According to the article the bubble popped because 'broadband tech did not roll out quickly enough' -- the internet companies were so hyped up about the future that they forgot it takes time to deploy technology. In their business plans, the internet was supposed to be ubiquitous by now, embedded in your toaster, etc. Instead we are still pulling pages with web-browsers (how `nineties!).
Those companies that made that bet are now dead... those that continued to develop technology focused on the more immediate future, that is on -useable- TCP/IP and HTML-based applications, have survived.
In all the hype, we forgot that these things take time... all those business models might be valid... someday, maybe in 10 years.
The fault is really with the investors, I think. If they had put -less- money in to start the new economy it would be different - instead of burning up 10 years worth of operating capital in 2 years, we would be able to extend the research/development time to meet the growth of technology to support our projects... instead of building an empire of websites which fall short of requirements, we would be rolling out well-researched IT products 7 years from now.
Its good that (some) people are starting to think about this now, because there isn't much time left.
Its far more likely that nanotech will go the way of biotech... that is -- make the stuff first and spread it all over the world and _then_ worry about the moral, socio/political, implications of what we just did. Of course the motivation is primarily profit-- possibly taken at the expense of the lives of many and for little overall benefit- and that motivation is what I think needs to change.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article the bubble popped because 'broadband tech did not roll out quickly enough' -- the internet companies were so hyped up about the future that they forgot it takes time to deploy technology. In their business plans, the internet was supposed to be ubiquitous by now, embedded in your toaster, etc. Instead we are still pulling pages with web-browsers (how `nineties!).
Those companies that made that bet are now dead... those that continued to develop technology focused on the more immediate future, that is on -useable- TCP/IP and HTML-based applications, have survived.
In all the hype, we forgot that these things take time... all those business models might be valid... someday, maybe in 10 years.
The fault is really with the investors, I think. If they had put -less- money in to start the new economy it would be different - instead of burning up 10 years worth of operating capital in 2 years, we would be able to extend the research/development time to meet the growth of technology to support our projects... instead of building an empire of websites which fall short of requirements, we would be rolling out well-researched IT products 7 years from now.
Its good that (some) people are starting to think about this now, because there isn't much time left.
Its far more likely that nanotech will go the way of biotech... that is -- make the stuff first and spread it all over the world and _then_ worry about the moral, socio/political, implications of what we just did. Of course the motivation is primarily profit-- possibly taken at the expense of the lives of many and for little overall benefit- and that motivation is what I think needs to change.