we're at an interesting point of time right now from a hotel TV point-of-view ... every now and then you'll still get a room with tube TVs in the US, although flat panels predominate.
in 5 years, i doubt you'll see tubes anywhere in the states.
Showing posts with label future prediction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future prediction. Show all posts
2010-12-12
2010-12-01
the future of tom flanagan
i'm guessing this guy will be forced to resign his job in less than a fortnight:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172916/WikiLeaks-Canadian-official-calls-for-assassination-of-Julian-Assange.html
{12/1 flanagan has now apologized for his remarks (of course). there's currently a witch hunt against the wiki leaks people, so there's some air cover for flanagan being an ass ... i still think it may take him down.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/01/flanagan-wikileaks-assange.html}
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8172916/WikiLeaks-Canadian-official-calls-for-assassination-of-Julian-Assange.html
{12/1 flanagan has now apologized for his remarks (of course). there's currently a witch hunt against the wiki leaks people, so there's some air cover for flanagan being an ass ... i still think it may take him down.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/01/flanagan-wikileaks-assange.html}
2010-10-19
Hunters Exchange Fire Over What's Fair Game
great article about the past, and possible future, of hunting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518104575546253717892686.html?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518104575546253717892686.html?
2010-10-09
travel documents of the future
given that:
a) the federal government is continuing to push on the concept of documentation -- both in the name of anti-terrorism and for the sake of illegal immigration.
and
b) a change of parties at the top of the has changed nothing relative to travel and security ... the entire obama administration the US has been at homeland security threat level orange (the penultimate level -- red is the top, roughly translated as "planes are flying into buildings") ... americans have never been told by their government what needs to happen to lower the threat level.
and
c) efforts to establish national ID cards seem to forever start-then-stall.
and
d) foreigners traveling to the US have to be finger printed and/or eye scanned.
my guess is that in less than 10 years, if you fly -regardless of nationality- you'll be required to have a passport. this is going to shock a country where 85% of the people don't even carry that document.
2010-04-03
Eating the Red Tablet
Above all else, the Silicon Valley focuses on technology. There are only two speeds in this part of the world: fast and faster. There's also extreme, and often warped, focus on the companies that do business here -- especially Google and Apple.
Today's release of Apple's iPad marks a true red-letter event. I haven't seen this many people worked up over a software or hardware release since the original iMac (that was Steve Jobs's first "true" computer on his return to Apple). People, especially the Apple zealots, are insane; I mean frothing at the mouth-and-rolling-their-eyes-and-drink-no-water crazy.
It's too late to give these "people" the proper dose of Rabies Immune Globulin -- not that they would have taken it anyway -- but my prediction is there's a much harsher fate awaiting the faithful: the chilling bite of a failed gizmo.
I have an usual and unique connection to this product. In 1993 I was the Human Interface Evangelist at Apple, replacing (the heavy-over-hyped and self-qualified) Bruce Tognazzini. One of the products under my wing was a thing called the PenMac.
The PenMac was a tablet computer with a stylus -- designed to be a super-portable-tuck-it-under-your-arm device that would run a robust subset of System 7.
As an evangelist, I pulled a move that I've never heard of, before or since -- I started a movement inside the company to kill the product before it was released. Evangelists are supposed to support and hype products, not kill them; but I felt then the way I still do today -- I can only support a product I can believe in. My technological word -especially when I had the backing of Apple and was writing for InfoWorld- carried a lot of weight. It was important to me to not lie to the public.
The reason I helped to kill the PenMac was simply this: I felt there was no market. There was no discernible reason, need or market gap that the device could fill or satisfy.
Things are a little different now, but not a lot.
In the iPad's camp you have some pretty strong positive points that didn't exist in 1993:
And it's right here that we have a problem.
Now, Steve Jobs doesn't come from my don't-hype-what-you-don't-believe-in school-of-thought. He'll gladly, and quickly, promote anything that might further the fortunes of the companies he is most heavily involved with (Disney and Apple) -- all the while holding a fairly heavy disdain of the world population as a whole. Never forget, this is the man who: called color on computer screens "overrated" when he released the original Macintosh, ran a PC for months after re-joining Apple, and when asked at the most recent shareholders' meeting what kept him up at night said, "Shareholders' meetings."
Steve will tell you that Netbooks are worthless and overrated. He'll also tell you that the iPad is better than the Kindle.
