5 ms·

>mobile exploded immediately (in the early nineties) The only people I knew who had cell phones in the early nineties were my rich uncle and Zack Morris.

coldtea 8y ago
That was because of high early adopter price. Not because "huh, why would I want one" given the price being alright.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Ok, so we agree that they didn't explode in the early 90's. Good.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Nope. Mobile phones grew from a few dozens of millions to a billion users throughout the 90s. The started growing around 1991 and never looked back or stalled. In case you forgotten what we're disputing, a grand-grand parent wrote "[VR] It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle" and another replied: "Mobile” was the same until it was just everywhere". To which I replied that no, mobile wasn't "like that" (= a constant hype/disappointment cycle). Mobile started growing fast (exploded) in early nineties and KEPT growing. Like with the iPod (that broke in early 00s and kept growing and growing until it was superseded by smartphones), there were no hype/disappointment cycles with mobile. VR, on the other hand, did have hype/disappointment cycles. In 90-92 VR was touted as the "next big thing", then the craze passed and it disappeared (living only the legacy of having inspired the Lawnmower Man movie), taking 15+ years to re-emerge. Similar, AI was touted as "imminent" in the 70s, only to break down in the 80s (the so-called AI-winter) and it took 20+ years to drive back mainstream tech interest again. Mobile, on the contrary, never stalled once it got going. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_I/mUwsqEnxumk/s1600/wolfram_cellphone.JPG http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_...
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      I think your definition of "early nineties" is off, and that plot doesn't show what you think it does. Let's recap your own statements. You: There was an explosion of mobile phone use in the early nineties. Me: no there wasn't. You: well that's only because the tech was too expensive. Me: glad we agree. You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's. Me: ?
      - coldtea 8y ago
        I think you're confused. Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s. Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going. Just as in the chart. As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later. >You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's. Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today).
        EpicEng 8y ago
        >I think you're confused. Nope >Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s. Never said that >Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going. No, explosion means something along the lines of "a sudden outburst". Anything that plods along slowly cannot be considered an explosion. The slope of your own reference is rather timid until at the later nineties. >As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later. Not the same thing. The tech simply didn't exist. At least, not in a manner which we would deem acceptable. Cell phone tech was fine, but it was simply too expensive. >Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today). It is not "sustained": it begins increasing rapidly in the late 90's! In other words, it "explodes". Let's be honest here; in a response to another person you claimed that the plot showed 1B users, but the Y axis only goes to 300M. I'm not convinced you can even read that thing.

coldtea 8y ago

That was because of high early adopter price. Not because "huh, why would I want one" given the price being alright.

EpicEng 8y ago
Ok, so we agree that they didn't explode in the early 90's. Good.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Nope. Mobile phones grew from a few dozens of millions to a billion users throughout the 90s. The started growing around 1991 and never looked back or stalled. In case you forgotten what we're disputing, a grand-grand parent wrote "[VR] It's a constant hype/disappointment cycle" and another replied: "Mobile” was the same until it was just everywhere". To which I replied that no, mobile wasn't "like that" (= a constant hype/disappointment cycle). Mobile started growing fast (exploded) in early nineties and KEPT growing. Like with the iPod (that broke in early 00s and kept growing and growing until it was superseded by smartphones), there were no hype/disappointment cycles with mobile. VR, on the other hand, did have hype/disappointment cycles. In 90-92 VR was touted as the "next big thing", then the craze passed and it disappeared (living only the legacy of having inspired the Lawnmower Man movie), taking 15+ years to re-emerge. Similar, AI was touted as "imminent" in the 70s, only to break down in the 80s (the so-called AI-winter) and it took 20+ years to drive back mainstream tech interest again. Mobile, on the contrary, never stalled once it got going. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_I/mUwsqEnxumk/s1600/wolfram_cellphone.JPG http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LyjMpXpsnyI/TZWzzCflQiI/AAAAAAAAP_...
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    I think your definition of "early nineties" is off, and that plot doesn't show what you think it does. Let's recap your own statements. You: There was an explosion of mobile phone use in the early nineties. Me: no there wasn't. You: well that's only because the tech was too expensive. Me: glad we agree. You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's. Me: ?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      I think you're confused. Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s. Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going. Just as in the chart. As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later. >You: no I was right the first time, look at this graph which shows an exponential increase in use in the early 2000's. Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today).
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        >I think you're confused. Nope >Explosion in the early 90s != everybody used them in the early 90s. Never said that >Explosion = the industry got traction / was kickstarted and kept on going and going. No, explosion means something along the lines of "a sudden outburst". Anything that plods along slowly cannot be considered an explosion. The slope of your own reference is rather timid until at the later nineties. >As contrasted with VR which in 90-92 there was a huge hype, and it got nowhere, people forgot about it, and it was resurrected 10-15 years later. Not the same thing. The tech simply didn't exist. At least, not in a manner which we would deem acceptable. Cell phone tech was fine, but it was simply too expensive. >Err, the graph starts around 1988 -- and the "increase" is sustained from then until the end of the graph (and probably still today). It is not "sustained": it begins increasing rapidly in the late 90's! In other words, it "explodes". Let's be honest here; in a response to another person you claimed that the plot showed 1B users, but the Y axis only goes to 300M. I'm not convinced you can even read that thing.