Why do people assume that technology will take over?

Jstas

It seems that people who are married to technology do this. They start using something that they think is really slick and start proclaiming that it will replace something or other in a certain amount of time.

This morning on the radio, a DJ was spouting off about how video stores are obsolete because the format has already changed. Blu-Ray is obsolete before it ever hit the store shelves because of downloadable content. I thought that was a rather obtuse statement. This guy seems to go on, on a regular basis, about how he uses all these new gadgets. He's kind of technology dumb and I never thought that just USING a gadget gave you any kind of credentials for an expert opinion on the technology. But what I find amazing is that this same guy will bag on media because of the availability of downloadable content yet raves about his PS3...which uses Blu-Ray technology and doesn't offer much in the way of downloadable content at all. Yet he'll still say the media format is DOA.

Same thing goes with downloadable music. A bunch of people here at this forum swear it's going to change the world. But, services are having to reevaluate entire business models because the profits aren't there and neither is the popularity. It seemed to have an initial surge and has dropped off to about even with the hard copy formats. That seems to tell me that the new tech hasn't taken hold and it's exposing an underlying problem of douchebag RIAA people and just overall poor quality music. The good music is hard to find, mainly because people are not exposed to it because a large portion of it is on independent labels.

Another one is the "eReaders" like the Kindle, the Nook and that other one that's supposed to be coming out. Barnes & Noble released a press statement just before Christmas last year stating that e-Book sales have been much slower than anticipated. The people who push the Kindle are desperate to get buyers. They can't sell the damn things to save their lives. I think part of the reason is the pricing scheme is like DiVX was. You ":buy" a book but you only get it for a couple of weeks or something like that. Then it expires. At least some of them are like that, maybe not all, but more than a few are. Barnes & Noble showed some sales studies and customer surveys that show people are preferring the physical book because...well, it doesn't expire.

You know that iPhone thing? Supposed to change the world, wasn't it? You know what? It didn't. Still hasn't. The iPad? Yeah, not doing it either. In fact, both technologies have been on the market for a decade or more from other companies. The Apple stuff doesn't even do it better. It's just in a pretty package with a fancy marketing campaign. But the Jesus Phone and the Jesus Tablet were supposed to revolutionize stuff. I'm not sure what but it didn't.

Anyway, the point I'm making here is, we see this stuff on a regular basis. Some assbag with an Internet connection, a blog and an English degree writes a post about how the next great technology is sending some arcane and ancient technology the way of the dodo and we'd all better prepare! Some news feed somewhere picks it up and all of a sudden the Internet has an infogasm and people start freaking out about having to upgrade an entire movie collection.

Why do these people have such blinders on? Why do they not see the bigger picture? Like those morons in San Fran who think "nobody uses the phone book anymore! They just go online!" OK genius, how have you determined that? What's that? An Internet survey? Nice. What about all those people without Internet access? They still do exist, you know.

Or like that "Tech Columnist" on Slate.com that seems to get picked up by all the aggregators and reposted on MSNBC and CNN and so on. Farhad Manjoo is his name and I've never seen a "journalist" be so wrong so often yet garner so much respect. He posts garbage like that all the time.

My local township council had recently decided that they should stop sending out a paper, monthly newsletter to residents because "they can just go online and get the info from the township website". Well they sent notice and at the next council meeting, the hall was jam packed beyond capacity and overflowing in to the hallways and parking lots with residents who thought that was the dumbest idea in the world. One guy even posed the question "If you're going to force me to have an Internet connection to read the township news, is the township going to provide me with that connection for free?" Which, makes sense since most public libraries here have instituted a per use fee system to keep Internet connection abuse down. Well, the town council actually asked the question, how many people do not have Internet connections? Literally 70% of the attendees in the room raised their hands and more in the hall as well. There are roughly 65K people in my town and I'd say 45% of them do not have an Internet connection at home.

I find it fascinating that so many people can make such outrageous claims yet still miss the entire picture. It's like looking at the painting "The Last Supper" through a toilet paper roll. You see part of the picture and you can make a good inference on what the deal is but you really don't see any of the important details.

badchad

In general, people like to speculate about new ways of life. It's an attractive topic since anyone over the age of 20 has some hindsight about the way life "used to be".

I find it interesting to see what catches on and what doesn't, because, frankly, there are gadgets that have fundamentally and significantly changed the way we live.

quadzilla

Because they're often right. They also often get ahead of themselves, but in the long run, it tends to go that way. Also, I would not take your anecdotal evidence based on a town of 65k as being evidence of a trend one way or another. Things like this tend to be driven more by large metropolitan areas.

fatchowmein

Jstas wrote: »

Another one is the "eReaders" like the Kindle, the Nook and that other one that's supposed to be coming out. Barnes & Noble released a press statement just before Christmas last year stating that e-Book sales have been much slower than anticipated. The people who push the Kindle are desperate to get buyers. They can't sell the damn things to save their lives. I think part of the reason is the pricing scheme is like DiVX was. You ":buy" a book but you only get it for a couple of weeks or something like that. Then it expires. At least some of them are like that, maybe not all, but more than a few are. Barnes & Noble showed some sales studies and customer surveys that show people are preferring the physical book because...well, it doesn't expire.