What Steve won't tell you is that Apple can't compete in the Netbook market because once you strip away everything else, Apple wouldn't have a price-competitive product. He can't tell you want it's like to own a Kindle -- because he doesn't use one. He also won't tell you exactly how you should carry your iPad if you already have an iPhone and an iPod.
The iPad has a few obvious problems: no multi-tasking, captive applications (meaning you have to pay the Apple price), no Flash support (Jobs will rail on Adobe about Flash, but the truth of the matter is Apple fell asleep at the wheel relative to display -- if they'd been paying attention, Apple would have the standard, not Adobe), no USB, no keyboard.
Apple fanboys, being what they are, will be quick to either dismiss many of these complaints or throw out the ever-constant, "that will happen in the future." (This is so pervasive that my pal Bo3b believes that when you buy Apple you are always buying the future, never the present.)
There are some other problems endemic to tablets:
Mix this all together, spill it out, and I say right here, right now, the iPad will be a loser. In the same way that the way Macintosh actually changed computing was to put mice on all Windows machines, I think the best Apple can do here is get people to pay attention to other/cheaper tablets.
It'll sell remarkably well out-the-gate. Apple always gets more rapid early adoption than other companies (and the press never mentions that.) But when it fails, Apple will do exactly as David Nagel said in the corporate communications meeting all those years ago, "We'll declare victory, stop manufacture and move on to the next thing."
There is one very important thing to note here, though. I know a lot of people in the Silicon Valley, ranging from Chairmen of the Board of billion dollar corporations to QA bottom feeders. Of all these people, the guy I know who has the absolute best understanding of portable computing is Fat Paulie. He knows more about this stuff than you and I combined (and is so deeply embedded in this world that there's a gold Sumsung cell bearing his name). And Paulie claims this iPad is a winner. It will be so huge that it will actually define a whole new category of computing.
In closing I wanted to capture an email Bo3b sent to me about this last night.
***
The media is of course awash with iPad mania today. The curious thing to me is that everyone is assuming this is a raging success before it's even shipped.
5 million in a heartbeat? I see an analyst predict 2 million to 6 million in the first year.
I see the Times wanting $17/month simply for access to their news. I see these apps doubled in price. I see the venture fund that doubled in size in order to push for more iPad apps. I see people writing that this is the savior of books, news, and magazine publishing.
This is all very curious to me, for an unknown product in an unknown niche. People are assuming that anything Apple creates is a winner, no if ands or buts.
I just can't see it. A $500 toy that is good for web browsing does not seem to fit into the success category of either an iPod or an iPhone- where it's clear that everyone could use them.
***
4/5 addendum:
i learned yesterday that you can't print from an ipad. if true, this automatically, and nearly completely, kills the market for senior citizens ... they view computers in an "older" way and really like to print.
***
{side notes:
Today's release of Apple's iPad marks a true red-letter event. I haven't seen this many people worked up over a software or hardware release since the original iMac (that was Steve Jobs's first "true" computer on his return to Apple). People, especially the Apple zealots, are insane; I mean frothing at the mouth-and-rolling-their-eyes-and-drink-no-water crazy.
It's too late to give these "people" the proper dose of Rabies Immune Globulin -- not that they would have taken it anyway -- but my prediction is there's a much harsher fate awaiting the faithful: the chilling bite of a failed gizmo.
I have an usual and unique connection to this product. In 1993 I was the Human Interface Evangelist at Apple, replacing (the heavy-over-hyped and self-qualified) Bruce Tognazzini. One of the products under my wing was a thing called the PenMac.
The PenMac was a tablet computer with a stylus -- designed to be a super-portable-tuck-it-under-your-arm device that would run a robust subset of System 7.
As an evangelist, I pulled a move that I've never heard of, before or since -- I started a movement inside the company to kill the product before it was released. Evangelists are supposed to support and hype products, not kill them; but I felt then the way I still do today -- I can only support a product I can believe in. My technological word -especially when I had the backing of Apple and was writing for InfoWorld- carried a lot of weight. It was important to me to not lie to the public.
The reason I helped to kill the PenMac was simply this: I felt there was no market. There was no discernible reason, need or market gap that the device could fill or satisfy.
Things are a little different now, but not a lot.
