Drop, charge, and lose the cordsWith more and more people blaming the technology industry, and most importantly, the Internet, for the current state of affairs, I'm happy to see that at least one study agrees with me in claiming that the Internet is really not the sewer of society.
According to a study conducted by the Gambling Commission, the Internet has not led to an increase is gambling addictions. Whew. For a second there I actually thought the Internet would be blamed for yet another issue in society. But, then again, I'm sure someone will come up with a study to combat this one and attack the Internet for all it's worth.
Maybe online gambling is OK after all.
(Credit: Card Squad)But getting back to online gambling--will this finally let the monkey off the backs of the online gambling sites that provide yet another outlet for people to waste money? I doubt it. Regardless of what you believe, the same groups who are attacking Web sites for promulgating a whole new type of gambling will continue to do so for their own survival.
As for me? Well, my question is simple: why do we care that people are gambling online?
... Read moreAs I sat here today, trying to decide what the topic should be for this week's Future Implications piece, I thought of the ever-popular topics of computing, smart phones and even HDTVs. But alas, I came across this list from Ethisphere that lists the World's Most Ethical Companies for 2007.
Upon opening the link and examining the list, I was aghast at what I found: most major tech companies were nowhere to be found. Is this an endemic issue in the technology business? And more importantly, what can be done to fix it?
... Read more
Media Center
(Credit: News.com.com)As Microsoft announced its new Extender solution today, many have been asking if it will be the new be-all, end-all for the home viewing experience. Some have called this an amazing development that deserves attention, while others are saying it's not all that great. I tend to agree with the second group.
For those of you who are unaware of this new product from Microsoft, Extender will be able to take any media (video, TV, music, print) from a PC to a television or from a television to another television in another room. In other words, you can have the same show playing in your bedroom and living room without missing a beat. Ideally, this would work with the help of a Media Center PC and a device being created by Linksys, D-Link and others.
This may sound great on paper, and the ability to move media around in my house like this would be nice, but is it really necessary? More often than not, I have the equipment I need to do this already. Sure, it may not be as easy as Microsoft's product, but if the current infrastructure is there, why get rid of it for something new? Simply put, this technology is a few years too late.
... Read more
No way, Gphone
(Credit: Google)There's nothing quite like rumors. Whether it's the pudgy Nano or the Google Phone, there is always something worth speculating about. But before we start telling the world about the rumored Google Phone (or Gphone as it has come to be known), it's time we consider the environmental factors that will cause this device to be a failure -- if it's real, that is.
If Google decides to break out of its shell and release a new cell phone that some are calling the "iPhone Killer," it will be a huge mistake.
As I've mentioned before, the only way for Google to make any headway in the cell phone business is through the help of the 700MHz spectrum. With this tactic in mind, Google could create its own phone that works like Skype on the spectrum and in the process, kill off the entire cell phone industry. But for Google to throw a device into the cell phone business on domestic and international carriers would not only be a mistake, it could be an indication that Google is getting in over its head.
... Read more
Yes, Senator, it's a series of tubes
(Credit: Holman)All of this talk about reworking the Internet and IPv6 has me thinking: has the Internet become as important as water? Some would surely say that I'm off my rocker on this one and say that, of course water is more important than the Internet. And while I agree that without water we can't survive, and without the Internet we can, this is not meant to be a discussion on biology. The truth of the matter is that we, as a world, have become so reliant on the Internet that it's quickly becoming just as important as water.
First off, let me address the most obvious argument you may make with my rationale: "well, when I was living through the sixties and seventies, I survived without the Internet." I know you did and I commend you on living so long, but I think you're missing the point. Too often, this argument comes back to the biology of water and the 'Net, but it should come back to the current culture.
Forty years ago, the Internet was a pie-in-the-sky idea that most believed would never happen. Further, no one could have imagined where the Internet has taken us, and some are still left wondering where it can go. You were able to survive without the Internet forty years ago because the entire world didn't rely on it. Consider this: telephones weren't running over broadband forty years ago, businesses weren't cropping up online, and the constant flow and source of information that the Internet has provided didn't even come into play in the business world. Simply put, we were a society with no worldly understanding and reliance only on pen and paper. The society of forty years past is not the society of today.
When the Internet first made its appearance as Arpanet in 1969, few people could have imagined what it has become. No one could have guessed that it would permeate every level of every society in the world. As Thomas Friedman explained so eloquently, "the world is flat."
