No More Next Big Thing? 564
CthuluOverlord writes "CNET News.com is reporting that Nicholas Donofrio, Big Blue's executive vice president of innovation and technology, made a declaration on Tuesday in an interview with ZDNet Asia. 'The fact is that innovation was a little different in the 20th century. It's not easy (now) to come up with greater and different things. If you're looking for the next big thing, stop looking. There's no such thing as the next big thing.'" Donofrio goes on to explain that he sees innovation as being services or social changes nowadays, rather than simply a better moustrap. What's the verdict? Is tech innovation dead?
Yes Next Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period
when human improvement must end.
Henry Elsworth
US Patent Office, 1844
Exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Interesting)
wetware implants ala Jonny mnemonic and/or borg type enhancements. Don't think so? Just look to the military for augmented soilders, or the commercial arbitrage market, where total and instant recall of all possible data about the deal would be an impressive advantage. People who are not geeks would submit to the knife if it could give them the possibility of riches.
-nB
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, whether you'd want those amoral masters of search having access to your innermost thoughts is
Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know we had the ability to interface with the human mind yet. I know we have some rudamentry ability to sense and stimpulate nerves, but nothing to this level. I think it is coming fast though, and when it does it will be like an avalanche.
-nB
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Input from inert materials that don't really interface- the RFID in the hand trick, with three sensors that inform the computer of hand position and interpret movement. A similar think to this is the middle-mouse-button macro stuff that Mentor Graphics was doing in their CAD programs back in the early 1990s.
Direct interface to nerve endings through
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nanobot Taibo! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah...well, just wait till I finally perfect my "flux-capacitor"...then we'll see if innovation is dead!!
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell
U.S. Commissioner for Patents
1899
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Just an urban legend... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the important excerpt from that page:
Rumor has it... that a Patent Office official resigned and recommended that the Patent Office be closed because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented had already been invented!
While that statement makes good fun of predictions that do not come to pass, it is none the less just a myth. Researchers have found no evidence that any official or employee of the U.S. Patent Office had ever resigned because there was nothing left to invent. A clue to the origin of the myth may be found in Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth's 1843 report to Congress. In it he states, "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." But Commissioner Ellsworth was simply using a bit of rhetorical flourish to emphasize the growing number of patents as presented in the rest of the report. He even outlined specific areas in which he expected patent activity to increase in the future.
Taken out of context, such remarks take on a life of their own and are perpetuated in publication after publication whose authors, rather than check facts, copy and quote each other. For example, recent publications have attributed the "everything that has been invented..." quote to a later commissioner, Charles H. Duell, who held that office in 1899. Unlike Ellsworth, who may have been merely misquoted, there is absolutely no basis to support Duell's alleged statement. Just the opposite is true. Duell's 1899 report documents an increase of about 3,000 patents over the previous year, and nearly 60 times the number granted in 1837. Further, Duell quotes President McKinley's annual message saying, "Our future progress and prosperity depend upon our ability to equal, if not surpass, other nations in the enlargement and advance of science, industry and commerce. To invention we must turn as one of the most powerful aids to the accomplishment of such a result." Duell adds, "May not our inventors hopefully look to the Fifty-sixth Congress for aid and effectual encouragement in improving the American patent system?" These are unlikely words of someone who thinks that everything has been invented.
There is truth in the original quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means I'd going to have some grey or white hairs before the The Next Big Thing can emerge without a flurry of lawsuits. Until then, the only innovations will be in marketing and sales tactics.
Re:There is truth in the original quote... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of these products came to pass without much litigation holding them back. Trust me, there will be more big things.
Anyone who doesn't think so has no imagination.
RonB
Obligatory BillG quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that this is probably going to be the most exciting 50 years ever--so many new advances and new problems facing the world. I think that this guy needs to stop letting nostalgia get to him.
When in history have: so many people had the ability to share and communicate ideas
When in history have we actually had to worry about the carrying capacity of the planet.
