Is hi-tech timeless?
Loyal starts a comment with: "In technology...More is law. More speed, more storage, more graphics, and so on." But will this law—more of an assumption, really—be true tomorrow, and is it true today?
Consider the fate of an industry that for centuries was synonymous with high technology. Before computers, there was clockmaking.
In clocks, more was law: more precision, or at least better price/precision. All the attributes of hi-tech were there:
- the industry was intellectual property-driven: innovations led to success;
- it was prestigious: clocks were presents given to royalty;
- it was strategic, as high-precision clocks were key to ship navigation.
So what happened? Clocks improved slowly but steadily; finally, with the development of the quartz mechanism, they became both "good enough" and "cheap enough." Quartz technology revolutionized the industry: the companies that continued to compete solely on precision went out of business, and in the mainstream market today clocks are judged on style, not performance.
Before insisting that computer industry will never suffer the same fate, answer the question: is the iPod a portable special-purpose data processor or a fashion accessory?
posted by jrp at 1:03 PM
Subscribe.
11 Comments:
In the article I mention here, the quote is as follows: "The iPod is this era’s must-have accessory . . ."
I've also noted a shift toward sleeker-looking computers, and some with interchangeable covers. You're definitely right.
oooh, ooooh, I know this one!!
PORTABLE SPECIAL PURPOSE DATA PROCESSOR
first one to answer! I rock!
Agree, but would you say Apple PC/Laptop is a statement?
Its really a case of when than if. Soon someother technology - robots, cyborgs, nano-mechanical-dna-trasporting whatever will be "high-tech" whereas computer will be "that thing they had in those days for like, browsing and stuff."
Clock makers were concerned with making a wide asortment of fashionable clocks long before quartz technology revolutionized the industry.
Great perspective here - some random thoughts:
1. Will computer graphics ever require higher resolution and quality then the human eye? Could our ears tell the difference between CD quality sound and technologically superior sound? That tells how fast a 'personal computer' needs to be, whether that is my desktop, or my iPod.
2. How many songs can you functionally listen to? How much video can you watch? That is how much storage your 'personal computer' needs. Does it matter if my mp3 player holds 10,000 or 20,000 songs?
3. Geeks will always need more power. I'm a geek workin' for geeks, and when we figure out a way to generate twice as much data a month, we'll do it, and pay the bill. And again next year...
4. Evan has a point regarding c as a natural limit. There are also limits as far as how small you can make a circuit (atoms can't get any smaller!). But chipmakers still have a long way to go as far as efficiency. Chips don't really use three dimensions yet.
5. Eventually, 'personal computers' will be sold exclusively on style. Custom designer computers will be about jewel encrusting, zebra skin, solid hardwood cases. Just like a watch, all functionality will be assumed in all models.
10,000 Year Clock
Yes, hi-tech is timeless, but we are not! With all things in life I love I have hardly time to listen to my music in the comfort of my lounge and to the speakers of my stereo. Old fashioned? Well that goes with Bach. I pod I do not want, nor a dvd player. I watch only news on tv, but I do love my Apple computer, slimline without a tower.
Great blog you have,
Marguerite.
I am reminded of Bill Gates comment that maybe the bandwidth would be like radial tires: An innovation that lowers costs but doesnt increase demand correspondingly.
Gate was wrong, way wrong, in the 1990s. ... so far.
"Once computers have the ability to process at the speed of light, there will be no more competition between computer makers, as all of there hardware will be optimized as much as they can be."
This is a hilariously superficial comment. Actually, power is becoming the limiting factor in computation, to the point where it will be a matter of the 'mips per microwatt', or how much energy is consumed to play an MP3, as the metric of better computing.
Clocks are limited in the function: They tell time. Computers are only limited by our imagination in how we program them.
With enough imagination, there will be NO limit on how much computing we will want.
To me the Ipod is a fashion accessory. It has so many limitations as a music player, in terms of DRM, that I can see no reason to buy it other than to make a status or fashion statement.
I'm late to the comment party here - great site, one nitpick. The Longitude Prize was not offered for a better clock, it was offered for any method that would reliably establish longitude to a given precision. Harrison's clock ultimately won the prize, but only after much hassle and among many non-clock proposals.
Post a Comment
<< Home