I have a Kindle knowing full well that Amazon can yank my ebooks anytime they feel like it and they have done it in the past but faced a large uproar. It did not affect me because I didn't own a Kindle at the time yet I still bought one. So far, no books have been removed from my purchases.

Ebook sales at Amazon have surpassed physical book sales at Amazon (or so they say). I guess the minority of owners truly are buying a lot of ebooks or folks are using Kindle for PC on their laptops/desktops instead of buying a Kindle.

Bottomline, I'm just tired of stacks of books and bookshelves in the house (I'm married to a history teacher who's also a voracious reader and iPad owner) so I do like ebooks even though there's a leased car/timeshare feel to them. Of course, I do like the permanency of a physical book and knowing that events such as the rolling blackouts caused by this winter storm, zombie attack like The Walking Dead, and Katrina scenarios won't affect my ability to read although I'll have bigger things to worry about. But at least I can burn books for warmth like the tax codes in The Day After Tomorrow.

I'm digressing severely. Sorry.

Knucklehead

Jstas wrote: »

Barnes & Noble showed some sales studies and customer surveys that show people are preferring the physical book because...well, it doesn't expire.

Its refreshing to see that some people are actually getting off their butt and going to the library or local book store.

As far as technology goes, the company I work for is certainly driven by the advancements in technology. I remember when i first started working in my current job 20 years ago next month servicing and repairing ATM's, everyone was saying they would replace traditional bank tellers etc etc....well 20 years later its obvious people still enjoy going into a bank simply just to cash a check.

David

Willow

Jstas wrote: »

It seems that people who are married to technology do this. They start using something that they think is really slick and start proclaiming that it will replace something or other in a certain amount of time.

This morning on the radio, a DJ was spouting off about how video stores are obsolete because the format has already changed. Blu-Ray is obsolete before it ever hit the store shelves because of downloadable content. I thought that was a rather obtuse statement. This guy seems to go on, on a regular basis, about how he uses all these new gadgets. He's kind of technology dumb and I never thought that just USING a gadget gave you any kind of credentials for an expert opinion on the technology. But what I find amazing is that this same guy will bag on media because of the availability of downloadable content yet raves about his PS3...which uses Blu-Ray technology and doesn't offer much in the way of downloadable content at all. Yet he'll still say the media format is DOA.

Same thing goes with downloadable music. A bunch of people here at this forum swear it's going to change the world. But, services are having to reevaluate entire business models because the profits aren't there and neither is the popularity. It seemed to have an initial surge and has dropped off to about even with the hard copy formats. That seems to tell me that the new tech hasn't taken hold and it's exposing an underlying problem of douchebag RIAA people and just overall poor quality music. The good music is hard to find, mainly because people are not exposed to it because a large portion of it is on independent labels.

Another one is the "eReaders" like the Kindle, the Nook and that other one that's supposed to be coming out. Barnes & Noble released a press statement just before Christmas last year stating that e-Book sales have been much slower than anticipated. The people who push the Kindle are desperate to get buyers. They can't sell the damn things to save their lives. I think part of the reason is the pricing scheme is like DiVX was. You ":buy" a book but you only get it for a couple of weeks or something like that. Then it expires. At least some of them are like that, maybe not all, but more than a few are. Barnes & Noble showed some sales studies and customer surveys that show people are preferring the physical book because...well, it doesn't expire.

You know that iPhone thing? Supposed to change the world, wasn't it? You know what? It didn't. Still hasn't. The iPad? Yeah, not doing it either. In fact, both technologies have been on the market for a decade or more from other companies. The Apple stuff doesn't even do it better. It's just in a pretty package with a fancy marketing campaign. But the Jesus Phone and the Jesus Tablet were supposed to revolutionize stuff. I'm not sure what but it didn't.

Anyway, the point I'm making here is, we see this stuff on a regular basis. Some assbag with an Internet connection, a blog and an English degree writes a post about how the next great technology is sending some arcane and ancient technology the way of the dodo and we'd all better prepare! Some news feed somewhere picks it up and all of a sudden the Internet has an infogasm and people start freaking out about having to upgrade an entire movie collection.
Why do these people have such blinders on? Why do they not see the bigger picture? Like those morons in San Fran who think "nobody uses the phone book anymore! They just go online!" OK genius, how have you determined that? What's that? An Internet survey? Nice. What about all those people without Internet access? They still do exist, you know.