When in history have we had one world government coming into power?
Ok, those are all social changes. Tech? Shit, too many to list: NANOTECHNOLOGY for one, will change everything from computers to cars to carpet. GENETIC ENGINEERING/BIOTECH will probably create a drug that stops the aging process (in the next 50 years), clones, etc. SPACE, humans will again turn their eyes towards the sky once we are mostly living peacefully around the world. Mars, Venus, probes, space stations, space tourism, space elevators (see NANOTECHNOLOGY), MORE.
Yeah, it's not as "easy" to innovate, but when was it ever EASY? Edison worked for years on the light bulb and his other inventions, which is probably one of the simplest things we use each day.
I mean, sure, most innovation today is happening either at a really large scale or a really small scale and so to the "average human" it doesn't seem very cool or sexy (it's not "human sized"). But once people see that these things will create human sized changes in the world, they are going to take notice.
IBM should FIRE this guy if he's the VP of Research.
Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very sad statement. IBM still operates one of the few corporate R&D lab operations, but have been shifting theri focus to consulting. Yes it can make more predictible returns. But where will the next atomic force microscope come from?
IBM should find a PR person to babysit this guy.
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Interesting)
But there is really no insight in reiterating the conventional wisdom. Why do we think there will be a next big thing? More importantly, what will it be and when will it arrive?
In my opinion, progress is almost inevitable in the long run (barring extinction). But that isn't really the point if you're worrying about pursuing research or choosin
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny and poigniant at the same time. There are theories that human imagination and ability to achieve is limited, as schooling required to reach a level of expertise in a field continues to increase... however, we're far from the end, and with space exploration being almost pre-natal, our ability to achieve is highly unrealized. It's not to say there isn't an end, but it's not in sight.
Further, human ingenuity will probably create devices (computers) that can help us overcome any limitations we might face on a human level.
Saying there will never be a big breakthrough is base, and any credibility this man has should be immediately and irrevocably removed. I wonder if at the end of the industrial revolution, anyone ever imagined the information revolution...
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:2)
Maybe "the next big thing" in public internet is going to be mesh networks. It's essentially an incremental technology, but it has potential to be massively disruptive to certain businesses.
I definitely agree with you that Mr. Donofrio suffers from failure of the imagination. It might take a lot of failures, but the next big thing will show up.
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think he's really suffering from is a sensationalist headline (he never used those words) and a poor usage of terms. The Slashdot headline has neatly turned a complex issue into a "yes or no" question, when it is nothing of the sort.
First, let's define some terms here:
Innovation is the practice of making technology work better than it did before. e.g. Plastic soda bottles are an innovative improvement over glass.
Disruptive Technologies are rare technological discoveries that result in a complete change in the way we do things. e.g. steam power, trains, cars, airplanes and computers all resulted in sudden shifts in market ability.
After a disruptive technology hits the market, a tumultuous cycle of new businesses and old businesses betting their livelihood on the new technology is created. They compete fiercely for the attention of the early adopters, and very few emerge to be winners. Nearly everyone in this cycle "loses", but this is often ofset by the competitive advantage the technology provides in other areas of business. This was were computers were a decade or so ago. Before that, microelectronics were the disruptive technology that put Silicon Valley on the map.
Innovation, on the other hand, is usually about solving people's problems by applying technology in new and "innovative" ways. Most consumers may not think that a squeezable ketchup bottle is "innovative", but then they probably don't remember using a knife to get a flood of ketchup onto their plate.
The problem that Mr. Donofrio has is that he's using "innovation" to describe both innovative ideas and disruptive technology. Specificly, he's saying that computers are no longer a disruptive technology, and have entered a more stable period. He's basically correct.
Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that "the next big thing" will be a technology that probably has nothing to do with his business. For example, someone could invent an anti-gravity device tomorrow. The result would be another major disruption as shipping, transportation, space travel, and other industry raced to keep up with the disruption caused. So it will come, but he won't be able to predict its arrival.
