4 ms·

I find it interesting that as recent as 25 years ago they were still suggesting that we would used advanced technology to print off a newspaper instead of read

by robryan 14y ago

I find it interesting that as recent as 25 years ago they were still suggesting that we would used advanced technology to print off a newspaper instead of read it off a screen. A lot of even older future predictions contained the same thing. It must not have been until the web come along and got widespread adoption that people got it.

tolmasky 14y ago
Not that surprising, after all most the newspaper agencies still don't get it.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
It comes of people stopping too soon when asking "why?" From the perspective of 1988 it would seem relatively unreasonable to read an entire newspaper on a monitor. And one might easily imagine a future where the contents of a newspaper could be available digitally without re-examining that conclusion. A monitor then was low-resolution, had poor color reproduction, was stationary and heavy (being CRT based), and was an expensive shared family resource. Of course today displays can be cheap, lightweight, thin, portable, and high resolution, so some of the advantages of print fade away. It's funny, in 1988 Star Trek: The Next Generation was running, and they had handheld and tablet computers, but few people in 1988 thought we would have such things in a mere 25 years instead of in the far future.
- thwarted 14y ago
  Or maybe we have those things a mere 25 years in the future because of the vision that science-fiction of the time presented.
- vl 14y ago
  It's also interesting that we finally got (reasonably large and reasonably affordable) displays that display text with true print quality less than a year ago.
- wildgift 14y ago
  Really? I remember that luggable computers became laptop computers around then, and people were predicting even smaller laptops with touchscreens because Alan Kay described such a thing called the Dynabook. The Radio Shack Tandy TRS-80 model 100 came out in 1984, and it dominated the tiny-laptop market for some years.
- rmc 14y ago
  Star trek missed somethings with thus tablet/pads. Each one seemed to only store 1 books worth of content. You can sometimes see people in the show using or handling a dozen tablets/pads. They seemed to miss that storage size would increase a lot.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    If you could have unlimited free iPads, maybe you'd do the same thing. It's a more intuitive UI paradigm than switching apps!
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      But there is a cost -- the characters would often have trouble carrying so many pads (or that many pads + a cup of coffee, thanks Janeway).
      - philwelch 14y ago
        Each padd is just as capable, people can just choose to use more than one at a time.
    - rmc 14y ago
      You're pressuming the only cost is the price of the iPad. What about the luggage space each one takes up? What about the extra weight you have to carry? What about the mental processing of trying to remember what book/film/app/etc. is on which iPad? Why take 10 iPads on holidays when you can just take one?
  - digisign 14y ago
    I thought they were all linked to lcars.
patrickk 14y ago
Seems to make sense to bet on ephemeralization. "In 1938 Buckminster Fuller coined the term ephemeralization to describe the increasing tendency of physical machinery to be replaced by what we would now call software. The reason tablets are going to take over the world is not (just) that Steve Jobs and Co are industrial design wizards, but because they have this force behind them. The iPhone and the iPad have effectively drilled a hole that will allow ephemeralization to flow into a lot of new areas. No one who has studied the history of technology would want to underestimate the power of that force." http://www.paulgraham.com/tablets.html http://www.paulgraham.com/tablets.html
mikecane 14y ago
>>>I find it interesting that as recent as 25 years ago they were still suggesting that we would used advanced technology to print off a newspaper instead of read it off a screen. Twenty-five years ago, most screens were crap. And we're talking about reading here, which is done in a lean back manner.

by robryan 14y ago

tolmasky 14y ago

Not that surprising, after all most the newspaper agencies still don't get it.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

It comes of people stopping too soon when asking "why?" From the perspective of 1988 it would seem relatively unreasonable to read an entire newspaper on a monitor. And one might easily imagine a future where the contents of a newspaper could be available digitally without re-examining that conclusion. A monitor then was low-resolution, had poor color reproduction, was stationary and heavy (being CRT based), and was an expensive shared family resource. Of course today displays can be cheap, lightweight, thin, portable, and high resolution, so some of the advantages of print fade away. It's funny, in 1988 Star Trek: The Next Generation was running, and they had handheld and tablet computers, but few people in 1988 thought we would have such things in a mere 25 years instead of in the far future.

thwarted 14y ago
Or maybe we have those things a mere 25 years in the future because of the vision that science-fiction of the time presented.
vl 14y ago
It's also interesting that we finally got (reasonably large and reasonably affordable) displays that display text with true print quality less than a year ago.
wildgift 14y ago
Really? I remember that luggable computers became laptop computers around then, and people were predicting even smaller laptops with touchscreens because Alan Kay described such a thing called the Dynabook. The Radio Shack Tandy TRS-80 model 100 came out in 1984, and it dominated the tiny-laptop market for some years.
rmc 14y ago
Star trek missed somethings with thus tablet/pads. Each one seemed to only store 1 books worth of content. You can sometimes see people in the show using or handling a dozen tablets/pads. They seemed to miss that storage size would increase a lot.
- philwelch 14y ago
  If you could have unlimited free iPads, maybe you'd do the same thing. It's a more intuitive UI paradigm than switching apps!
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    But there is a cost -- the characters would often have trouble carrying so many pads (or that many pads + a cup of coffee, thanks Janeway).
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Each padd is just as capable, people can just choose to use more than one at a time.
  - rmc 14y ago
    You're pressuming the only cost is the price of the iPad. What about the luggage space each one takes up? What about the extra weight you have to carry? What about the mental processing of trying to remember what book/film/app/etc. is on which iPad? Why take 10 iPads on holidays when you can just take one?
- digisign 14y ago
  I thought they were all linked to lcars.

patrickk 14y ago

Seems to make sense to bet on ephemeralization. "In 1938 Buckminster Fuller coined the term ephemeralization to describe the increasing tendency of physical machinery to be replaced by what we would now call software. The reason tablets are going to take over the world is not (just) that Steve Jobs and Co are industrial design wizards, but because they have this force behind them. The iPhone and the iPad have effectively drilled a hole that will allow ephemeralization to flow into a lot of new areas. No one who has studied the history of technology would want to underestimate the power of that force." http://www.paulgraham.com/tablets.html http://www.paulgraham.com/tablets.html

mikecane 14y ago

>>>I find it interesting that as recent as 25 years ago they were still suggesting that we would used advanced technology to print off a newspaper instead of read it off a screen. Twenty-five years ago, most screens were crap. And we're talking about reading here, which is done in a lean back manner.