Or like that "Tech Columnist" on Slate.com that seems to get picked up by all the aggregators and reposted on MSNBC and CNN and so on. Farhad Manjoo is his name and I've never seen a "journalist" be so wrong so often yet garner so much respect. He posts garbage like that all the time.

My local township council had recently decided that they should stop sending out a paper, monthly newsletter to residents because "they can just go online and get the info from the township website". Well they sent notice and at the next council meeting, the hall was jam packed beyond capacity and overflowing in to the hallways and parking lots with residents who thought that was the dumbest idea in the world. One guy even posed the question "If you're going to force me to have an Internet connection to read the township news, is the township going to provide me with that connection for free?" Which, makes sense since most public libraries here have instituted a per use fee system to keep Internet connection abuse down. Well, the town council actually asked the question, how many people do not have Internet connections? Literally 70% of the attendees in the room raised their hands and more in the hall as well. There are roughly 65K people in my town and I'd say 45% of them do not have an Internet connection at home.

I find it fascinating that so many people can make such outrageous claims yet still miss the entire picture. It's like looking at the painting "The Last Supper" through a toilet paper roll. You see part of the picture and you can make a good inference on what the deal is but you really don't see any of the important details.

We know he's not from Canada cause we don't have intersomething or whatever.......

stubby

Of course technology will take over; hasn't any one seen The Terminator?

stubby

bobman1235

quadzilla wrote: »

Because they're often right. They also often get ahead of themselves, but in the long run, it tends to go that way. Also, I would not take your anecdotal evidence based on a town of 65k as being evidence of a trend one way or another. Things like this tend to be driven more by large metropolitan areas.

Exactly. Things do change, and people like to be the first to say "oooo! this is going to be the thing that kills *whatever*". Everything technological comes to an end eventually. We're in an "instant" type of society so rather than waiting and seeing what ACTUALLY happens people like to just jump on EVERYTHING and say THIS IS IT!!

Psychology and all that.

BlueFox

Just because something does not happen immediately does not mean it will not happen. Technology is insidious. One day you wake up and realize a technology is all prevasive. Don't confuse holdouts who try to extend the life of an old technology as an example, or proof, a new technology has failed, or will not suceed.

For example, we still see people using vinyl. Fine, but it is a niche market. Like it or not, vinyl is dead. CDs are next. Of course you can still buy CDs, but it is dying. You can live in the land of denial, but that will not change anything.

Bryston, and others, realize this, and are preparing for the future. This is on my list of next purchases.

http://bryston.com/pdfs/09/Bryston_BDP1_LITERATURE.pdf

exalted512

I personally think the iPhone has revolutionized quite a bit of stuff.

I have no idea about the actual ratio of smart phone to 'regular' phone, but I'd imagine amongst cell phone owners under 30, it'd be even.

Having a smart phone for me changes the way I do a lot of common things...and even my TV has apps...which I attribute to the iPhone.

I'm not saying everything does. Do I think Blu Ray revolutionized anything? No. But I'd say the CD did.

But I do know of people who you talk about..."oh em gee, I have an iPad, its going to revolutionize computers". No dip s@#t its a glorified iPod touch...which came about because of the iPhone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are a few things that revolutionized stuff, but every re-iteration of something else (blu ray from cd, iPad from iPhone, CTS-V from model T) doesnt revolutionize anything.
-Cody

P.S. Great, my power is out for these 'brown outs' texas is having. Luckily I have a huge battery back up

exalted512

And the kindle is another thing that didnt revolutionize, nor will ever revolutionize anything...its going to be outdated soon with the popularity of tablets...that can do stuff other than be a book...which coincidentally, I also attribute to the iPhone...
-Cody

Jstas

quadzilla wrote: »

Because they're often right. They also often get ahead of themselves, but in the long run, it tends to go that way. Also, I would not take your anecdotal evidence based on a town of 65k as being evidence of a trend one way or another. Things like this tend to be driven more by large metropolitan areas.

It was an example, dude. Not a defacto standard. It still stands as an example of the absurdity of people who think they are right and can predict future cultural changes like that.

cnh

Jstas wrote: »

It seems that people who are married to technology do this. They start using something that they think is really slick and start proclaiming that it will replace something or other in a certain amount of time.

This morning on the radio, a DJ was spouting off about how video stores are obsolete because the format has already changed. Blu-Ray is obsolete before it ever hit the store shelves because of downloadable content. I thought that was a rather obtuse statement. This guy seems to go on, on a regular basis, about how he uses all these new gadgets. He's kind of technology dumb and I never thought that just USING a gadget gave you any kind of credentials for an expert opinion on the technology. But what I find amazing is that this same guy will bag on media because of the availability of downloadable content yet raves about his PS3...which uses Blu-Ray technology and doesn't offer much in the way of downloadable content at all. Yet he'll still say the media format is DOA.