Now, let's imagine a world without the Internet. Surely some would say the youth would go back to reading books and print media would finally make the long-awaited comeback. Still others would say that the death of the Internet would increase our security, add physical activity back into our lives, make the US public lose weight and put an end to online criminal enterprises. I understand that argument, but I think it's entirely wrong.
Within minutes of the Internet's death, the stock market would crash (if it was still standing, given its reliance on the Internet). Every online public company like Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and the rest would immediately be sold off and millions of people would lose their retirement and college planning money. Billions of dollars would fall out of the US and world economy in a matter of minutes. Once all online companies were rendered completely inert, the wave would move to technology firms that provide services related to the Internet. In other words, Microsoft would go under and Steve Jobs would need to find himself a new job. Millions more would lose billions of dollars in what would amount to the worst financial crisis in the history of the world.
Once businesses failed, people would lose their jobs and a steep rise in poverty would begin all over the world. And, as we all know, a rise in poverty would precipitate a significant increase in crime, which would make us all wish for the days of spam, spyware and viruses.
Schools, which have moved towards the Internet as a viable learning tool would need to rethink the curriculum and effectively teach children (who grew up with the Internet) an entirely new way of learning. Surely this wouldn't be easy, but it could be one of the easiest transitions to make.
The biggest impact would be in the business sector. Companies that were still able to survive after the great stock market crash would need to rethink business strategies, and more importantly, business processes. With well over 90 percent of companies relying on the Internet in some way or another, books would quickly become the new Internet for research and litigation purposes. Accounting and law firms that have subscribed to online research databases would need to buy new books for changed laws, but the firms shouldn't do it too early, because the government will need to step in and amend laws related to the Internet.
In a matter of minutes, communication will be reduced to word of mouth. In a world where people were growing more accustomed to email, they will now need to go back to the telephone to communicate, which, of course, is an issue because land lines currently run in the same way Skype and other VOiP services do -- over the Internet.
Rest assured, panic will most certainly set in. Most government works and those processes that we take for granted will be eliminated because most of their reliance on communication over a network that -- believe it or not -- runs on a protected area of the Internet.
Online orders of merchandise and food would need to stop, so companies with streamlined arrangements will need to go back to phone calls and telegrams, which will slow down the delivery of essentials, thus creating even more panic. The airline industry, practically crippled already, will most certainly meet its demise when people can no longer afford to travel, which would precipitate a death blow to Boeing and other large aircraft manufacturers.
In just a few days, all online companies will need to close and the Dollar, Euro and every other currency will carry no value.
In a word, our world would be chaotic.
Sad as it is, the possibility of an all-out closure of the Internet is entirely possible. And to make matters worse, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team -- the government arm in charge of protecting the Internet -- receives (on average) about 0.2 percent of the annual Department of Homeland Security budget. So far, it hasn't failed us, but at what point will that small sum of money come back to bite us? You never know, it could happen.
In closing, I'm not here to make the argument that the Internet is as important as water -- to me, they're two entirely different things. That said, I will say that the Internet, save for the whole biology aspect, is almost as important to our survival as water. Without water, we die. Without the Internet itself, we can survive. But if we lose the Internet and live through the precipitating effects outlined above, no one can say that the harmful effects of it's loss are any less significant than the possibility of losing water.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us in the future. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
As a person who owns a custom-built desktop, Mac Mini and a few laptops, I once found it hard to believe that anyone would actually believe that the death of the desktop computer would be coming around the corner. I've heard the argument set forth in other arenas and scoffed at the possibility of such a popular product being thrown away in favor or a more versatile machine. I was wrong.
The desktop is a dying breed -- it's as simple as that. I had this epiphany recently when I had to run down to my local CompUSA store. Upon perusing the available notebooks, it dawned on me: "where are all of the desktops?" After some searching, I found them tucked away in a few aisles with very little fanfare and (more importantly) very little sales representative interaction. You can always tell when a product doesn't sell well or it's on the way out in these stores -- the sales reps will make believe you don't even exist while you're looking at it. But once you walk over to the notebook display, they start taking bids on who should get to you first.
But that's not the only reason I think desktops will be meeting an untimely demise in the next five to ten years. First and foremost, desktops are a dime a dozen these days. Years ago, it made sense to have a desktop -- notebooks couldn't stand up to its power and the lack of WiFi meant notebooks were just as useless as desktops when you left the house.
Today, with the flood of WiFi wherever you go and this country's constant push for mobility, desktops are being left at home running idly just wishing for someone to play with it.
