I know the phrase is WSJ's and not Brooks's own, but I take issue with "...the next Industrial Revolution." It's such an overused and seldom-realized promise. I

I know the phrase is WSJ's and not Brooks's own, but I take issue with "...the next Industrial Revolution." It's such an overused and seldom-realized promise. I've heard it said about robotics, about nanotechnology, about quantum computing, about cellular biology, about green tech, and about everything from cold fusion to lukewarm superconductors. Point is, there are any number of potential gamechangers already laying claim to the title. I have little doubt that any of these things, past a certain inflection point, could indeed bring about a new Industrial Revolution. But from an investment standpoint, which one actually has the clearest path to payoff in the shortest window? That's what VCs care about. Most of them aren't in the business of placing general bets on long-term trends. They'd much rather invest in specific companies or technologies that show specifically accelerated promise within a given sector. They don't want to invest in nanotech, for instance; they want to invest in the best company within nanotech, and at the right moment. [For what it's worth, I applaud iRobot and Brooks for being a leading company within the commercialization of robotics, and not just being wild-eyed cheerleaders for the overall field.]