Same thing goes with downloadable music. A bunch of people here at this forum swear it's going to change the world. But, services are having to reevaluate entire business models because the profits aren't there and neither is the popularity. It seemed to have an initial surge and has dropped off to about even with the hard copy formats. That seems to tell me that the new tech hasn't taken hold and it's exposing an underlying problem of douchebag RIAA people and just overall poor quality music. The good music is hard to find, mainly because people are not exposed to it because a large portion of it is on independent labels.

Another one is the "eReaders" like the Kindle, the Nook and that other one that's supposed to be coming out. Barnes & Noble released a press statement just before Christmas last year stating that e-Book sales have been much slower than anticipated. The people who push the Kindle are desperate to get buyers. They can't sell the damn things to save their lives. I think part of the reason is the pricing scheme is like DiVX was. You ":buy" a book but you only get it for a couple of weeks or something like that. Then it expires. At least some of them are like that, maybe not all, but more than a few are. Barnes & Noble showed some sales studies and customer surveys that show people are preferring the physical book because...well, it doesn't expire.

You know that iPhone thing? Supposed to change the world, wasn't it? You know what? It didn't. Still hasn't. The iPad? Yeah, not doing it either. In fact, both technologies have been on the market for a decade or more from other companies. The Apple stuff doesn't even do it better. It's just in a pretty package with a fancy marketing campaign. But the Jesus Phone and the Jesus Tablet were supposed to revolutionize stuff. I'm not sure what but it didn't.

Anyway, the point I'm making here is, we see this stuff on a regular basis. Some assbag with an Internet connection, a blog and an English degree writes a post about how the next great technology is sending some arcane and ancient technology the way of the dodo and we'd all better prepare! Some news feed somewhere picks it up and all of a sudden the Internet has an infogasm and people start freaking out about having to upgrade an entire movie collection.

Why do these people have such blinders on? Why do they not see the bigger picture? Like those morons in San Fran who think "nobody uses the phone book anymore! They just go online!" OK genius, how have you determined that? What's that? An Internet survey? Nice. What about all those people without Internet access? They still do exist, you know.

Or like that "Tech Columnist" on Slate.com that seems to get picked up by all the aggregators and reposted on MSNBC and CNN and so on. Farhad Manjoo is his name and I've never seen a "journalist" be so wrong so often yet garner so much respect. He posts garbage like that all the time.

My local township council had recently decided that they should stop sending out a paper, monthly newsletter to residents because "they can just go online and get the info from the township website". Well they sent notice and at the next council meeting, the hall was jam packed beyond capacity and overflowing in to the hallways and parking lots with residents who thought that was the dumbest idea in the world. One guy even posed the question "If you're going to force me to have an Internet connection to read the township news, is the township going to provide me with that connection for free?" Which, makes sense since most public libraries here have instituted a per use fee system to keep Internet connection abuse down. Well, the town council actually asked the question, how many people do not have Internet connections? Literally 70% of the attendees in the room raised their hands and more in the hall as well. There are roughly 65K people in my town and I'd say 45% of them do not have an Internet connection at home.

I find it fascinating that so many people can make such outrageous claims yet still miss the entire picture. It's like looking at the painting "The Last Supper" through a toilet paper roll. You see part of the picture and you can make a good inference on what the deal is but you really don't see any of the important details.

Having a 'bad' day are we John? I don't disagree with what you have above...but the world does 'change'. Example, my father, who was an Inventory Clerk for Ingersoll Rand till he retired had over 2000 pump parts in memory. By the time he retired COMPUTERS were taking over his job and he was lucky to leave when he did because he was the worst with any Tech device--never would've adapted to a PC based inventory.

So yes, change doesn't sweep everything away at once...but it slowly eats away till one day you wake up and you realize that, for example, there aren't many rotary phones left, etc.

Enjoy the SNOW!


cnh

bobman1235

exalted512 wrote: »

I personally think the iPhone has revolutionized quite a bit of stuff.

I have no idea about the actual ratio of smart phone to 'regular' phone, but I'd imagine amongst cell phone owners under 30, it'd be even.

I've never seen stats based on age, unfortunately, but for general users, it's not even CLOSE to 50%. More like less than 20%. Blue is "dumbphones"



http://gizmodo.com/5740216/almost-everybodys-still-using-dumbphones

Jstas

Willow wrote: »

We know he's not from Canada cause we don't have intersomething or whatever.......

Well, I think the Canadian ruling is a colossal blunder. It totally neglects what the purpose of the Internet was when Al Gore invented it. Charging by usage rather than subscription is insane. You don't get charged for how many hours of TV you watch on your cable subscription, do you? You get to sit on your butt all day and watch all the TV you want. If you are unemployed and are watching 20 hours of TV a day where as I'm only watching 20 minutes, then why am I charged the same rate?