Take the whole design issue with desktops. If we've learned anything, we now know that design matters to the consumer. The days of ugly beige designs have given way to snazzy laptops that offer equal (if not better) performance than the ugly desktop sitting at home. Computers have become a fashion statement. If you still own a homely old Dell computer, does anyone ask you about it? I doubt it. But if you walk into a room with a custom-designed machine or a Mac, chances are, the people in the room will take notice. Simply put, desktops are just too ugly. If you can find me a good looking desktop PC that will actually appeal to enough customers to make them buy it, I'll show you ten more better looking notebooks that people would rather buy. It's nothing personal; desktops are just old and unattractive.
For the first time in the history of computing, notebook computers outsold desktop PCs in the summer of 2005. That didn't happen because companies made some errors in shipments or notebooks just got lucky. That happened because people (and more importantly, businesses) realized that notebooks have become more practical.
And let's not lose sight of businesses in this entire argument. As more businesses bring notebooks into the work force, employees will begin using them and realize that notebooks have finally become powerful enough to replace that dusty old desktop at home. Businesses play a major role in the world of consumer computing. In the late nineties, Dell understood that if it sold its computers to businesses, employees would use and buy them for the home because they were comfortable with them. It still works today, but this time, it's not necessarily company-specific. This time around, people just want to use the same machine everywhere. Period.
And if you don't believe me, consider this: Between the same periods of 2005 and 2006, the aggregate drop in consumer desktop purchases across all companies was a staggering 10.2 percent.
Dell, HP and Apple are three of the biggest computing vendors in the world. With a combined market share that can not be rivaled, these companies should be the first to say that desktop sales have a place in the future of computing. So far, each of those companies hasn't echoed that sentiment for one simple reason: desktop sales are plummeting.
According to the 2006 HP Annual Report, the company's weighted average net revenue growth attributed to desktops was just 0.8 percent. Amazingly, notebooks made up 8.4 percent of the stated net revenue, compared to 1.5 and 5.4 percent from just last year. Besides that, the company's revenue from notebooks and desktops is a sign of bad things to come for desktops. According to the report, desktops still brought in more revenue for HP, but its gain over last year was just over $200 million compared to the notebook's division gain of over $2 billion.
But it doesn't end there. Dell has also faced similar desktop woes. In 2004, desktops represented 45 percent of the companies revenue. In 2006 (the company's last Annual Report filing), desktops accounted for just 38 percent of the entire revenue while notebooks represented 25 percent. It's not equal to desktops yet, but rest assured, notebooks will be taking over in the next few years as Dell's desktop sales will continue to plummet.
Lastly, your friends over in Cupertino have also felt the effects of sluggish desktop sales. According to Apple's latest quarterly report, notebook sales almost doubled desktop sales in the same quarter.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Whether you're a fan of desktops or not, the devices that have almost single-handedly made computing what it is today are on the way out. The desktop business has become a commodity with the same components making up the same (ugly) designs offering the same cost to consumers yielding the same small margins and very little net income for companies. And while it may sound awfully glum for the average consumer, there's no end in sight. Short of building your own desktop, the machine you buy today will be the same machine you buy a few years from now with a few updated components.
I don't make this argument in a vacuum. I know that the best desktop can still run circles around the best notebook and I understand that the components you can currently throw into a desktop can be superior to those in a notebook, but you can't possibly believe this will last forever. At one time, people actually believed that there was nothing else left to invent. They were wrong. Today, some people believe that desktops will always hold an advantage over notebooks because that's always been true in the past. They are wrong.
If you take a look back at the last five years in computing, I think you would be hard-pressed to claim that notebooks haven't made much bigger strides in advancement than desktops. The notebook has successfully solidified itself as a comparable alternative to desktops in this performance war and I simply don't believe there's any chance desktops will be able to maintain the lead -- it's just not profitable enough for companies to do so.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand where I'm coming from is to take a look at the competitive environment in computing. Years ago, companies were cropping up from all over the world offering something unique in desktops. Years ago, small companies could actually make a splash in this business. Today, it's practically impossible. With the size of Dell, HP and others, there is little opportunity for a small PC manufacturer to develop into a major player in this business. Dell buys components that cost a fraction of the price Jane Doe's Computer Company can buy them for, so Jane is forced to charge a higher price. And if a consumer can have the same exact machine (because most desktops basically are the same) at a fraction of the price from a reputable source, guess which option they'll choose. It's a no-brainer: the death of innovation in desktop computing has officially ushered in its demise. It's as simple as that.
