Don't get fooled by techno-hype
Bob Seidensticker, 48, graduated from MIT in 1980, and spent 25 years in the field of technology, including a stint developing software and products for Microsoft. He quit that job in 1997. He spoke with U.S. News about his new book, Future Hype, a history of technological advancements and how they change the way we live.
What's wrong with new technologies?
The biggest problem is the hidden cost. When you buy a computer, you are not actually buying just the computer—you are purchasing computerization. I just bought a laptop, and I'll probably get rid of it in two years. So, I spend about $500 per year on laptops. But the actual cost of having the laptop is about 10 times that. We often forget the other costs: software, updating software, learning to use the new software, self-support, peer support. We spend about $300 billion per year just for time spent tweaking, adjusting, and learning to use our computers. People once complained they were not getting much of their money back when they sold their used computers and bought a new one. Now, you have to pay to dispose of your old computer.
And yet, most people don't use the computer for much more than word processing, E-mail, and maybe checking the news.
That's one of the challenges for companies like Microsoft and Apple: to try and convince consumers that they need to buy Microsoft Vista or the new Apple operating system. Customers, the smart ones, ask, "Why won't my existing computer do all the things I need it to do?"
That sounds blasphemous coming from a guy who used to work for Bill Gates.
Yes, but at the same time, Microsoft can't just bully and confuse people into buying something because it will be hot and new. They have to produce products that serve needs. Part of the magic is that no one knows what new products will be good for. What was the Internet good for? Initially, just for E-mail. On the back of that simple idea came all the things we use the Internet for today.
Why do people wait in line to buy the latest gadgets?
There are several reasons: companies that only want to present the best elements of their new product so it will sell, natural human myopia, and the press.
Are you blaming U.S. News for the public's often senseless pursuit of the latest widget?
No, no, nothing that nefarious. The press is very good at highlighting what is new in the lab or even in the marketplace. But people should remember that a majority of new products fail. Products that are gleams in someone's eye in the lab are even more likely to fail. We all need to be more skeptical.
Is this an age of unprecedented technology growth?
Technology is changing. But it has been changing for centuries, and we often misperceive that our change is faster than previous periods. For example, in the 40 years that preceded the building of the Empire State Building, the record skyscraper height increased by a factor of 4. In the next 40 years, that factor didn't increase at all. We saw an explosive growth in the field of civic engineering. Then that growth faded into a period of maturity for construction of dams, skyscrapers, and telephone grids. We saw a similar explosion with the Internet, but that too is fading into the background and will be replaced by something else.
It is possible to predict the next big thing?
Humans tend to extrapolate about the future: Today we have televisions, so tomorrow we will have 3-D televisions. Today we have cars; tomorrow we'll have rocket cars. Today we have weather predictions; tomorrow we'll have weather control. Today we have telephones; tomorrow we'll have videophones. That sort of thing.
So the inventor of one cool thing adds a new twist?
We look to IBM to have the next computer innovation. But if you look at the history of technology, the maker of the vacuum tube didn't make the semiconductor. The carriage makers should have made the first automobiles, but they didn't. Today General Motors is not the leader in hybrid cars, despite being the grand old man of American carmakers. It has been said that a scientist has only one good idea in him, because once he has jumped over to the new paradigm, he is part of the new status quo.
Some technologies, like the Internet, seem to have changed almost everything.
We were told in the 1960s that space travel changes everything. In the 1970s, we were told that nuclear power changes everything. Now, we are told that the Internet changes everything. If you look at the most important things that the Internet has given us—E-mail, E-commerce, easy research tools—they are amazing tools. But before E-mail, we had the phone. Before E-commerce, we had mail-order catalogs, which were very revolutionary. If you want a real innovation, the development of catalogs in the 1870s was a big deal. The most important inventions are not always new, and the new ones are not always that important.
Any tips on dealing with new technologies?
•Anticipate the hype, and keep things in perspective by knowing why you are buying.
•Remember that most predictions are wrong and most new products fail.
•Relax, especially older people who hear they need to have new things to keep up. They don't.
•Take charge by getting involved in the debate. I'd like to see people speaking about new government technology policy. If your school decides to spend $1 million on new computers, what are they not spending $1 million on? Music or art classes?