Because the rate structure allows for it. That whole ruling smacks of special interests. It's totally bogus and if I were an ISP, I'd launch a satellite in to space and start selling unlimited connections to Canuckleheads from my American ISP where I'm not affected by silly Canadia laws. The Canuckleheads get to watch all the **** they want and I get to profit all I want while the broadband companies in Canadia languish away to obscurity and ultimate failure because of the silly, draconian laws they lobbied in to place.

fatchowmein

Sometimes, if you fail to listen to the prognosticators, you become obsolete. Just ask Blockbuster.

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

Just because something does not happen immediately does not mean it will not happen. Technology is insidious. One day you wake up and realize a technology is all prevasive. Don't confuse holdouts who try to extend the life of an old technology as an example, or proof, a new technology has failed, or will not suceed.

For example, we still see people using vinyl. Fine, but it is a niche market. Like it or not, vinyl is dead. CDs are next. Of course you can still buy CDs, but it is dying. You can live in the land of denial, but that will not change anything.

Bryston, and others, realize this, and are preparing for the future. This is on my list of next purchases.

http://bryston.com/pdfs/09/Bryston_BDP1_LITERATURE.pdf

Why are you lecturing me? And where are these "holdouts" you are referring to? I gave several examples of where new technology has been purported to be the replacement for whatever and yet, years after it's release, it has failed to bring to fruition the heady claims the proponents of that tech preached.

The only time a failed/lesser technology takes over is when the choice for the alternate is taken out of the market. VHS vs. BETAMAX. BETAMAX was far superior and probably should have been the standard but VHS was over-produced and stifled the BETAMAX market. The technology pundits sung the praises of BETAMAX like they do now with downloadable media. Yet VHS soldiered on for almost 2 decades after BETAMAX was deemed irrelevant and pulled from shelves. VHS even survived Laserdisc which was a precursor to DVDs and CDs.

The reason things like CDs and DVDs still get produced is because there is still a market for it. Vinyl, whether you like it or not, is not dead. If it was there wouldn't be NEW stuff being released on the format. You'd be stuck with what was already out there. Is it as large of a market as CDs are? No, obviously not. But you know what? In 2010, it showed GROWTH. Dead formats don't do that. You know what a LARGE factor the drove that growth was? Vinyl doesn't have draconian DRM measure because it's an analog format. The digital, downloadable media craze is what is driving the growth of vinyl and resuscitating it.

The stuff I mentioned about music is about the market as a whole being down. The only reason iTunes is so successful is because Apply essentially forces you to use it if you own an iJunk product from them. CD sales are still strong and they are about on par with download sales. Many retailers are showing sales numbers that corroborate that and they are saying that downloadable formats are not significantly far enough beyond hard media sales to declare them a winner.

But for some reason people like you are making claims and signing certificates of death on multiple physical media formats when the numbers clearly show you're wrong. Will it replace it one day? Yeah, probably. But it hasn't yet and there isn't enough capacity, let alone growth in that market to warrant abandoning other formats completely. Only people who are looking through that toilet paper roll see it another way.

On3s&Z3r0s

I'm not sure about "take over," but technology definitely is and will continue to change the way we live. My parents are retired and live on the outskirts of a rural town of 15,000 people, and they've got a DSL connection (no cable out there and satellite is flaky), WiFi, laptops, smartphone, etc. and they're not people I would call early adopters. (They insist the VHS tapes look fine on their 50" HDTV and that the don't need a Blu-Ray player.)

My point is, all this stuff is going to creep into your life one way or the other. And the technology definitely transforms the market. Maybe peer-to-peer file sharing isn't solely responsible for the dip in music sales, but that together with Amazon and iTunes were definitely the dagger through the heart of Tower Records. And now Netflix would rather stream movies to you than mail them, and for the most part, it works just as good.

Economics and improvements in end-user convenience drive a big part of the adoption and the network effect drives the rest. Of all the people I know who use facebook, most do it from their smartphone. Just knowing people who use these things drags you into buying and using them yourself. (My Dad only has a smartphone because he's on the volunteer fire department and the dept decided everyone needed to have phones that had certain minimum capabilities.) Modern society, mang. Sometimes you just gots to go with the flow.

Jstas

exalted512 wrote: »

I personally think the iPhone has revolutionized quite a bit of stuff.

I have no idea about the actual ratio of smart phone to 'regular' phone, but I'd imagine amongst cell phone owners under 30, it'd be even.

Having a smart phone for me changes the way I do a lot of common things...and even my TV has apps...which I attribute to the iPhone.

I'm not saying everything does. Do I think Blu Ray revolutionized anything? No. But I'd say the CD did.