In the iPad's camp you have some pretty strong positive points that didn't exist in 1993:
- The Internet as a whole
- ITunes and associated content
- Portable book content (ala Kindle)
- And to a lesser extent the iPod and iTouch (giving a wider population familiarity with Apple products, producing what wags call the "halo effect")
And it's right here that we have a problem.
Now, Steve Jobs doesn't come from my don't-hype-what-you-don't-believe-in school-of-thought. He'll gladly, and quickly, promote anything that might further the fortunes of the companies he is most heavily involved with (Disney and Apple) -- all the while holding a fairly heavy disdain of the world population as a whole. Never forget, this is the man who: called color on computer screens "overrated" when he released the original Macintosh, ran a PC for months after re-joining Apple, and when asked at the most recent shareholders' meeting what kept him up at night said, "Shareholders' meetings."
Steve will tell you that Netbooks are worthless and overrated. He'll also tell you that the iPad is better than the Kindle.
What Steve won't tell you is that Apple can't compete in the Netbook market because once you strip away everything else, Apple wouldn't have a price-competitive product. He can't tell you want it's like to own a Kindle -- because he doesn't use one. He also won't tell you exactly how you should carry your iPad if you already have an iPhone and an iPod.
The iPad has a few obvious problems: no multi-tasking, captive applications (meaning you have to pay the Apple price), no Flash support (Jobs will rail on Adobe about Flash, but the truth of the matter is Apple fell asleep at the wheel relative to display -- if they'd been paying attention, Apple would have the standard, not Adobe), no USB, no keyboard.
Apple fanboys, being what they are, will be quick to either dismiss many of these complaints or throw out the ever-constant, "that will happen in the future." (This is so pervasive that my pal Bo3b believes that when you buy Apple you are always buying the future, never the present.)
There are some other problems endemic to tablets:
- Touch screen is a bad idea. For some reason, people in the 21st century haven't yet figured out that you don't want to be touching the item that you are also supposed to be viewing. You end up not only needing to be sure your screen stays in touch registration, but also looking through the grunge, smears and scratches that develop as you use it.
- Tablets in general, and especially the iPad all but demand that you use them two-handed (some gestures require two-hands on the iPad), but in a mobile environment, often times that's the very last thing you want to do. For this example, don't think "different," think "riding on a bus."
- Typing on a screen is absurd with no feedback. Sure you can get a keyboard, but if you do, you have to carry that and a dongle along. And when you do that you start moving further and further away from "portable."
- Although I haven't handled one yet, I'm fairly certain they'll be easily dropped. (In fact, I would venture that 100 people have already dropped their iPads today).
- With the exception of the Kindle, there aren't any screens on the market that are easily visible in broad daylight. Think "standing on a street corner." The iPad could be, but I'll bet you it's not.
Mix this all together, spill it out, and I say right here, right now, the iPad will be a loser. In the same way that the way Macintosh actually changed computing was to put mice on all Windows machines, I think the best Apple can do here is get people to pay attention to other/cheaper tablets.
It'll sell remarkably well out-the-gate. Apple always gets more rapid early adoption than other companies (and the press never mentions that.) But when it fails, Apple will do exactly as David Nagel said in the corporate communications meeting all those years ago, "We'll declare victory, stop manufacture and move on to the next thing."
There is one very important thing to note here, though. I know a lot of people in the Silicon Valley, ranging from Chairmen of the Board of billion dollar corporations to QA bottom feeders. Of all these people, the guy I know who has the absolute best understanding of portable computing is Fat Paulie. He knows more about this stuff than you and I combined (and is so deeply embedded in this world that there's a gold Sumsung cell bearing his name). And Paulie claims this iPad is a winner. It will be so huge that it will actually define a whole new category of computing.
In closing I wanted to capture an email Bo3b sent to me about this last night.
***
The media is of course awash with iPad mania today. The curious thing to me is that everyone is assuming this is a raging success before it's even shipped.
5 million in a heartbeat? I see an analyst predict 2 million to 6 million in the first year.
I see the Times wanting $17/month simply for access to their news. I see these apps doubled in price. I see the venture fund that doubled in size in order to push for more iPad apps. I see people writing that this is the savior of books, news, and magazine publishing.
This is all very curious to me, for an unknown product in an unknown niche. People are assuming that anything Apple creates is a winner, no if ands or buts.
I just can't see it. A $500 toy that is good for web browsing does not seem to fit into the success category of either an iPod or an iPhone- where it's clear that everyone could use them.
