Moore's Law is exponential

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
If anyone thinks that people buy consumer electronics based on the specifics on the underlying technology involved, then they obviously know very little about consumer electronics or engineering design in general. It's not about how "advanced" the underlying technology is. Nobody cares about whether one product is on a smaller manufacturing node than another. It's about the functionality (including ease-of-use) that the overall product achieves (using that technology) and the overall packaging of the product.


That's just semantics!

It is very evident to most that to achieve ever feature rich consumer electronics you need more and more advanced and for that matter cheaper more efficient technology that sits in an ever decreasing footprint.

We are now at a stage where wearable computing is a reality with ever present connections allow an even more feature rich cloud based layer to be overlayed.

Where this is going is the actual consumer electronic market place you think of today will disappear, as will the visible element of the electronics we use. Computational power and communications will be built into every single item we make and be ever present.

Physical shops will become a thing of the past and virtual shopping malls within VR cyberspace will be where you go to try on your new set of clothes.... when you make a choice you would pay and the designs downloaded to your personal 3D printer for printing.

This is the future of Consumerism.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 9-5-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

That's just semantics!

Hardly.


It is very evident to most that to achieve ever feature rich consumer electronics you need more and more advanced and for that matter cheaper more efficient technology that sits in an ever decreasing footprint.

You also need the product design and foresight to use that newer technology effectively. Also my post was a direct reaction to the previous posts before it regarding Apple products.
edit on 9/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz

That's just semantics!

Hardly.


It is very evident to most that to achieve ever feature rich consumer electronics you need more and more advanced and for that matter cheaper more efficient technology that sits in an ever decreasing footprint.

You also need the product design and foresight to use that newer technology effectively.


That is the very reason Google employed Ray Kurzweil!

You seem to be making a case against technological advance... I don't see why that would be the case. Yes I agree that seeing an endless revision of phone versions, with perhaps a higher definition screen as the only additional feature, and at a new extra $150 more than the one you paid for last year... is stupendous....

But that is the stagnant end of the market... there are some seriously high end technological projects on the horizon that are so cutting edge they will change the global community even in more ways than the implementation of the www itself.

The future is very exiting and the future is getting closer faster with each passing day.... Exponentially!

Peace,

Korg.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

That is the very reason Google employed Ray Kurzweil!

I don't see what this has to do with anything I talked about.


You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

How did you come to that conclusion? It seems you haven't understood anything I said. Have you done product design? Engineering design?
edit on 9/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz

That is the very reason Google employed Ray Kurzweil!

I don't see what this has to do with anything I talked about.


You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

How did you come to that conclusion? It seems you haven't understood anything I said. Have you done product design? Engineering design?


Yes on both counts and within a technology field....

I understood perfectly well... Perhaps you should re-read my responses again?

Korg.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No, I read through your posts a number of times, still can't find out how you came to your conclusion or the relevance to my posts.

I said: You also need the product design and foresight to use that newer technology effectively.
You said: You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

Uhm, what?


edit on 9/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No, I read through your posts a number of times, still can't find out how you came to your conclusion or the relevance to my posts.

I said: You also need the product design and foresight to use that newer technology effectively.
You said: You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

Uhm, what?




You are relating the wrong part of my reply is why


You said: You also need the product design and foresight to use that newer technology effectively.

I said: - That is the very reason Google employed Ray Kurzweil!

you said: - It's not about how "advanced" the underlying technology is. Nobody cares about whether one product is on a smaller manufacturing node than another.

I said: - You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

Do you follow?

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 9-5-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Thanks.


you said: - It's not about how "advanced" the underlying technology is. Nobody cares about whether one product is on a smaller manufacturing node than another.

I said: - You seem to be making a case against technological advance...

My point was, customers generally don't care about the specific details that enable a device, they care about what the overall product does for them such as: form-factor, usability, price, branding, functionality. I think this is an important nuance because it really effectively shows why companies like Apple succeed and can create innovative ( in my opinion) devices even if they don't have access to more advanced underlying technology than their competitors.

But yes I agree that new technology enables new possibilities!
edit on 9/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
But yes I agree that new technology enables new possibilities!


The irony is that we have turned on it's head the old "Necessity is the mother of all invention" and now it's "Invention is the mother of all Necessity"

It's an arms race... but yes if you have imagination you can configure the same technology your competitors have to achieve more with it...

I do appreciate and admire Apple's marketing and design, but would never use their products due to the extremely limited sandbox they put you in.

For me technology should only ever be limited by the imagination of the user and it's actual technical limitations.. not as a result of some misguided sense of revenue stream protection.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 9-5-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
It is all quite interesting because predictions of future technology or where technology is going doesn't alway reach the ideals proposed.

Just like when the Personal Computer as we know and love was developed into a package similar to what we have now, various people namely a certain Bill Gates was quoted to say "640Kb" of memory is all anyone will ever need! This turned out to be many orders of magnitude wrong, and even for the products made by his own company.

Then there is the same person saying that in 20 years time (this was in the 90s) that computers would become advanced enough to allow integration with your home, everything electronic would be computer controlled and life will be good.
Are we there yet? Well yes and no. Yes we have advanced tech, but it is not quite the integrated dream they had, and nor does it seem to be coming to fruition any time soon, and why? those systems are still beyond the reach of the average consumer cost wise and general levels of technical competence also. This might change a lot in the next decade because many of the technically minded people who grew up surrounded by and comfortable with computers and technology are now moving into the housing markets. That said, there is still the question of cost.

There are places in the world that are moving in the right direction in terms of infrastructure, Korea has towns where every new building is wired with gigabit lan throughout, were residence pay a small fee and basically get a ultra fast internet connection. There is also a big disparity to network infrastructure in developed countries, in the early 2000's many companies invested in fibre optic technology, this allowed consumers in various areas to have access to cheap bandwidth. Back in 2005 I had a 25 Mbit connection, and by the time i moved it had been upgraded to 50 Mbit. So imagine my dismay moving to north america and paying 2 times as much for a 10 Mbit connection.

Other technologies have a long way to go before reaching the dreams you posted... it will be an exciting ride, and I am sure we will get there eventually. There will always however be technology that cannot or should not be miniaturized and integrated.


Lovely example of a technology that should both die out and live on at the same time is hand held point and click cameras. Why? Well in terms of technology they are all the same, megapixels is a pointless and useless metric and in general for point and click, you should buy based on superficial things like, the colour of if it will fit in your pocket or will it break if you drop it etc. Phones have cameras in them which are about as good. On the other hand, as a photography enthusiast I think traditional cameras should not vanish either. Image quality is better and expression is so much easier and in general the optics are a hell of alot better. So again, it is just a preference. It is like the notion that synth would kill off traditional physical instruments... it didn't and shouldnt



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Lol. I enjoyed several of the replies. I am glad that the users on this website helped turn this thread away from conspiracy and into reality. I didn't mean to post a conspiracy thread in this section, but I was interested to read what professionals and knowledgeable people in the field had to say. Thanks for sharing!



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

Just like when the Personal Computer as we know and love was developed into a package similar to what we have now, various people namely a certain Bill Gates was quoted to say "640Kb" of memory is all anyone will ever need! This turned out to be many orders of magnitude wrong, and even for the products made by his own company.

Then there is the same person saying that in 20 years time (this was in the 90s) that computers would become advanced enough to allow integration with your home, everything electronic would be computer controlled and life will be good.


Sell the Dream... Deliver the Reality!

Peace,

Korg.





top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join