There's no exact timeline to trace the official death of desktop computers, but if I had to guess, I think you'll find it hard to use desktops in about five years. In ten years, desktops will be a thing of the past.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us in the future. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
Google and Microsoft are at it again. But this time Google is attacking Microsoft for threatening Linux users for patent violations.
In an announcement made earlier this week, Google signed on with the Open Invention Network (OIN), which is supported by Red Hat and a few other Linux heavyweights. The Open Invention Network is an organization designed by and for Linux developers, distributors, sellers, resellers, and end-users to protect them from the onslaught of costly lawsuits or other attempts made on them by bigger and better-funded enterprises. But until Google joined the fray on the side of the OIN, some people were skeptical of the ability of Linux to stand up to Microsoft.
That skepticism is over--Microsoft is in for a rude awakening.
Microsoft and Google are two of the most powerful tech companies you will ever come across. Microsoft carries no debt in its financial structure. Google carries no debt in its financial structure. Microsoft enjoys a $281.26 billion market cap while Google harbors about half that. What does all of this mean? Both companies have lots of cash with high-powered lawyers who are poised to take each other to task. And while I believe this is true and both companies will square off in a courtroom eventually, Microsoft is deathly afraid of Google. Google may not have the cash on hand that Microsoft does, but it has a more advantageous public perception as well as the same contacts and pull with Congress that Bill and his boys have.
If you take a look back at all of the lawsuits Microsoft has been a part of, I don't think you can find me one instance where the company wasn't able to get its way. The federal government tried to take Microsoft to task and even that didn't work!
But the difference between the late '90s and today is that Google wields equal, if not more, power than Microsoft. If Redmond took on the boys at Google, it would be ugly and costly for sure. But regardless of the camp you side with, Google would come out on top.
Microsoft's claim on patent violations is nothing more than glorified bullying in the hopes that the "weak" will raise the white flag. Along with threats of costly lawsuits, Microsoft has also silently hinted that it would accept a closure of the distributions in return for some financial remuneration. But finally Google has stepped in to raise the ante. Why should Microsoft be allowed to bully these Linux developers? An even better question: why does Microsoft bully these developers?
It's very simple: because they could. But with the inclusion of Google in the OIN, could has become the operative word. Microsoft doesn't want to have an all-out battle with Google--it's too costly, and if Google wins, where does Microsoft stand?
But Microsoft's fear of Google goes far beyond Linux and open source. Microsoft is deathly afraid of Google's continued dominance on the stock market, Google's significant control over Web searching and, most important, Google's dominance on Internet advertising. Google represents the future of the technology industry while Microsoft is the past. And while Microsoft knows this and is desperately trying to work its way back to prominence, it has a long way to go, and sparring with Google for a few rounds will not help matters.
Microsoft and Google will have a day to go at each other for everything--the writing is on the wall. But at this point in each company's development cycle, the time for a fight just isn't right for Microsoft, while Google would welcome a knock-down, drag-out. Simply put, a fight between Microsoft and Google would end badly for the former, while the latter would cement itself as the most prominent tech company for the next decade.
As hard to believe as it is, Microsoft is running scared. Courtesy of Google.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us in the future. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
In a recent blog entry posted here,, an African woman expressed anger and distaste for the alleged "depiction of Black people as inhuman savages, the killing of Black people by a white man in military clothing, and the fact that this video game is marketed to children and young adults. Start them young? fearing, hating, and destroying Black people." And while I understand where she is coming from (no one likes to see their own people being killed), it seems she is echoing an ever-increasing issue with video games: over-sensitivity.
Ever since graphics became the big thing in gaming, people have been aghast at the cold-blooded killing of digital characters. And whether it's a Mexican group of individuals who the gamer must kill or even people from Africa, it seems groups are coming out of the woodwork to protest. And while I understand their anger, why do they care so much?
Now before you start saying that this is an American video games issue where American developers create games that are aimed at killing other people, think again.
In a recent story from MSNBC, it was learned that an Iranian video game promoted the killing of Israelis and American soldiers during a mission to save a Nuclear Scientist deep into enemy territory: Israel.
The simple fact is video games are video games and nothing more. It shouldn't matter that we are "killing" Japanese soldiers in a Medal of Honor game or Germans in a Call of Duty game because it's not real life. And in case you missed it, previous Resident Evil games were based around the killing of Caucasian people as well.
