You requested my thoughts here in a different comment :) > The caveats were that 1 - you needed specialized research hardware that basically nobody had and 2 -

You requested my thoughts here in a different comment :) > The caveats were that 1 - you needed specialized research hardware that basically nobody had and 2 - people didn’t understand how revolutionary computers were.* Even in the late 80s the general consensus was that personal computers would be just used by specialists because “no executive can type, or would want to” I agree with this completely. The teleconferencing, for example, required a big string of trucks with equipment to transmit the signal IIRC. An incredible tech demo but not even close to something that could be productized. > Not because I’m jaded, but because nothing appears to have come back through a time machine any more. Perhaps because computing went mainstream and then the constraints appeared? I think another way to frame this is that early computers offered a clear paradigm shift, the shift happened, and now everything on the near horizon is within that paradigm. This true even for some of the more exciting projects like Bret Victor's dynamicland (I'm not sure it will actually go anywhere, but I'm happy to see someone carrying the torch of the multimedia dreams that died in the 90s). Personally, I think biotech has the best potential for the next "it's the future!" style revolution.