But I do know of people who you talk about..."oh em gee, I have an iPad, its going to revolutionize computers". No dip s@#t, its a glorified iPod touch...which came about because of the iPhone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are a few things that revolutionized stuff, but every re-iteration of something else (blu ray from cd, iPad from iPhone, CTS-V from model T) doesnt revolutionize anything.
-Cody

P.S. Great, my power is out for these 'brown outs' texas is having. Luckily I have a huge battery back up

The iPhone was at least 5 years behind the Blackberry which was at least 5 years behind the Palm Pilot which was the start of the PDA/Smart phone craze. The iPhone isn't anything new. It just took an established technology, polished it up and sold it to consumers who previously had no desire to own a more complicated Blackberry.

Same thing with iPads. Compaq, Dell and HP all put out tablets back in the late 90's. The iPad only took what's been around in a more commercial/business format and made it easier to use for a consumer. It's not revolutionary except for the fact that the interface is slick and more intuitive. Compared to it's PC based competition, it really is quite limited in what it can do. But, the PC based competition is much more expensive and more difficult to use with a steeper learning curve. Again, not really revolutionary in the way that so many made it out to be. It's a great product for a consumer but it's use and appeal beyond that level is also limited.


Blackberrys currently still hold the lion's share of smartphone purchases but the Droid phones made way more of an impact on the Blackberry market than the iPhone did. The Blackberry is still the preferred tool for corporations to use because it integrates seamlessly with almost all email systems and can network in to other network resources as well. It is also more secure than the iPhone or Droid stuff. Until they catch up to where RIM is and to a lesser extent, Windows Mobile for business integration and security, they won't move very far out of the consumer market. That will hurt the market share that they both have because they will never be able to unseat RIM and Microsoft because they will always have that market cornered until Apple and Google step up the game.

And I agree with you. There are things that have revolutionized stuff. There is no doubt about it. What I'm talking about is how 90% of the stuff that is purported to be "revolutionary" really isn't but people still latch on to it and gush over it anyway. It's silliness.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

I've never seen stats based on age, unfortunately, but for general users, it's not even CLOSE to 50%. More like less than 20%. Blue is "dumbphones"


http://gizmodo.com/5740216/almost-everybodys-still-using-dumbphones

Well, I'd imagine a HUGE portion of that is the baby boomer generation, which is why I mentioned age...but I'd want to see quite a bit more information before I'd consider that article to be anywhere near accurate...

like why Blackberry isnt mentioned, when, in 2009, it outsold the iPhone, 34.1 to 25.1 million units sold.
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/19/blackberry-vs-iphone/

As well as whats considered to be a 'smart phone'.

When I go to AT&T, I see 'Smartphones', 'quick messaging', and 'easy to use' phones...but even the $50 'easy to use' phone comes with GPS, which I consider to be a 'smart phone'. I consider a regular 'dumb phone' if you will, a phone thatll make calls, take pictures, and play snake. If you can check email, GPS, or have a calendar function (not just a calendar, but one where you can set appointments and such) a smart phone.

Good link though, just wish it was more detailed.

Jstas

fatchowmein wrote: »

Sometimes, if you fail to listen to the prognosticators, you become obsolete. Just ask Blockbuster.

No doubt and that's a perfect example of what happens when you fail to recognize technology and refuse to change until it's too late.

On3s&Z3r0s

Jstas wrote: »

The iPhone was at least 5 years behind the Blackberry which was at least 5 years behind the Palm Pilot which was the start of the PDA/Smart phone craze. The iPhone isn't anything new. It just took an established technology, polished it up and sold it to consumers who previously had no desire to own a more complicated Blackberry.

Erm... which one of those packaged a working touch screen with a camera and GPS and accelerometer? I'm no Apple fanboy, but they opened up a brand new market for a small computer (with a whole lot of capabilities the one on your desk doesn't have) that on a good day can pretend it's a phone.

@Fongolio, that Onion piece is f'ing hilarious!!!! It totally reminds me of my TiVo.

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

Having a 'bad' day are we John? I don't disagree with what you have above...but the world does 'change'. Example, my father, who was an Inventory Clerk for Ingersoll Rand till he retired had over 2000 pump parts in memory. By the time he retired COMPUTERS were taking over his job and he was lucky to leave when he did because he was the worst with any Tech device--never would've adapted to a PC based inventory.

So yes, change doesn't sweep everything away at once...but it slowly eats away till one day you wake up and you realize that, for example, there aren't many rotary phones left, etc.

