Comments on: Five important questions technology can’t answer

By: Anirban

Anirban — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:07:49 +0000

Excellent analysis. I am actually hoping that vinyls make a comeback in a big way

These days audiophiles seem to swear by them.

By: Michael Lavastida

Michael Lavastida — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:48:30 +0000

As to #2, a very astute observation on the redundancy of devices we use everyday. I concur with your analysis and add, at what point do the formats we use everyday become obsolete? For example, if I gave you a laser disk from the 80′s how would you go about playing that format. The same can be said of many deprecated systems/formats, so to sum up my point we not only have redundant hardware but redundant representations of data, redbook (cd) mp3, lossless audio and the plethora of analog formats. Think of how many times you bought essentially the same product with the hopes of higher quality and more portability.

By: Anirban

Anirban — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:27:39 +0000

I feel the same way. You take a nice photograph and everyone wants to know what you did in Photoshop!

By: ankhi

ankhi — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:11:37 +0000

Hi,
liked your post.Very interesting and nice topic to talk about.Man has become so mechanical nowadays.Life has become simply impossible without machines.After i come back home from work i just dont feel like picking up my brush and paint to start of a painting.God damn… softwares are there to solve my purpose

By: Anirban

Anirban — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:07:53 +0000

A very thoughtful post! I agree with you with a few caveats.

There are two related issues here. The first concerns marketing. I agree with you that most advances are incremental and true innovations (technological or otherwise) are few are far between. Companies are constantly striving to come up with products for new revenue streams while trying to ensure current revenue streams do not get disrupted. Therefore, new products with bells-and-whistles, as well as “new and improved” versions of existing products are necessary for any company.

The second issue is that of complexity. Users do not have to adopt new versions if they are fine with what they have, and indeed most bright ideas die natural deaths because they cannot generate adequate revenue. There is a constant conflict between users and marketing with the latter having the job of convincing users they need to adopt the new product to make their lives better.

I would argue that the impetus to adopt new technologies is higher thereby CONTRIBUTING to the shorter “natural” life-cycles for these products (and this has to do with the role of technology). For example pizza vendors are now making “new products” which are essentially pizzas with new added toppings, filled crusts etc. I do not feel the same external pressure (professional or peer)to adopt them as I do new “technologies”.

By: Raja

Raja — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:22:46 +0000

Not really questions for technology, I think.
These are natural cycles of ANY product. If we broaden the window in time, we can find numerous other examples of products getting floated, then being made more advanced, then cosmetic coatings being added repeatedly till a completely new genre of that product arrives. Some products may change at a slower rate than others – and hence escape our attention.

By: Anirban

Anirban — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:38:41 +0000

That is a very well thought out reply. Thanks for reading and posting.

Already the bar is being set with what can be done in 3d with Avataar. I agree that resolution and which fools us into thinking what we are seeing is real is the holy grail. I see this happening in headsets covering the eyes before it comes to stand-alone television sets (only because it is easier to replicate 3d on a smaller scale).

By: Michael Lavastida

Michael Lavastida — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:46:35 +0000

As to #1, I believe television as we know it will undergo a revolutionary change. As for the evolutionary changes that we are now experiencing, I believe the ultimate resolution is that which is not discernible from reality. as to the revolutionary aspect, who is to say vision is the ultimate in resolution. Once we can interface the optic nerve the highest resolution will be that of the highest bandwidth sustainable for that system.
I believe audio has already reached a point of diminishing returns. As a general rule higher resolutions (word lengths) ultimately afford a higher signal to noise ratio. Seeing that our hearing is largely subjective, most of us don’t realize the inevitable decline of our cochlea. Just ask my father who, despite his auditory decline still believe e can discern the difference between sacd and redbook. Ok i’ve ranted enough…full stop.

By: Anirban

Anirban — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:39:35 +0000

It reminds me of a funny urban legend that security companies pay hackers to breach their software so that they can create a market for updates. Thanks for reading.

By: jakyastikpress

jakyastikpress — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:58:14 +0000

I still shave with a one blade razor. I need internet around me to feel secure. I feel there should be no remote control. As far as software is concerned, it’s just always imperfect or, maybe, hackers are more than perfect.