***
4/5 addendum:
i learned yesterday that you can't print from an ipad. if true, this automatically, and nearly completely, kills the market for senior citizens ... they view computers in an "older" way and really like to print.
***
{side notes:
- with the exception of steve jobs, all the people listed here used to run mac OS, but now run windows.
- i own stock in both apple and intel.
- this article was written on a $300 asus netbook in a round table pizza parlor -- i wouldn't have been able to do it on an ipad.}
2010-03-17
the immediate future of tiger woods
as i was driving back from the movies last night (super-great tohoscope print of yojimbo at the stanford, thanks very much) i heard someone on national public radio (NPR), talking about tiger woods.
with certain notable exceptions, i don't watch TV, which, by default, means i also do not watch sports.
but i know about tiger woods.
i became aware of him from my favorite sports writer when tiger played golf at stanford. the fact that he was local is what put him on my radar by nothing more than pure happenstance. it was very clear to me then, as it was to anyone with at least half a mind who paid attention, that tiger was the next anointed child of golf. it was obvious he was good, the big question was "how good?"
as he was finishing his first major event (i don't remember what it was), i was playing poker at the local poker room ... as with any casino worth its weight in reflective chrome, they had sports spewing endlessly and silently in the background, i watched intently between hands. nearly everyone in the cardroom was ignoring his play, but i was rapt. i figured the first big question about just what his career could be might be answered then and there. as i am with most things in life, i was a tiger optimist; but i've been wrong before and i was certainly willing to take a free lesson while playing cards.
woods was tied for the lead and playing a sudden-death shoot-out. the first hole was probably something like a par three (but could have been a two-shot par four) ... the direct line to the pin was over a daunting water hazard. a safer approach was to play for the exposed end of the green and work your best with the shortest club in your bag ... but this almost certainly would mean a two-putt -- no golfer, no matter how great, will routinely sink 120 foot putts.
woods's challenger teed up (i don't remember whom -- some white guy) and in one gritty motion hit his ball into the water hazard.
the door was now open.
the obvious and easy play here is to shoot for the end of the green. two-putt. win. shake a few hands. hold a giant check. talk about how much you love your parents.
but that's not what woods did.
he lined up straight at the hole, in a frame a mind that looked almost absent minded (but would become his trademark of concentration). one smooth shot, straight over the water, a hop and a roll backward and his ball comes to rest less that a foot away.
right there, right then, i knew i'd seen the future of golf. people had doubted and challenged him. "he's a good amateur, that's all." "he's never truly been tried." "being the best kid at your college means nothing."
i actually said, "man," under my breath, catching an queried glance from the dealer.
the cardroom continued to churn in dull, apathetic clicking, but i knew that in less than a year there wouldn't be anyone here who wouldn't know who "tiger woods" was.
okay, back to the present.
tiger's been away from golf for a few months now due to sexual improprieties (for lack of a better term) with women outside his marriage. it's provided a feeding frenzy for the press-at-large, turning the entire industry yellower by the day.
last night, mr. NPR said that tiger's return to the masters was, from a golfing purist's point of view, a non-event. "the question isn't whether he will win, it's whether he'll make the cut."
okay?
no.
i come from a line of people that have trouble picking winners, but we can always spot a loser. i can tell you with absolute certainty, mr. woods may be a lot of things -- most of which i don't care anything about -- but he is no loser.
no one in modern golf has ever endured the pressure that he's continually under all the time anyway. anyone with a modicum of chemistry background can tell you that turning the burners up make make the pot boil faster, but it won't increase the temperature of the boil. he'll play just fine the only real question in my mind is how much he's been able to practice since his reclusion/media explosion.
unlike nearly everyone else who plays cards, neither by trade, nor by hobby, am i a sports bettor. but i'm always willing to make money when the opportunity presents itself. and for this, dear reader, i offer you a chance ... i'll give anyone reading this 'blog 2-to-1 for up to US$1000 that woods makes the cut at this coming masters. if you don't like that you can give me 3-to-1 and i'll bet you he finishes in the top 10 of the event.
remember, you heard it here first.
oh yes, and my free advice to you? don't take your sports tips from NPR.
with certain notable exceptions, i don't watch TV, which, by default, means i also do not watch sports.
but i know about tiger woods.