Enjoy the SNOW!


cnh

Why is the desire to have intelligent conversation on a relevant topic deemed as "having a bad day"? Do the personal attacks and lecturing really have to be inserted? If you have a differing opinion, great! Let's hear it! But leave the petty snark and BS out of it because it REALLY makes it difficult for me, and probably others, to take any valid point one might have seriously. You wouldn't allow the cockiness from your students, why is it ok for you to unload it on us?

cnh

Jstas wrote: »

Why is the desire to have intelligent conversation on a relevant topic deemed as "having a bad day"? Do the personal attacks and lecturing really have to be inserted? If you have a differing opinion, great! Let's hear it! But leave the petty snark and BS out of it because it REALLY makes it difficult for me, and probably others, to take any valid point one might have seriously. You wouldn't allow the cockiness from your students, why is it ok for you to unload it on us?

I got you John, sorry if I misread you. And you're right I wouldn't do that to my students. Carry on!

cnh

Jstas

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

Erm... which one of those packaged a working touch screen with a camera and GPS and accelerometer? I'm no Apple fanboy, but they opened up a brand new market for a small computer (with a whole lot of capabilities the one on your desk doesn't have) than on a good day can pretend it's a phone.

@Fongolio, that Onion piece is f'ing hilarious!!!! It totally reminds me of my TiVo.

10-15 years ago? None of them. Then again, barely any cellphones had cameras then either.

Now? They all have the option. I held a Compaq tablet PC in my hands with a CD drive in it as well as USB ports, a Firewire jack, wireless network card, touch screen and a PCMCIA port...in 2002. 5 years before the iPhone even hit market and 8 years before the iPad. Granted, at the time, it was a prototype we had for evaluation but it was fully functional. However, the touch screen didn't have a tracking capability like they do now so you couldn't drag icons around without the little stylus it came with.

I had tablets with much less functionality and far more chunkiness in 1998. They were essentially very thin notebook PC's with limited functionality but they were part of an inventory system we were using to track computing equipment.

maximillian

Wife is an avid reader. I bought her a nook color for Christmas. She loves it. The books downloaded from Barnes and Nobles do not expire, at least the ones she has bought so far. The only expiring books she got were the borrowed ebooks from the library. I thought it was really cool to be able to borrow books from the local library without leaving your home. The book was automatically returned in 2 weeks. Of course, the cost is free.

You can also obtain many fee, public domain books. I have an electronic magazine subscription and it comes as a non-DRM'ed PDF. Of course it is not a popular magazine so the publishers don't care about DRM.

Transitioning to a digital lifestyle is great for some and not-so-great for others. It really depends on how well it enhances your lifestyle. Cost also matters. Blockbuster store closed simply due to costs and lack of transitioning to a new business model. Redbox and Netflix were easy enough to use for the average person and cost far less than the equivalent to Blockbusters store based rentals.

Another example... my dad doesn't have a computer because he could never figure it out. That's just the way he is so many of the new technology items will never be for him. However, he loves the GPS I got him and would never use a map now.

On3s&Z3r0s

Jstas wrote: »

10-15 years ago? None of them. Then again, barely any cellphones had cameras then either.

Now? They all have the option. I held a Compaq tablet PC in my hands with a CD drive in it as well as USB ports, a Firewire jack, wireless network card, touch screen and a PCMCIA port...in 2002. 5 years before the iPhone even hit market and 8 years before the iPad. Granted, at the time, it was a prototype we had for evaluation but it was fully functional. However, the touch screen didn't have a tracking capability like they do now so you couldn't drag icons around without the little stylus it came with.

I had tablets with much less functionality and far more chunkiness in 1998. They were essentially very thin notebook PC's with limited functionality but they were part of an inventory system we were using to track computing equipment.

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying. I used to write code for barcode scanners that were essentially glorified PDA's with a laser barcode reader, and I knew lots of folks who had those old Windows tablets that were basically little notebooks with screens you could flip around.

But I take is as a sign that technology is just going to keep taking over that now my Android phone does everything those gizmos could do and sooooo much more. Hell, my favorite app is SoundHound. When I hear a song I like I tell my phone to listen to it and tell me what it is and where to buy it. And it's always right!!! That freaks me out.

Anyway, most technological advancements are more evolutionary than say a microwave oven. And yeah, the media around tech hypes old technologies that have been slightly improved and new ones that aren't ready yet cause that's how they make their money. But all I'm saying is I think the overall path we're all on is pretty obvious.

exalted512

Jstas wrote: »

The iPhone was at least 5 years behind the Blackberry which was at least 5 years behind the Palm Pilot which was the start of the PDA/Smart phone craze. The iPhone isn't anything new. It just took an established technology, polished it up and sold it to consumers who previously had no desire to own a more complicated Blackberry.

