Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Apart from making the whole web more interconnected between different websites, web browsers starting to look and behave more like iPad, complete with push notifications and geolocation, and HTML5 ads replacing majority of flash based ads, the article also predicts that browser makers will start to introduce App Stores within their browsers. In fact, Chrome already has one.Facebook will also get a lot more seamlessly integrated with your desktop, including file system access, photo syncing and widgets on your screen. There will also be an increasing amount of HTML5 based social games and online cloud based apps that replace every functionality you needed desktop apps for. All of these changes and features will start to blur the line between desktop and browser and will also bring your social graph more closely into contact with your traditional desktop experience.
Invent a flying surfboard.
What if consumer spending never goes back up, adjusted for inflation? .edu, medical, car/transportation, energy, food, and housing costs have recently been exploding.
I know that adjusted for inflation the median has had less income every year for something like 40 years.
Also
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Never mind the mind reading. When the mind writing starts being used more (at the moment I can't remember when that will be) by forces up to no good, those aspiring for truth and justice will often find themselves in interesting and infuriating trouble.
(Or did I dream it?)
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?
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
People that try to innovate get sued, or stopped by widely broad patents/copyrights, promising new technologies never see the light (remember sixthsense?) because "something" gets in the middle.
A few recent examples just in the Android field were that android device makers have to pay Microsoft because using/suporting the fat filesystem, Oracle suing Google for using Java, Samsung get their tablets out of the market because their dimensions looks a bit like the ipad ones. Not saying that it was the example of innovation and new ideas in computing, but the kind of unbreakable barriers our current civilization built to stop any try to build a future.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The risk of being sued for patent infringement is sufficiently high to prevent me from bothering. I wonder how unique I am in this regard.
'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!
Who wants to develop cool stuff when the world is about to end?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
What happens when consumer spending DOESN'T rebound?
Consumer spending will go up when consumer earning goes up.
If one company offshores its work, that's smart. If they all do it, there's no one left with enough money to buy their products.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
the premise of the article is pure bullshit. if someone had a flying surfboard they most certainly wouldn't sit on it so that they could monetize it - they would be monetizing it already. if you look at money poured at research, I'll bet you'll find it's more than ever before. it's just harder to come up with something people need which makes sense, is practical and what people would actually want and would help people(and not just essentially be a toy, like a new way of toggling a switch).
personally, I'd like electricity be 1/100th of the price it is now compared to for example wheat. so that I could run greenhouses in finland in the winter for next to no cost, have a beach volleyball field kept warm with IR and so forth. and there's no "technology" that just takes 20 years of research and that's it then. fusion power is one example how it just doesn't work that way.
however there's probably quite a few assholes who SAY they have a flying surfboard if they could only get 20 millions to perfect the flux capacitor..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Telling someone they're wrong and calling them stupid doesn't add much value to the discussion.
I'm not surprised that someone would have this view of Adam Smith, and it made me think of this article
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm
That's a very informative link, there, thanks.