i became aware of him from my favorite sports writer when tiger played golf at stanford. the fact that he was local is what put him on my radar by nothing more than pure happenstance. it was very clear to me then, as it was to anyone with at least half a mind who paid attention, that tiger was the next anointed child of golf. it was obvious he was good, the big question was "how good?"
as he was finishing his first major event (i don't remember what it was), i was playing poker at the local poker room ... as with any casino worth its weight in reflective chrome, they had sports spewing endlessly and silently in the background, i watched intently between hands. nearly everyone in the cardroom was ignoring his play, but i was rapt. i figured the first big question about just what his career could be might be answered then and there. as i am with most things in life, i was a tiger optimist; but i've been wrong before and i was certainly willing to take a free lesson while playing cards.
woods was tied for the lead and playing a sudden-death shoot-out. the first hole was probably something like a par three (but could have been a two-shot par four) ... the direct line to the pin was over a daunting water hazard. a safer approach was to play for the exposed end of the green and work your best with the shortest club in your bag ... but this almost certainly would mean a two-putt -- no golfer, no matter how great, will routinely sink 120 foot putts.
woods's challenger teed up (i don't remember whom -- some white guy) and in one gritty motion hit his ball into the water hazard.
the door was now open.
the obvious and easy play here is to shoot for the end of the green. two-putt. win. shake a few hands. hold a giant check. talk about how much you love your parents.
but that's not what woods did.
he lined up straight at the hole, in a frame a mind that looked almost absent minded (but would become his trademark of concentration). one smooth shot, straight over the water, a hop and a roll backward and his ball comes to rest less that a foot away.
right there, right then, i knew i'd seen the future of golf. people had doubted and challenged him. "he's a good amateur, that's all." "he's never truly been tried." "being the best kid at your college means nothing."
i actually said, "man," under my breath, catching an queried glance from the dealer.
the cardroom continued to churn in dull, apathetic clicking, but i knew that in less than a year there wouldn't be anyone here who wouldn't know who "tiger woods" was.
okay, back to the present.
tiger's been away from golf for a few months now due to sexual improprieties (for lack of a better term) with women outside his marriage. it's provided a feeding frenzy for the press-at-large, turning the entire industry yellower by the day.
last night, mr. NPR said that tiger's return to the masters was, from a golfing purist's point of view, a non-event. "the question isn't whether he will win, it's whether he'll make the cut."
okay?
no.
i come from a line of people that have trouble picking winners, but we can always spot a loser. i can tell you with absolute certainty, mr. woods may be a lot of things -- most of which i don't care anything about -- but he is no loser.
no one in modern golf has ever endured the pressure that he's continually under all the time anyway. anyone with a modicum of chemistry background can tell you that turning the burners up make make the pot boil faster, but it won't increase the temperature of the boil. he'll play just fine the only real question in my mind is how much he's been able to practice since his reclusion/media explosion.
unlike nearly everyone else who plays cards, neither by trade, nor by hobby, am i a sports bettor. but i'm always willing to make money when the opportunity presents itself. and for this, dear reader, i offer you a chance ... i'll give anyone reading this 'blog 2-to-1 for up to US$1000 that woods makes the cut at this coming masters. if you don't like that you can give me 3-to-1 and i'll bet you he finishes in the top 10 of the event.
remember, you heard it here first.
oh yes, and my free advice to you? don't take your sports tips from NPR.
2010-03-13
lack of future vision by the present
in the most recent wii "everybody votes" poll, the question was:
will electronic books/newspapers ever replace printed books/newspapers?
44% of the people responding said "no" (and ND held the distinction of being the only state that had a majority saying nay).
this is not only wrong, but obviously wrong. however people feel about books, magazines and newspapers today is based mostly on their previous experience with the medium. you don't have to be a futurologist to know which will be cheaper (and ever-more-important, environmentally friendly) to produce.
the question wasn't "when," it was "if."
i wonder how the people of north dakota would have felt about papyrus back in the days of wax tablets.
will electronic books/newspapers ever replace printed books/newspapers?
44% of the people responding said "no" (and ND held the distinction of being the only state that had a majority saying nay).
this is not only wrong, but obviously wrong. however people feel about books, magazines and newspapers today is based mostly on their previous experience with the medium. you don't have to be a futurologist to know which will be cheaper (and ever-more-important, environmentally friendly) to produce.
the question wasn't "when," it was "if."
i wonder how the people of north dakota would have felt about papyrus back in the days of wax tablets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)