Ray didn't expect his predictions to be as accurate as they were. When he made them they weren't obvious to everyone, now they are. They have plenty of substance and are accurate enough to be useful. GPS or genius playlists as intelligent assistants is not broadening it out, it's the change in jargon, the way things would be branded and viewed that he got wrong. People don't call voice commands AI, but he did.
He expected a social backlash to the march of technology, like the anti-facebook groups and then violent sabotage. He expected it to slow things down, but ultimately technology is irresistible. That's not a statement by a person who cares about the details of his predictions.
This whole prediction accuracy threw my point off topic. The point is startup ideas are just as interesting as Ray's predictions about the future. The number of people a company's idea impresses doesn't predict success of that particular company.
The bigger factor is probably the type of people the startup world attracts, the reorganization. They don't think like the people in larger corporations, they're more motivated, addicted to stress, whatever. The ideas they have aren't more amazing than the ideas in big corporate R&D departments, the difference is now the projects are tested out before getting cancelled by people who saw them only in a spreadsheet.
So VCs don't care about ideas, like they don't care about general predictions. They're mostly investing in small companies, not setting up trading strategies. In the current world where VCs invest in particular companies of people, not ideas, it makes more sense to invest in companies that are somewhat functional.
Even if their idea seems dumb or has to change, competent people will make something work. People that bet it all on an idea aren't flexible, aren't a wise investment. That's why investors prefer simple, practical ideas when nothing is built yet. More depends on the people than the idea and a fast to build idea lets people show their important skills, like salesmanship.
----
As far as "safe" stock market predictions, that's your interpretation since you're interested in money centered economics. His "safe" prediction is that money would change step by step, become obsolete sometime this century. The fancy financial instruments made by quants which screwed up the stock market fit right into that "safe" prediction. It's safe because money is a bad measurement system and as we get more information we'll be able to measure better.
He expected a social backlash to the march of technology, like the anti-facebook groups and then violent sabotage. He expected it to slow things down, but ultimately technology is irresistible. That's not a statement by a person who cares about the details of his predictions.
This whole prediction accuracy threw my point off topic. The point is startup ideas are just as interesting as Ray's predictions about the future. The number of people a company's idea impresses doesn't predict success of that particular company.
The bigger factor is probably the type of people the startup world attracts, the reorganization. They don't think like the people in larger corporations, they're more motivated, addicted to stress, whatever. The ideas they have aren't more amazing than the ideas in big corporate R&D departments, the difference is now the projects are tested out before getting cancelled by people who saw them only in a spreadsheet.
So VCs don't care about ideas, like they don't care about general predictions. They're mostly investing in small companies, not setting up trading strategies. In the current world where VCs invest in particular companies of people, not ideas, it makes more sense to invest in companies that are somewhat functional.
Even if their idea seems dumb or has to change, competent people will make something work. People that bet it all on an idea aren't flexible, aren't a wise investment. That's why investors prefer simple, practical ideas when nothing is built yet. More depends on the people than the idea and a fast to build idea lets people show their important skills, like salesmanship.
---- As far as "safe" stock market predictions, that's your interpretation since you're interested in money centered economics. His "safe" prediction is that money would change step by step, become obsolete sometime this century. The fancy financial instruments made by quants which screwed up the stock market fit right into that "safe" prediction. It's safe because money is a bad measurement system and as we get more information we'll be able to measure better.