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Even this statement is a little off. Cars, airplanes, and computers really didn't make a huge sudden shift.
Look at airplanes. The first airplane flew in 1903. Even by the start of WWI ten years later they where still little more than toys. It really wasn't until the 1920s and 30s that the
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea where you're getting this from. Ever hear of Benz? Daimler? Maybach? Oldsmobile? All these companies were producing hundreds of cars before Ford ever entered the market. Even Cadillac (formed out of Ford's first, failed venture) beat Ford Motor Company to the market, netting itself about 2000 orders a mere 4 months after the first vehicles were produced.
As for airplanes, there were dozens of inventors [wikipedia.org] who were competing with the Wrights to be the first to achieve powered flight. Even after the Wrights' flight, competition remained fierce as these different companies tried to build better planes to achieve sustained flight. Prizes like the Coupe d'Aviation Ernest Archdeaco and Grand Prix d'Aviation spurred development of the airplane to produce vehicles like Santos Dumont's 14-bis. By 1907, the first helicopter had flown.
By 1908, the Wright Brothers were offered to direct a French Flight School in Sarthe département, and later in Pau. They then returned to the states in 1909 and accepted a military contract for $30,000 to produce a plane that met the military's standards. Of course, they were by no means alone in the market. Here's a list [monash.edu.au] of the pioneers and manufacturers who made early airplanes.
In other words, the car and airplane were hughly disruptive technologies. It took several years for critical mass to be reached (thus make it to the general public), but they were hot areas of research with tons of competition.
After WWI the aircraft manufacturers shrank back to small businesses.
The surplus planes from post WWI were flooded the market and temporarily met its needs. But by the mid-20's, investments into new technologies from Howard Hughes, Boeing, Lockheed, and others took hold in the rapid mail and passenger transport businesses. By the time of WWII, aircraft were far larger, more powerful, and capable of transatlantic flight.
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
The era of nanotech could very well be right around the corner, and I assure you Mr. Donofrio - this will be a "bi
Re: Yes Next Thing (Score:5, Informative)
Cold Fusion Conspiracy (Score:3, Funny)
Everything that can be invented... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Everything that can be invented... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Everything that can be invented... (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. One of my favorite quotes on science is from Arthur C. Clarke:
People said the same thing 100 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People said the same thing 100 years ago... (Score:2)
We already got one such quote about everything being invented already, there's not really much room for another.
Re:People said the same thing 100 years ago... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Oh yeah, I've seen predictions like this before... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just like Albert Abraham Michelson announcing (in 1896) that physics is dead and complete with nothing left to discover. Since then, I think there have been some shocking advancements.
I tire of articles [slashdot.org] that basically say, "Look, look, we found a person who holds an important position in the corporate world and they said something without thinking (possibly just to make shock value news)! Let's all point and laugh."
Re:Oh yeah, I've seen predictions like this before (Score:5, Insightful)
The thinking was that to the room of physics knowledge in 1896, the radioactivity door led only to a small closet of additional knowledge, rather than opening out into the wide, wide world.
In 1896, noone knew what made the sun shine. Now we do.
IMHO, precision chemistry (e.g. nanotechnology) will lead to some amazing things, but not at all the ones that people expect. K. Erich Drexler's universal manipulator will not happen, and a space elevator is a lot more likely. Precision fibers and laminates will do surprising things. MEMS and biotechnology will shake things up.
As fossil fuels dwindle and become more expensive, energy conservation will become more important, as will turning plant material into liquid fuels. There will be much innovation in how to do things using less energy, or less fuel. The accelleration in processor power will slow down, as thermal and quantum effects become more and more important and harder to overcome. But storage technologies, hard disk and flash will continue improving.
All of the changing ratios of relative costs will keep innovators busy finding better solutions to the changing problems.
