

What We Imagined for 2013 — 10 Years Ago - cyphersanctus
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/01/2013-the-way-we-were/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GearFactor+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Gadget+Lab%29&pid=4197&viewall=true

======
mgkimsal
I used the snoremasters a couple years back - good idea, but I had two
problems with them.

1\. Just one size. They fit _ok_ but not as snug in one ear as I'd wanted.

2\. The whitenoise sound - something 'broke' in one and I was starting to hear
one specific frequency straight through the whitenoise. I don't mean from the
outside - I mean the generator was not random. I can't describe it very well,
but someone else here can probably describe it better.

Were they to be better fitting, and bluetooth or wireless so I could program
them, they'd be great, but for now, $5 earbuds on a whitenoise clock/radio
next to the bed is much more efficient (and I can choose my whitenoise -
snoremaster only had one sound at the time).

For $300+, the snoremaster was simply too expensive and didn't deliver what I
needed, but I have hope people will continue developing this idea.

------
breckinloggins
My general thoughts about tech predictions like these:

1\. Anything involving display technologies is likely to be way off in either
direction (and you have no idea which). In 2003 it was "obvious" that we'd
have mass market flexible displays and e-ink billboards. We aren't there, but
we focused on drastically increased resolution, color, brightness, and touch
parallax distance instead.

2\. Our lifestyles 10 years from $PRESENT aren't likely to look shockingly
different. We'll still go the grocery store, go to parties, complain about in-
laws, and wear blue jeans. The sunglasses-as-contact-lense prediction fails
mostly on this point. It only considers the "wouldn't it be spiffy" aspect of
the technology and ignores the market considerations. People like sunglasses.
Similar for the selective noise-canceling ear plugs: the technology is not the
issue. Convincing the general consumer market to buy and use such a thing is.

3\. This is my personal opinion (and I've stated it before on HN), but as
technology gets more advanced, expect future styles and gadgets to look LESS
futuristic, not more. The iPhone Watch is a perfect example. If anything I
would expect to see more vintage watches with overt technology increasingly
disappearing... first into our pockets, then our eyeglasses, then our
contacts, then ultimately into implantable neural interfaces. The OUTSIDE
world will probably become more... I hate to say this... kitschy. Multi-
material high-precision 3D printing will likely accelerate this. I may have
Google Glasses, but I still want a steampunk pocket watch.

4\. We can be fairly confident that the future will bring a plethora of new
sensors that come standard on our mobile devices. Everything from the existing
cameras, accelerometers, and GPS to (perhaps) software-defined radio
transceivers, ultrasound, terahertz imaging, and other things we can't think
of right now. What I DON'T think we can predict is which sensors will be
mainstream and which will be niche. Nor do I think we can confidently say "at
some point everyone will be carrying a device more powerful than a tricorder".
Again, market forces dominate here.

5\. Speaking of software-defined radio, I expect SDR will be a big thing in
the next decade, but I have no idea what that will mean. Some things, like
cognitive radio and the disappearance of special purpose transceiver chips are
likely, but SDR is the kind of thing that can bring innovations few of us can
predict. There are other "disruptive" technologies like this: nano-
engineering, synthetic biology, metamaterials, 3D printing, quantum computing,
memristors, and so forth. What they will ultimately enable (and which things
we take for granted will be made obsolete) is anyone's guess.

As silly as these future predictions usually are, I'd really like to see Wired
(and other publications) do more "rolling prediction-retrospective-prediction"
formats like this. If we were more disciplined about analyzing our past
predictions and figuring out what went wrong and what went right, maybe we
would get a little more accurate in our predictions. It's also more
entertaining copy than just a new list of predictions every year.

I think, on the whole, we're actually witnessing a slow "maturation" of the
whole future-prediction schtick. As an example, future predictions today seem
far less wonky and out there than, say, predictions of the year 2000 in 1950.
A good example of this can be seen in the 2023 predictions of this article.
They are more reserved and conservative. This line bodes well for us:

"Look, this was a dumb idea, okay? We admit it. You know what you'll wear in
2023 to protect your eyes for the sun? Sunglasses."

~~~
ZenoArrow
I agree with all your points.

The thing that struck me about the article was a willingness to overlook why
the predictions didn't come true (sunglasses example aside), the author seemed
more inclined to ignore why the 2003 predictions didn't come true, and instead
pick the closest approximation and then extended the original prediction even
further.

Perhaps my perception is biased by my recent realisation that I don't want the
type of techno futurism that Wired is selling. I don't want Google Glass, I
don't want flying cars, etc...

Some people are in love with the possibilities of technology regardless of
necessity. I believe technology can enhance our lives, when it fits in with
what society wants. Utilising an analogy, people talk about the mobile phone
as being the remote control for our lives. I can certainly see some similarity
to a TV remote control, but people are spending their lives transfixed by the
remote control instead of being more engaged with the world around them.

I predict we'll see much more rejection of selected technology (i.e. picking
the technology that aligns with our own interests), or to quote a futurist I
heard, we're all a little bit Amish now.

Anyway, apologies for disjointed rant, thank you for your post.

