help the world. And it's a lot more useful than doing another useless social networking website. Let me help you get started:
1. Download Chimera (It's free!)
https://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/cgi-bin/chimera-get.py?file=win32/chimera-1.3-win32.exe
2. File > Fetch by ID > PDB=1BGX [Fetch] ...wait... Actions > Atoms & Bonds > Show Only ...rotate with mouse...
3. That molecule is a polymerase. It can run down a DNA chain, unzip it, and build a protein as it goes. Yes, a little protein nanomachine? How cool is that? And to think you wanted to write web sites instead. C'mon. Try doing something useful! ;)
Seriously, is this guy delusional?
Look at the way the iPhone has completely changed the mobile landscape in the mere 2 years it has existed. Now granted, I dislike Apple as a company and would never buy an iPhone, but it would be idiotic to deny the huge impact the iPhone and the app store has made on the phone market and on mobile computing in general.
Mobile computing has been a hot area of interest over the last couple of years, and the real potential of mobile devices has yet to be realised. People are now able to easily write software which utilises ubiquitous GPS devices, accelerometers, cameras, microphones, and plenty more - all of it with 3G or wifi internet access, all of it capable of interacting with millions of other users of such devices. There is enormous potential in mobile computing! In fact, many of the problems he cites as being the next big thing could very well be solved by innovative mobile computing devices.
This is just one example of IT with plenty of room for growth. There are plenty more. Sure, you can't roll up to some venture capitalists with a few powerpoint slides and walk away with a couple of million bucks anymore, but that doesn't mean that it's all over and jump ship while you can. It just means you need some actual ability and proof that you're capable of building something that people will invest in. No wonder some people think the sky is falling - for them, maybe it is.
Frankly, the fact that Siebel cannot see any way for the industry to grow significantly says a lot more about his lack of vision and inability to innovate than it does about anything else.
>Data mining is exploding; just take a look at Freakonomics and there you have it: a hotshot economist who does nothing but interesting data mining.
Yes, but what was he first? A computer programmer or an economist? He was an economist first who happened to learn how to use a computer. That is the way that the industry is shifting.
The industry is stablizing for those that are general programmers. And what is opening are specialized niches of people who understand the business and the computer. As I work in a hedge fund I cannot imagine any fund these days not having quants or algo-programmers at their disposal. Guess what I did about 4 years ago? I switched from being a general programmer to a specializing quant/algo-programmer.
If I had to advise somebody today I would say learn a field first, and then make sure that you can write the code in that field. That is the best combination. Could you first learn the code and then the field? Well sure you can, but business will prefer the other guy first. After all most companies and people in the field don't really care about the code anymore. After all most of the code these days is written in "very safe" languages where it is hard to shoot yourself in the foot.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I would say microcomputers have largely gone through their cycle.
You are very funny, dude.
When you look at this, you probably see an effing ugly gaming laptop. I see a massive supercomputer that you can throw in a bag, something capable of outshining anything CRAY had 10 years ago for millions of greenbacks.
The only thing is that there are no killer apps YET for a beast like this; when a killer app for something like this comes along, we are in for a thrilling ride.
I disagree here...
You have chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and system engineers. Very different and very specialized. Is there some overlap? Sure a bit, but generally very unique and very different. I am a mechanical engineer and that means anything that moves belongs to me. Civil engineers ensure that nothing moves, and system engineers ensure that the project moves.
But there is nothing wrong with specialization since with specialization we have a mature industry and we are moving forwards.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I've found employers are getting ridiculously overspecialized these days. For example, I know Microsoft SQL Server pretty well, but not the latest version which unfortunately makes me unemployable. I've also got skills in other DBs, but none of them are Oracle. Sure I can retrain, but retraining takes time and money and you're not guaranteed a job at the end since you'll be going up against people with active experience in those new systems. You can keep at it and hope you break through, but at some point you give up and say hey - let's do something else.
The dumb thing is if you know one SQL database it's not too hard to learn another one, but employers don't respect that. I hope in a few years they're sweating again, but I won't be around waiting for them.
: Dummy spat off.
The reason for IT's growth during late 90's and early 2000's was because it was new, great technology.
Actually I'd say it was because the cost/benefit ratio came within reach for a large number of applications that could benefit from IT solutions. Computers had already existed for a long time, but replacing phones, typewriters and hordes of analysts, accountants and other 'manual-IT' workers with computers that'd do the same job for a vastly higher price wasn't very useful.
This doesn't really make sense. IT has lots of opportunities too.
Indeed. IT for ITs sake has never been much more than a scam. IT is something you use to address various needs. In, for example, health care, where IT is vastly underutilized (systems to assist medical diagnosis, to prevent misdiagnosis, track drug interaction to a larger extent, computer assisted surgery, etc, etc). If other fields have opportunities, IT has opportunities in those fields.
Growth rates may become more tied to specific industry segments, but that's because most of the current useful things that 'everyone' was doing, communications, bookkeeping, typing and presentations, wont experience the same mass-affordability and cost/benefit threshold traverse anymore. But the fields that do grow are likely to also do so through IT improvements, in everything from food and water logistics, farm automation, healthcare IT, smart energy usage/production, etc.
James Bessen and Robert Hunt did some interesting research at the federal reserve. What they found is that software patents tend to substitute for R&D. The study shows that over a 20 year period, investment in R&D suffered a major decline, apparently to finance software patents, patent searches, litigation and the like.
That might be a better explanation for the decline in IT perceived by Siebel. Or, maybe Siebel isn't happy with his patent portfolio.
You can find that study here.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While this is true, the simple fact is IT will die a slow death, just as our manufacturing and auto manufacturing has. Why? Free Trade is a lie. Your company can't compete with a Chinese one, because we don't allow you to poison us and fill our air, water, and land with toxins, yet thanks to 'free trade" you are supposed to. You can't compete with an Indian who pays only 20K for a Master's degree, yet thanks to H1-B and "free trade" you are supposed to pay off your 100K in student loans and survive on the same wages he does.