Re:Oh yeah, I've seen predictions like this before (Score:3, Insightful)
assuming gp is right and the year of the michelson quote is in the 1890s, then likely your professor was adlibing
the first photographic image of any kind was made in either the late 1830s or early 40s (cant' remember, but the image itself is preserved at a UT library)... the first "propper" "photographs"
Re:Oh yeah, I've seen predictions like this before (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the implications of this will be but I'm betting that the vast differences in Human existence in different nations today will be gone by the end of the 21st century.
We've mined less than one ten millionth of the Uranium on earth. See here [nuclearinfo.net] and here [nuclearinfo.net] for the implications.
How Ridiculously Shortsighted... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nicholas sounds rather like the legendary Charles H. Duell, former Commissioner of the U.S. House of Patents in 1899, who was reported to have urged then-President McKinley to close down the Office, saying, "everything that can be invented has been invented".
Now, I know this particular story is apocryphal, but it's interesting that we're hearing basically the same line a little over a century later. Odds are real good it will be wrong this time, too.
Nick ought to know better...but he seems to be suffering
Really! (Score:5, Funny)
Say It Ain't So, Donofrio! (Score:2, Informative)
Is tech innovation dead?
Let's examine that.
The World Wide Web was hailed as a big innovation in the late 90's. Initially Bill "The Genius" Gates (III) didn't give it much thought in his ground-breaking (if you dropped it from a great enough height it could break some very brittle flooring) book, but the bandwagon was suddenly moving like a conestoga wagon with a super charged 426 hemi under the hood. Problem was start-ups and pundits alike predicted a massive and sudden revolution. A shame the infra
Is that so? (Score:2, Informative)
In 1899, then Patent Commissioner, Charles H. Duell reportedly announced that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Is that so? (Score:2)
Don't tell that..... (Score:2)
If you cannot innovate (Score:2)
WTF!? (Score:5, Insightful)
BIOTECH!?!?!
What about the up and coming functional genomics?!?
Innovation stifled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Innovation stifled (Score:3, Interesting)
Voicing my opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
More generally biomimetics and innovation from molecular biology will eclipse the innovation that has followed upon the IT revolution.
Segway (Score:2, Funny)
Very Stupid and Shortsighted (Score:3, Interesting)
A funny quote (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Benjamin Jowett (1817-93), British theologian.
Re:A funny quote (Score:4, Funny)
-- Benjamin Jowett (1817-93), British theologian.
Especially ironic, if you compare its track record to that of most theological studies...
The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:4, Funny)
As one of my college instructor told me, the next the big thing has already been around for at least ten years before anyone bother to take notice.
So... the Macarena could be the Next Big Thing?Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:4, Interesting)
The general public hasn't really seen it yet, and it's still out of the price range for home use. Plus, the selection of materials is somewhat limited, but it's improving. There's no doubt in my mind that at some critical point of price and functionality, the market is going to explode. How long before a single machine is capable of building the physical housing of a device, plus conductive circuits, passive components, semiconductors, and moving parts? Imagine the innovation that will inspire, when you can electronically design and distribute everything from doorknobs to handguns, to be fabricated by people everywhere at minimal cost.
Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, until it appears on Slashdot at least twice, anyway. And you'll know it's really the next big thing if it appears twice in the same day!
Re:The Next Big Thing Is... Already Here... (Score:3, Interesting)
The experts say... (Score:2, Interesting)
Same old, same old (Score:2)
Patent lawyers killed the Next Big Thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Things like planes, computers, cars and phones all happened because someone took something, and made it better. Now we have scum sucking lawyers fighting over simple lines of code, and even now our own DNA.
the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
(please excuse the mixed buzzwords)
Come on!!! (Score:5, Funny)
We haven't even invented a self repleneshing beer can.
I'd agree with his result (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'll even go so far as to say the reason why there will be no next big thing - it's our broken-ass patent system.
Someone, somewhere out there has part of your brilliant idea buried in a vaguely worded submarine patent. Soon as you hit the big time - wham. Some greedy patent grubbing jerk will sue you for daring to make use of "his idea" that he's been sitting on not using for the last half a dozen years or so.
