You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
A <strong>lost</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>new</strong> <strong>technology</strong>? <strong>Look</strong> <strong>beyond</strong> <strong>2013's</strong> <strong>gadgets</strong><br />
Pundits who claim that 2013 was a bad <strong>year</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>technology</strong> are wrong to focus on the shiny stuff<br />
Writing in Quartz, an admirable sister publication of the Atlantic magazine, the other day, the experienced <strong>technology</strong><br />
watcher Christopher Mims struck a gloomy note. Under the headline "2013 was a <strong>lost</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>for</strong> tech", he lamented that "all<br />
in, 2013 was an embarrassment <strong>for</strong> the entire tech industry and the engine that powers it – Silicon Valley. Innovation was<br />
replaced by financial engineering, mergers and acquisitions, and evasion of regulations. Not a single breakthrough<br />
product was unveiled."<br />
Warming to his gloomy theme, Mims argued that: innovations in smartphones had stalled ("2013 was the <strong>year</strong><br />
smartphones became commodities, just like the PCs they supplanted"); "smart watches were easily the biggest letdown of<br />
the <strong>year</strong>"; "<strong>for</strong>mer giants" [ie Microsoft, Intel and Blackberry] had continued their "inglorious decline"; "mergers and<br />
acquisitions had replaced innovation"; social media became "profitable if not compelling"; mainstream media's appetite<br />
<strong>for</strong> sensational stories made them vulnerable to "techno-hype" about stuff such as Bit coin; and of course the NSA<br />
revelations cast a chilly spell over all things technological.<br />
As an end-of-<strong>year</strong> retrospective piece, Mims's essay was perfectly workmanlike. After all, a glass can be half empty or half<br />
full, depending on what point of view one wishes to uphold. But it had a predictably annoying impact on people in Silicon<br />
Valley, who tend to think of Palo Alto as the centre of the known universe. One complainant was Om Malik, who is at least<br />
as experienced a tech watcher as Mims. "Dear Quartz," he wrote, "maybe it's Quartz that needs <strong>new</strong> glasses and a map.<br />
2013 was not a <strong>lost</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>for</strong> tech."<br />
The essence of Malik's argument is that it all depends what you mean by "<strong>technology</strong>". If you mean the flashy, consumer<br />
product stuff, then Mims's dismissive view of 2013 may indeed be valid (though Malik disagrees with him about the<br />
iPhone 5s, citing its M7 chip as a development with major disruptive capabilities). But if you think of "<strong>technology</strong>" as the<br />
deep structure that eventually enables all kinds of disruptive developments, then it's meaningless to talk about stops and<br />
starts in innovation because the really big stuff is also on a slow burn. Even in a fast-moving industry such as computing, it<br />
can sometimes take 25 <strong>year</strong>s be<strong>for</strong>e a major technological breakthrough starts to show results in terms of products,<br />
services and major industrial disruption.<br />
As an example, Malik cites Amazon's launch of Amazon Web Services (itscloud computing operation) in 2006. Back then,<br />
he writes, "there weren't very many of us who had an idea that it would one day become the key component of an<br />
economic engine that would jump-start entrepreneurial activity across the planet. No one thought that [cloud computing]<br />
was sexy. Today, if you ask Dropbox CEO Drew Houston, he will have a few billion reasons to think of AWS as the greatest<br />
thing since sliced bread. Yeah, that joke of a service will soon be a multibillion dollar business that has put everyone from<br />
Oracle, Dell and HP on thin ice."<br />
I'm with Malik on this. Cloud computing is a good illustration of why much media commentary about – and public<br />
perceptions of – in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>technology</strong> tends to miss the point. By focusing on tangible things – smartphones, tablets,<br />
Google Glass, embedded sensors, wearable devices, social networking services, and so on – it portrays <strong>technology</strong> as<br />
gadgetry, much as earlier generations misrepresented (and misunderstood) the significance of solid state electronics by<br />
calling portable radios "transistors".<br />
What matters, in other words, is not the gadget but the underlying <strong>technology</strong> that makes it possible. Cloud computing is<br />
what turns the tables and the smartphone into viable devices. And underpinning cloud computing and most of the shiny<br />
stuff we take <strong>for</strong> granted – from the web to Skype to Facebook to the iTunes Store to eBay to Amazon to Google – is the<br />
good ol' internet, which was created in the 1960s and 70s with public money and no expectation of profit. Without the net,<br />
none of what we take <strong>for</strong> granted today would have been possible. And yet when the net first appeared, almost nobody<br />
understood its significance – and one of Mr. Mims's predecessors might have been complaining in December 1983 (11<br />
months after the network had been switched on <strong>for</strong> public use) that it had been "a <strong>lost</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>for</strong> tech". Plus ca change!