Killing in video games is a touchy subject and many people share a variety of opinions on the subject. Some people believe we should only be killing aliens in games because, after all, who will protest when that happens? Even better, alien blood can be green or purple so a Mature rating can be all but eliminated. Still others believe killing in games should not be targeted at one group, but human killing is perfectly acceptable. And while I understand both arguments, I just can't seem to justify either viewpoint.
If I go into space in a first-person shooter, then I expect to kill ugly aliens with green blood and five eyes. If I go to North Dakota in a game, I expect to kill people in North Dakota. And if I go to France, I expect to kill people in France. Is that such a difficult theory to get our heads around? I want my games to be as logical as possible and I don't see the reason why people care so much. I don't hate people from North Dakota just because I have been tasked with the objective to eradicate the bad people in that state and I certainly don't hate France -- it's one of the places I have always wanted to go. But at what point should we draw the line?
Regardless of your opinion on the subject, the line is being drawn and will continue to move towards an "alien-only" killing field. I don't really have a problem with this as long as the gameplay is acceptable, but why? As far as I can tell, almost every group has been targeted in one game or another. I don't see this as promotion of killing one group or another, I just see it as an opportunity for a company to make a compelling gameplay experience without sacrificing realism.
Interestingly enough, most groups who attack video games for the killing of its people have no understanding of the game itself. For example, the blog entry mentioned above makes no mention of the fact that the people actually being killed are zombies and fit within the context of the plot. If there is a target on the backs of African people (and I don't believe there is), that target will be ten times larger on the backs of European people, as they have been the target of all of the previous Resident Evil games. Sad as it is, killing people in the Resident Evil series is not unique to just one group.
I often wonder why similar arguments are not made as frequently against movies or television shows. If you're a 24 fan, you know that Jack Bauer has single-handedly taken down people from a bunch of races and yet it's one of the most popular shows on TV.
I think that's how the video game industry will emerge from this issue; not with its tail between its legs, but carried on the backs of people from all races who understand that killing in video games is equal opportunity abusing. If one game targeted one group of individuals throughout the series, then I would understand the reservations and the outcry. But when an entire industry follows suit with other forms of entertainment and targets people of all races, creeds, gender and age, I have a hard time justifying the outcry.
Killing in video games is a touchy subject that none of us should take lightly. But if we look at it from an objective point of view, the truth easily shows itself: no one group of people is safe from your digital AK-47.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
Finally! For the first time, I can say that the government has gone after the group of people it should be targeting: large pirating cartels.
Earlier this week, US and Chinese officials announced they successfully nabbed a group of Chinese individuals who were allegedly in possession of $500 million of software. That's right -- the government finally took the fight to the bad guys and moved away from the battle against 75-year old Aunt Sally who doesn't know any better.
For years, this has been a pet-peeve of mine. Just like the RIAA in its bid to rid the world of illegally downloaded songs, the federal government and other regulators have been trying to put the kibosh on illegal software distribution. And while I agree this is a necessity for the benefit of all of us, the groups were targeting the people they could pick on most easily: individual citizens.
I'm not trying to let criminals off the hook and say that they were innocent in any way -- they broke the law and they deserve reprimanding. But what about the people who make a copy of Windows for their backup needs or those individuals who want to backup their CDs in case of hardware failure? Is it fair for those people -- pirates under the current law -- to be targeted as criminals for the "crimes" they have committed?
Sure, these people cost us all money when we buy legitimate software because companies need to install protective measures to keep pirated material away from the general public, but would you rather have the big fish crying uncle or the little one?
Simply put, it was easy for groups like the RIAA to attack the little guy because the little guy won't fight back. The little guy doesn't have an AK-47 in the back room just waiting for the organization to walk in and order them to stop. The little guy was an easy target and they took it. And while the little guy was being eradicated, the larger groups like this Chinese cartel were free to profit from an extremely lucrative business. Is something wrong with this picture?
These pirating rings weren't targeted as well as they should have been because of their immense size and power. Believe it or not, the software piracy industry is not made up of a bunch of geeks hanging out in their mother's basements copying another disc of Windows. These groups are true crime cartels with a hierarchy and severe punishment for any wrong-doing. Their cronies are professional criminals who buy one installation of legitimate software, copy it onto hundreds of discs and walk away with a huge profit. Simply put, these groups are dangerous.
But in one of the most important developments in this entire struggle against software piracy, a large cartel was brought to its knees. And while I'm not naive enough to believe another gang won't step up and take it's place, this string of arrests has put the criminal enterprises on notice: we are watching and we will take you down.
