Posted on 11/18/2005 8:13:17 AM PST by Dallas59
"I got this exellent article from 1996 about the future of the internet, and I just had to share. The link is to a Norwegian article, but I have kindly provided a translation for those among you who only speak English. I appologize for the translation on beforehand - it's a hack job. I did it in between stuff at work. On the other hand, the original article isn't exactly Pulitzer Prize material either..."
Computer experts and so-called futurists are increasingly predicting that the Internet will become a dominating presence in our daily lives in the near future, because we will be forced to access it via our home computers. Refuting such false trend-based predictions have now become nessecary, and here we present a counter-hypothesis: The Internet is a flop; that is to say a "fad," which will die out in a few years time.
There are three reasons for this: 1) none of the online enterprises will make money from presenting their services there, 2) private use of the net will be marginal, and 3) the amount of information available on the net will become so enormous that it will cause search problems of frustrating proportions, which will again result in loss of users. Regarding point number two, I would like to adress what several media-gurus are saying. They are saying that by the year 2000, the Internet will be as natural a part of our everyday lives as the PC is today. This erronous supposition comes from failing to consider the differences between PC usage at home and in the office.
The use of computers and PCs in the workplace has revolutionized the professional world, and will continue to do so. This is for the most part a blessing for employees. However, the grave error that futurists and computer-freaks are making is to take the findings and experiences that PC usage in offices has yielded, and apply this to a home environment. Based on this, they are claiming that a similar revolution will occur in people's homes, but such a claim is not theoretically nor practically feasible. At-home PC usage and purchases will probably increase somewhat in the years to come, but I believe we are already nearing a peak. And this peak might be five percent of the population, which means that in other words 95 percent of the population do not use a PC at home (even though many of them may have bought one.) And it is the actually use of PCs that count, not possession. The reason for this is simply that human beings are social creatures, which will eventally tire of communicating with machines in their spare time. Home computing will mostly be used for work and study-related tasks, as well as games and entertainment. And even the volume of this positive usage will be small, in the long run.
It is amazing to behold how futurists and computer experts ignore this fundamental social element in the make-up of mankind. It is easy to see that we humans are made in such a way that we simply do not want to relate to a computer all day, but need to communicate with other living beings. This is especially true for those of us who use PCs at work. Because we do, we do not want to use a machine to communicate with the world around us in our spare time. Nor do we want to do our jobs all alone in our homes, without an environment of friendly co-workers. So-called "telecommuting" will therefore never be very common, but rather an option for the negligable few.
Human beings will always seek out a common social environment, because it is part of those base attitudes and needs with which we are created. These will not change to any greater extent, despite the existance of PCs. When we order tickets or make travel arrangements, we want to talk to a human being, not press keys on a machine. When we rent movies we want to visit the rental shop so that we can make our choices in a visual environment. We want to shop in the pulsating, living enviroment of a store, not sit at home and order our purchases. We cannot make ourselves "talk" to family members or friends on a computer, when we can just as easily call or visit them. We don't want to read newspapers, trade magazines or books by "turning pages" on a computer, but by feeling the paper and the book in our own hands. These things cannot be replaced by "PC-experiences" today, nor will they ever be - thankfully - because such is human nature. In summary: The basic social needs we as humans have are in direct konflict with the use of computing-systems at home, and so will naturally win out in the long run. As for the use of the Internet for information gathering purposes, I think this will die out on its own. We are already being force-fed information, and get what we need from printed media, radio and television.
Today only one percent of the population uses the Internet at home, and I doubt there will ever be more. How a media outlet that 99 percent of Norwegians do not use privately is able to generate so much fuss and attention can only be explained by the fact that the mass-media companies themselves have vested interests in the Internet.
Of course, there is the famous New York Times article from the 1920s ridiculing Dr. Robert Goddard's rocket experiments because rockets couldn't possibly work in the vacuum of space since there is nothing for it to push against.
Lord, what would we do without experts?
"Guitar bands have no future." - Decca record executive who turned down signing a certain band out of Liverpool.
I wonder how Algore envisioned internet use when he invented it.
I don't know, but we sure do know what Bill Clinton envisioned.
read later
Thanks for posting a simple truth which seems to elude even the best and brightest.
More famous predictions:
640 kb ought to be enough for everybody.--Bill Gates
Roger Clemens is in the twilight of his career--Dan Duquette
John Kerry will be a great President--countless moonbats
"The future ain't what it used to be." - Yogi Berra
And computing has become a megaflop.
They had absolutely no clue to why the internet would facilitate this and caused it to become a force in society.
And some other famous predictions:
The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1876
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.