2012 and the Technology Blahs

Velcroman1 writes "Generally, at the end of the year, predictions stream forth as to how this or that new technology will transform the world in the next 12 months. Just before Christmas, IBM announced computerized mind reading was just around the corner — sometime after 2017, that is. But on the whole, experts and analysts don't see a whole lot of innovation coming out of the U.S. anytime soon. Instead, they see sluggishness. 'We'll have to wait for consumer spending to go up before the 'flying surfboard' arrives,' said Chris Stephenson, co-founder of Seattle consulting firm ARRYVE. 'Bigger innovation labs and companies are holding back on numerous innovations until they can properly monetize them.'"

Comments

Consumer spending never goes back up?

[vlm]

What if consumer spending never goes back up, adjusted for inflation?
I know that adjusted for inflation the median has had less income every year for something like 40 years.
Also .edu, medical, car/transportation, energy, food, and housing costs have recently been exploding.
Then add in "new" expenses. Very few people were spending $150/month on smartphone bills more than a couple years ago.
Leaving less money for consumer spending every year.

so... those companies who wait, might be waiting a very long time indeed, like until they go out of business.

The Word Monetize

[cosm]

I am really starting to hate the word 'monetize'. Let every utterance of it be a reminder why government funded scientific research is important. I know this article is referring to more consumer oriented things, but much of our current technological wonder (internet, rocketry, about a million other things) is a long byproduct of government research. Now before I get called a pink-commie-bastard and the like, let me just say I am all for capitalism and its benefits. However, the frequency of this concept of 'monetization' as a stimulus for development seems almost foolhardy. Call me an idealist, but I like the idea of scientific and technological advancement for the principal of advancement, not just for the sake of making more money. Again, idealist viewpoint. I know.

And yes I know that a demand for XYZ creates incentives for business to develop/produce/be competitive. But the trend is going towards areas of research that have a high-risk / low-reward ration being foregone if everything is free-market, and technologies that can't possibly be implemented without 20+ years of research will rarely have private/corporate money sunk into them, even though in the long term they could have a dramatic positive impact on the quality of life for the human population.

Or is it all about the money these days? Any hard-liner Adam Smith's here? Money solves all woes, right? Right?

Re:The Word Monetize

[roman_mir]

Gov't funded anything shouldn't happen.

Gov't funded research is there for war, that's one of 2 purposes:

1. War.
2. Theft.

There is only 1 things that politicians really want to spend on: themselves.

There is only 1 thing wrong with democracy: voters.

--

The rockets, the computers, the Internet, the phones, the electrical power and electrical instruments, everything we do, we do because we are trying to make a better living for ourselves. Tsiolkovsky developed the theory of rocketry, but until the private sector can really find a use for it and figure out a way to do it, it should NOT BE DONE.

There always must be reasons to do things that are one way or another required by the market (or attempted in order to figure out if they are required by the market.)

If a gov't does it, it's a waste of money, and if some use comes out of it, it's done by destroying other parts of economy, diverting resources, causing resource misallocation, destroying the economy.

Every single thing we do, we must do when we have a good reason to do it, but the most important part of it is this: it must be done by voluntary market participation, NOT by gov't force that puts a gun to your head to steal your money and destroy your own investment opportunities and ideas in order to promote the current ideas of gov't.

As to the Internet, and any other tech that comes out of gov't funded research - how much money was spent on things that NEVER gave any useful output and were a complete waste of resources?

In case of the Internet it's obvious that it was going to happen anyway, and the specific protocol (TCP/IP) was not the best or most important part of the solution.

The early phone grids, electrical grids were not gov't technology, neither had to be the Internet.

Re:We're up to our ass in debt

[ColdWetDog]

What happens when consumer spending DOESN'T rebound?

You just adjust government statistics until it damned well does rebound. That's what numbers are for.

Innovate, dammit!

[Culture20]

'Bigger innovation labs and companies are holding back on numerous innovations until they can properly monetize them.'

And citizens are holding on to their money until they see something worth buying. Innovate, dammit!

Re:And here are the predictions for 2012

[smi.james.th]

"Apps" for browsers -> pay per view content

Permit me to respectfully disagree. I use a few of the Chrome apps, mostly like offline GMail and Google Calendar because I have extended periods away from an internet connection when I still need to be able to access these things. Chrome Remote Desktop is quite useful as well. Sure, pay-per-view stuff may arrive, but I doubt it will even become a major thing.