And while I know this isn't the end of ridiculous arrests of octogenarians or ten-year old kids, this is a significant step for the battle against piracy. And maybe for once, the powers-that-be will realize that the battle isn't just with individual citizens, the battle is against a formidable opponent who will do everything it can to thrive and succeed.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
In a report that is guaranteed to make Apple fanboys proud and Apple haters scoff, the market research firm IDC has released a study claiming that Apple has officially become the third-largest computer vendor in the United States.
According to the study, Apple shipped 960,000 units in the second quarter of 2007, and the Cupertino, Calif.-based company now commands 5.6 percent of the U.S. market--a jump of 0.8 percent from the same time last year.
On the Windows side of things, Dell, while still firmly entrenched as the nation's No. 1 computer vendor, witnessed an 11 percent decline, and HP, the country's No. 2, enjoyed 26 percent growth.
(Credit:
CNET Networks)
So what do all of these numbers mean to the average consumer? Not too much. But if we were to take a more well-rounded view of the news, one thing immediately comes to my mind: Apple is well on its way to dominating the home.
I understand that 5.6 percent is not too significant, and the nation's top vendors are releasing Windows systems, but Apple's rise in market share has been unprecedented. Just one year ago, Apple shipped only 761,000 units in the same quarter. With more than 200,000 additional computers sold this year, think of the extreme revenue benefits that will filter down to other product lines.
And it is this filtering that will make Apple the most dominant consumer electronics company in the world. Bold predictions? Not if you take an objective view at what is currently happening in this industry.
Slowly but surely, Apple is creeping its way into every area in the industry. While it may have started with computers, Apple is quickly becoming a multifaceted company that owes much of its success to its multimedia devices. If we were to throw the computers out for right now, would it even matter? Wouldn't you still think highly of the design and usefulness of Apple products?
Apple dropped "Computer" from its name because it's no longer just a computer company. In fact, I would venture to say that computers have become a bonus revenue getter for the company.
A simple look at the company's most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings will show you that just iPods and iPod-related products account for more than 50 percent of the company's net sales, and that's before the Apple TV and iPhone are included. And while the Macs sell well, they used to be the only source of income for the company.
Our future homes will be dominated by Apple. And while I'm not convinced that the majority of homes will have Macs, I do believe that many of them will. Apple has realized that computers are no longer the bread and butter of this industry, and it has capitalized on some of the devices that are: digital-audio players, cell phones and multimedia devices.
Margins in the computer industry are difficult to maintain, and more often than not, you will find companies struggling to keep up with the larger firms. Try to start your own computer-manufacturing business, and chances are, it won't last if you're not providing a unique experience.
But the other industries mentioned above are not the same way. As Apple has shown, a company can make a significant profit on cell phones, digital-audio players and multimedia devices because they're what captures our attention right now.
Computer innovation can go only so far--there are technological and design limits. Multimedia devices have no such limit. While we still can't beam our favorite artists to our homes for a live concert, we can have products that offer entirely unique experiences. Simply put, computers are computers, but home multimedia devices can be anything.
So when will this Apple home of yours come to fruition? Well, my guess would be in about 15 to 20 years. If nothing else, we have learned that Apple knows how to take the industry lead and not relinquish it. And while I think there will be a significant void to fill when Steve Jobs finally retires, the company will continue its trek toward dominating every consumer electronics industry within the next couple decades.
But while Apple will become the most powerful consumer electronics company, that doesn't necessarily mean that its domination will last long. Much like every other company that has dominated an industry, people will begin to hate it.
Right now, there is a very loving relationship with Apple, as more and more people believe that it's the savior this industry needs. When it becomes dominant, though, that relationship will become one of both love and hate--we will love to play with the products, but we'll hate the fact that no other company can compete. The entire consumer electronics business will be like the MP3 player industry: Apple will wield significant control, and other companies will need to play catch-up.
This is not to say that no other companies will exist; that Apple will be the last man standing. What I am saying is that Apple will be the most dominant force in the entire business. The Microsofts, Googles and Sonys of the world will still be around, but despite whether we like to admit it, Apple will soon become the most successful consumer electronics company.
Adults both young and old love Apple products, but the majority are people in their 20s. As they get older, make more money and have families, which company do you think they will turn to first for all of their home and travel needs?
It may not happen over night, but trust me, the heyday of Apple hasn't even begun.
Every Thursday, Don picks a current-events topic and discusses how it will impact us. Check out more from Don's Future Implications series.