Same thing with iPads. Compaq, Dell and HP all put out tablets back in the late 90's. The iPad only took what's been around in a more commercial/business format and made it easier to use for a consumer. It's not revolutionary except for the fact that the interface is slick and more intuitive. Compared to it's PC based competition, it really is quite limited in what it can do. But, the PC based competition is much more expensive and more difficult to use with a steeper learning curve. Again, not really revolutionary in the way that so many made it out to be. It's a great product for a consumer but it's use and appeal beyond that level is also limited.
And I agree with you. There are things that have revolutionized stuff. There is no doubt about it. What I'm talking about is how 90% of the stuff that is purported to be "revolutionary" really isn't but people still latch on to it and gush over it anyway. It's silliness.

Agree and disagree. And it probably stems from the perception of the word 'revolutionize.' Sure, BlackBerrys were around long before the iPhone, but on the other hand, who owned BlackBerrys? Not very many people, and this was before I ever really paid attention to anything, so my assumptions could be way off, but I'd say of the people that did own BlackBerrys, very few were used for personal use other than the actual phone itself. That isn't a clear meaning as it is in my head...lol.

I guess what I'm trying to say, aside from the 'phone' aspect, anything 'smart' about the BlackBerry was used primarily for business. Sure, you'd have your kids birthdays and dentist appointment on there, but the number of people that would buy it intended more for personal than business use, would be rather small...again, thats my assumption.

Why I think the iPhone revolutionized things, is because it brought it about to the average consumer. And I really have no idea why, and maybe you can explain this to me, but why in hell do Android and iPhone not have the security/email systems in place to do what the BlackBerry does? It drives me insane that as 'smart' as they are, I couldn't get my corporate email on my Android phone, even though the technology has been around for a decade. I can't even begin to say how much I hate that. And it really perplexes me because a lot of the people that I know with BlackBerrys, have a BlackBerry because they cant integrate an Android or iPhone with their company email, or they'd switch. I'm not saying everyone, or even a majority would switch, but if you want to see Android and iPhone out-sale RIM, it would be as simple as that (which, apparently, is rather complicated since they haven't done it yet)

I guess, from my view, what I'm trying to get at is...even though you might invent the wheel, it aint much use without something else to it (and how to market it too). The iPhone might not have been the first to combine a PDA and a phone (amongst other things, like touch screen), but it was the first to do it where consumers (other than business people whom only wanted/needed it for business use) actually wanted it.

But I guess in the end, its just semantics.

I find the other end of the argument quite interesting as well. Meaning, people who think technology isnt revolutionizing things. IBM, for example, who said there would never be a market for personal computers
-Cody

Edit: I guess I would agree on the notion of most 'revolutionary' products were '2-part revolutionary'. The first part is the invention of it, the second part is the coming together of ideas, technology, and bringing it to the consumer on a wide scale.

cheddar

exalted512 wrote: »

I personally think the iPhone has revolutionized quite a bit of stuff...But I do know of people who you talk about..."oh em gee, I have an iPad, its going to revolutionize computers". No dip s@#t, its a glorified iPod touch...which came about because of the iPhone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are a few things that revolutionized stuff, but every re-iteration of something else (blu ray from cd, iPad from iPhone, CTS-V from model T) doesnt revolutionize anything.

Actually, the way I heard it from someone who actually makes a living in developing this type of technology, is that Apple was developing the iPad for some time. It's actually iPad tech that made it into the iPhone and not the other way around.

You have to be careful about making claims about specific gadgets and companies as technology development is often more synergistic and opportunistic than planned...

cheddar

cnh wrote: »

Having a 'bad' day are we John? I don't disagree with what you have above...but the world does 'change'. Example, my father, who was an Inventory Clerk for Ingersoll Rand till he retired had over 2000 pump parts in memory. By the time he retired COMPUTERS were taking over his job and he was lucky to leave when he did because he was the worst with any Tech device--never would've adapted to a PC based inventory.

So yes, change doesn't sweep everything away at once...but it slowly eats away till one day you wake up and you realize that, for example, there aren't many rotary phones left, etc.

Enjoy the SNOW!


cnh

I was watching an old episode of Space 1999 the other day. And got a kick they were still typing on a typewriter. We do lose some things along the way...

exalted512

cheddar wrote: »

Actually, the way I heard it from someone who actually makes a living in developing this type of technology, is that Apple was developing the iPad for some time. It's actually iPad tech that made it into the iPhone and not the other way around.

You have to be careful about making claims about specific gadgets and companies as technology development is often more synergistic and opportunistic than planned...

That's what I disagree about I guess.

I don't care who, what, where, when, or how it came about...go back to 2006 and ask people what an iPad is and what an iPhone is.

I'm assuming a large part of why the iPad wasnt brought about to now was technology-cost related.

3-D came about in theaters primarily in the 50s, it wasnt reasonably available to be in my house until the last couple years (NO IM NOT SAYING 3-D REVOLUTIONIZED ANYTHING). Just trying to say, regardless of when it was invented, it doesnt really revolutionize anything until its widespread
-Cody