The IT industry will be gutted, just as so many others before it, because our treasonous lawmakers keep taking bribes from foreign nationals and multinational corporations while spouting off about "free trade" but it is all a lie. The corporations will simply give the IT jobs to their H1-B slaves or if not allowed to import more slaves will simply move to places like India and China, where they can pay a pittance and pollute all they want. Yet they will be given the same treatment as those who actually pay their taxes and manufacture here in America. Wake up and realize free trade is a lie! Notice how they will label this and anything that actually supports hiring Americans "protectionist"? Yet countries like India and China would never allow this kind of crap, they are too nationalistic to fall for it. India is building their own Aerospace and defense industries now so they won't have to import from countries like us.
Anyone who goes into IT now is simply a fool. They are a fool because they will never be able to compete against the Indian and the Chinese, yet thanks to "free trade" they will be expected to, and to live on their wages. Free trade is a lie.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Unless and until there's a cheap mr. fusion breakthrough, demand for energy in all its forms will just continue to go up. Peaks and valleys like everything else, but general trends are growth industry from here on out. There's a back log for "all of the above" in the energy biz, from more pipelines to more exploring to more drilling to more wind power to more solar PV and thermal to more geothermal and more nukes and they are just getting going on tidal power plus all the different directions for biofuels.
You can call it a bubble, but traditionally bubbles are in reference to demands that are artificially promoted and that get people to over speculate way beyond what the real market can bear and into mass dumbness or "irrational exuberance", such as tulip mania, dotbomb webpages with zero business models to actually make any money, the never ending "house flipping" stupidity bubble combined with the wall street repackaged bad mortgages serious parasitical leech dumbass bubble they just got bailed out on, etc. (and here's my prediction, the wall street derivatives bubble will be hitting hard, not the green energy bubble)
Energy demands on the other hand are *quite real* and are supposed to keep rising through this entire century.
There are only two things that could potentially drop energy demands, mr. fusion breakthrough, and if there was such a calamity or calamities that the bulk of the planets humans kicked off. If neither of those happen, people just want more power, and more people between now and 2100, by a huge multi billion person factor, and that means demands will be steady in general terms and always on a rising slope.
If you mean an overproduction of windchargers (or solar panels, or...)...they'll still get sold at a discount and put up someplace, they just work too well to ignore. Once you start talking about half a megawaatt to two point five megawatts worth of electricity for sale per windcharger, for example, someone will want it. Just not seeing a bubble there or any time in the near or even medium future.
Who knows though, stranger things have happened, but at this time I will have to disagree with your assessment. If you want to expound on your prediction, with the reasoning behind it, I would like to read it.
Pretty much that. It was never really a "booming" industry. It was just that greedy VCs thought that the internet is the next big thing and that somehow you can make a lot of money with it, that everyone is gonna buy everything online if it's just being offered. In the dot-com craze they dumped insane amounts of money on everyone who managed to spell out TCP/IP without any major accidents, no matter how harebrained or outlandish his idea. Actually, the more outlandish, the more money you could attract.
The only big opportunity was a lack of huge global players that you have in the other industries. When you try to create a pharma research startup, you're pitted against LaRoche and Pfizer. Trying to get a food industry off the ground is near impossible with opponents like Nestle and Kraft.
If you look closely, the companies that are today "global players" in the internet market all rose to power during the dot-com days. Amazon, Google, EBay, they all were founded between 94 and 98 and grew huge in the dot-com times. The market gets smaller. If you want to do something "big" today, you have to find space in the ever smaller getting market because more and more "turfs" are held by global players.
So in a way it's true that IT and internet industries have grown out of the gold rush times. The market has been split up and divided. The Web2.0 startups show, though, that there is still room if you can come up with a new idea, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter all came along long after the dot-com bubble burst. Whether they'll ever make what they cost, well, time will tell. But there's still room for "something new".
But the times when VCs throw money at you just 'cause you know that TCP/IP isn't the acronym for the Chinese secret service are over.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While it is nice to program systems that provide faster sorting, more efficient network traffic and better inventory analysis, I have to ask: is this what you really want to do? You could get rich with an algorithm for better commodities price prediction, but many are tearing out their hair trying to do the same thing. And the work can be tedious and ultimately almost certain to fail.
If you really must work in tech, what can you do that will be worthwhile, that will satisfy your soul?
Why not begin the singularity? Why not create the first computer that will see a path to it's own improvement and help you to build it? Generation after generation of ever smarter computers that design their own (improved) offspring...
It could make you rich, it could get you killed, but it will certainly get you into the history books.
Computers & robots working together to eliminate all the thinking and back breaking labor that humans tolerate today. Each generation smarter, stronger, better than the last. Kurzweil's singularity come to life.
On the down side you put every IT worker out of work. On the up side, no human thought or toil is ever needed again. You have made us free to watch TV and drink beer all day long.
...omphaloskepsis often...
"More safe" would imply language features designed to limit the scope of your mistakes. The language features that I see most commonly causing whole-application errors are memory management, typecasting, and resource locking.
So eliminate or mitigate those, and you're safer. Garbage collection with cycle detection eliminates dangling pointers and vastly reduces the chance of memory leaks. Strong static typing with generics removes the most common cause of casting in OO languages. Erlang solves resource locking by making 'variables' write-once -- or you could move away from procedural development and take full advantage of scalability without side effects :-)
Try learning Erlang (functional) or Prolog (logical) for some views of languages that escape many of the pitfalls of imperative/procedural, although of course, those paradigms have their own pitfalls to be aware of :-)