Only big business has enough lawyers these days to explore uncharted waters. Which means that business will be in charge of innovation. Which means that no product/idea/whatever will get the green light without a financial analysis conducted by a committee of people who will 99.9% of the time tend to be conservative, or maybe even just plain clueless as to the new idea's implications.
The days of the solo guy in the garage coming up with the thing that changes the world are over.
its proven false (Score:2)
Or, slightly reworded... (Score:2)
This man will lose his job within a week. (Score:2)
(Yes, I'm also an IBM stockholder. Don't laugh; I've made money.)
Well, then.... (Score:2)
Well, then if there is no point in looking for The Next Big Thing(TM), then maybe we should start looking for The Next Big Thing After The Next Big Thing(TM).
It's like MJ (Score:3, Insightful)
The Next Big Thing will happen in part because nobody really knows it's going to catch lightning in a bottle. If everyone knows about it, speculation and hype erode profitability.
IBM's comment is just ridiculous. There's the famous patent comment from the last century which others have pointed out. Then there's the Web, which both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates thought was a waste of time at one point. Video game consoles were considered a fad, and not a viable big business. So was digital music, broadband, online shopping, mobile phones and small-scale stock brokers.
There are always things which can be gigantic market and economy changers, even if they aren't The Internet or Radio or The Combustion Engine.
I can think of quite a few items that might completely change huge sections of business in the next ten-twenty years:
Wireless everywhere - 'nuff said
Hydrogen or other alternative fuel vehicles - no commodity driven marketplace for Middle East interests.
Digital Ink (e-Ink)
Droids/Automatons (we already have Roomba and Asimo - I am already preparing to be crushed by the first robot rebellion)
Sure there are big things (Score:3, Interesting)
The Ipod and the mp3 player market, much more advanced 3d video cards, composite 3d accelerated desktops, new video players and microized computers that are pda in size (blackberry, Ipod video, Orgami, etc), a shift from dynamic cgi websites to interactive ones wiht complex javascript and ajax, and the $100 computer that is quite feature filled.
Whats in the futre? Better wifi and other internet technologies that are wireless, physics accelerators in 3d cards, 3d interfaces, and seemingless networked clusters or SSI(single system image) where you can hook up several computers that act as one whole computer image rather than the traditional cluster.
Also phones are going to take off as well with bluetooth and other technologies. The europeans already have it because they are not under monopolies who like to sell trusted drm midi ringtones for $3.
Give the guy a break (Score:5, Insightful)
by "stop looking for the next big thing" quote. As far as I know, he may be saying that his job is not to hold a crystal ball in hand and try to predict the next big thing (neither should you). And he does *not* say there is nothing new to be discovered. He only says it is harder to come by these things in the tech world today. Elsewhere in the article it stands out clear that he is busy seeking to enable innovation, instead of getting worried about what the "next big thing" will be. So clearly he does not discard the power of innovation.
One cental remark he makes, that "innovation today is more about services, process, business models or cultural innovation than just product innovation" sounds *very* well put, IMHO. Let us not forget which sort of innovation Google, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Orkut, LinkedIn, Napster (the original), iTunes, and even Slashdot itself, among others, brought to the world -- hint: it is not technical.
Apologies to Zefrem Cochrane (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for that. Too many people today who are in the business of creating set out from square one with the idea of changing the world. All they have to do is make a change...whether it ends up changing the world is up to too many factors that are beyond their control.
83 Comments thus far.. (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon people, you can do better than this.
Re:83 Comments thus far.. (Score:5, Funny)
Stop looking (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this guy get that high up in an IBM research org?
ORLY (Score:5, Interesting)
A short list:
- Hovering vehicles
- Anti gravity (which is probably related to the above)
- hand held energy weapons
- teleportation
- economical space travel (think "to mars", or, at the least, consumer viability for going to the moon)
- curing cancer
- controlling computers with our brains
- mechanical prostetics that respond either to brain waves or nerves (we're right on the edge of this one- I believe someone had a really basic, bulky unit working, it just has to become available for the common man)
- growing of artificial organs for transplants (goodbye organ donors!)
- interactive holographic interfaces
- solar energy that's +60% effecient
Okay, maybe that list isn't so short. Sure, many of those fields are being worked on, but nothing concrete and ready for mass use has been created (to my knowledge.) All of those items will help to advance the human race in terms of how we live and effect our environment, as well as populating into space.
Also, I'm still waiting for my damned hoverboard. Back to the Future Part II is full of lies, I tell you, lies! (I realize that the events in BttF2 don't occur to 2015, but we should be seeing regular hover technology by now if we are to meet the deadline of mass production for hoverboards that can be used by everyday kids.)
Re:ORLY (Score:3, Funny)
superconductors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ORLY (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I'd rather have a Mr Fusion
Re:ORLY (Score:3, Funny)
If I used both hands to surf the Web instead of just one, then how would I hold my coffee cup?
I wonder how IBM workers feel (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked for IBM when this trend started... (Score:5, Interesting)
One really stupid thing that happened before I left was that they decided that each of the major labs would have to come up with at least one product every 6 months, instead of dedicating themselves to research. This was one of Lou Gerstner's last gasps, but it redirected the company focus from doing things that no one else could do, to doing things that made short term profit.
Then others in the company (Sam Pamisano, Bill Etherington, et. al.) decided that individual contributors compensation would be based on the overall profit more than division or personal performance, and that managers and above would still have it based on division, personal performance, then overall profit, in that order.
Either they believed the engineers working for them had never had any higher math in the area of game theory, or they were simply ignorant that the emergent property of that type of staging is to keep your boss pleased by keeping the division up at the expense of the rest of the company, so the boss is happy and cuts you in on the cake.
Finally, it was a matter of pride to IBM Global Services that they had so much consulting effort that had been sold that they had a 2 year backlog - WTF? Who could *possibly* be proud of promising something you're unable to deliver in the timeframe you promised it, or having an organization that can't meet the demands of its market?
It's really unfortunate when a large company that people have depended upon for their livelihoods starts a tumble into short term thinking, and from there, into mediocrity.
-- Terry
Big Things (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a common phenomenon in history where there is a cultural lull and pundits are claiming that everything that can be done has been done.
Just look at biotech. WTF, this executive is a tunnel vision idiot. There are amazing things on the horizon.
Innovators, rejoice! (Score:3, Interesting)
The basic research space is [mostly] all yours now. Enjoy!
Sad for IBM, though.
Don't go LOOKING for tNBT (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a look at Microsoft, for example. They have a huge war chest full of monopoly money and they have been actively trying to create the Next Big Thing for nearly two decades now, and not once have they succeeded. Don't you think that if it were possible to predict the Next Big Thing, that those with the financial and political means to do Whatever They Want (tm) would have a virtual lock on it?
In technology, the innovations that change everything come from where you least expect them. That's because the big dogs have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.
No source of ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah right... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, and androids.
Whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our understanding of Physics alone is still so incomplete, that until we know it all (and I suspect that day may never come), there will still be tons of possibilities for the next big things coming out of that field alone.
Computer technology is still in its infancy. Anyone who thinks it's not going to change as drastically in the next 50 years as it has in the past 50, is fooling themselves.
Then there's the cool stuff we all want which, we know is possible and is only a matter of time. Cyborg type stuff, for example (and I'm not talking about the previous article on insects). I'm talking about devices implanted in our bodies to give us additional abilities. Imagine having direct internet access from your brain. There's simply NOTHING that makes this impossible and anyone who thinks it won't be a "Big Thing" simply lacks imagination.
I suspect that's the real problem right there. Mr. Donofrio simply lacks imagination.
The problem isn't technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Some time ago, I read an article [scientificamerican.com] by Tim Berners-Lee which starts off with a description of a technology (semantic web) aided lifestyle where your car will automatically book itself for an oil change with your mechanic, and that type of thing. The thing is, we have all the knowledge and technology to make that kind of stuff happen *today*, yet I still don't think we will see it will happen any time soon.
The problem is that to take things to the next level like that, we need *extensive* ongoing cooperation between hundreds and thousands of people, organizations, and companies - where such cooperation might not have any short term payoff, or the long term payoff might not be in the best financial interest of those involved (ie, Microsoft realizing a universal platform neutral programming language like Java would mean people don't need Windows). I mean, hell, we can't even get broad agreement on a single XML Word Processing format.
Our problems now are more systemic than technologic. We aren't leveraging what we have.
The next big thing already predicted by Dilbert (Score:3, Funny)
Right now, I'm taking up 72 square feet/576 cubic feet (6' deep x 12' long x 8' high) with my cube. That's valuable real estate for someone who, sitting in a chair, wearing a head cubicle, could be accommodated easily by a 3'x3'x4' area. That's only 36 cubic feet. 16 people could be housed in an area the size of my cube.
Sure, stacking people in boxes seems inhumane and degrading, but since when has that stopped companies from realizing a minor decrease in costs? Given the cost of real estate, companies who don't flock to the head cubicle would be at a very serious economic disadvantage.
A list of near-term big things: (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Cheap connectivity makes government propaganda impractical in every country
3. Nearly all software becomes free, as the impracticality of selling infinitely copyable material becomes evident.
4. Pop culture dies for the same reason, and is replaced by amateur arts and culture
5. AIDS vaccine is found, triggering second sexual revolution
6. Tech advances too fast for traditional college to keep up. Other methods of training become more prominent.
7. Privacy dies. Morality becomes more utilitarian as "public face" becomes impossible
The Next Big Thing is Justin Simoni. (Score:4, Funny)
Not dead, we're on strike (Score:4, Interesting)
What I invent now I do for fun and for just myself and my friends.
no breakthrus recently (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he does lack imagination as some have said but he's got a point.
Consider the field of electronics. Most of the engineering work during the past 50 years has been refining the fabrication of the transistor and it's application. Regardless of whether you're talking about TV, audio equipment, computers, defense systems, industrial controls or any other product made of electronics.
It's all been about the transistor. The nobel prize in physics was awarded to 3 engineers in 1947. It took more than a decade to get the transistor into a form that could be used in prodcution. Since then, there have been many refinements including printed circuit boards, integrated circuits and lots of miniaturization of systems. We've gotten lots of mileage out of the transistor because of it's versatility as a controlled source. It can be used as a switch or as an amplifier. The mother of it's invention was the need for a better way of performing these switching and amplification functions than vacuum tubes could provide.
Transistor technology is mature. Discrete transistor circuitry is already considered as quaint as tube circuitry. Soon, we'll regard standard ICs the same way.
But where are the glass or plastic light based circuits on Star Trek and 2001 Space Oddessy? The answer is that awaits a breakthrough in physics of the same magnitude as the transistor was.
Since most of the people reading Slashdot are programmers rather than EEs, I will point out that much of the software we develop runs on machines made of this 50 year old transistor technology. Having machines based on light or water or living tissue or whatever form they'll eventually take is bound to change this.
But this breakthrough in physics hasn't happened yet. It might be next year or it might be 30 years from now. Look at the time it took us to progress from vacuum tubes to transistors. It's hard to predict. But there will be a certain transition period between transistor technology and whatever replaces it. Only then will we have some idea what the next big thing might be. Whatever it will be, it ain't in sight yet.
Well, what does IBMs design team look like? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt IBM does this, or does this well. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they simply dream up garbage and ship it off to a design firm to become pretty. I don't know.
I know more then a few people who would love to, and know how to, design the "next big thing(s)," but a company such as IBM needs to accommodate an innovative environment. Moreover, they can't rely upon people in a vacuum to develop such an environment. They need to get off their butts and start hanging out in firms like IDEO. They need to see how people innovate on a daily basis.