Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology IT

Has The "Technology Bounceback" Begun? 219

Posted by Hemos from the questions-for-this-age dept.
jg21 writes "Has the 'return of technology' begun, asks this article in the wake of all the coverage of CES both here on Slashdot and elsewhere. But just as it's difficult to gauge how many swallows make a summer, how do you measure a technology bounceback? JDJ's suggestions include indicators from 2004 such as the doubling of Google's share price in just 6 months, the mega-sucess of the iPod, and the success of the Blackberry." Decent article that asks a good question; you'll have to wade through the ads to get to the real text.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has The "Technology Bounceback" Begun? More

Has The "Technology Bounceback" Begun?

Comments Filter:

  • I'm addicted to my Blackberry... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...for me, it's like a Crackberry

    -Reggie Fils-Aime, vp marketing, Nintendo of America, Inc.
    • I'd have thought blackberry was the mega-success rather than the iPod. Maybe not in therms of up-front price but considering the monthly spend on corporate subscriptions for those things, got to be higher than the ongoing sale of tunes etc.
    • > Crackberry

      Worst yogurt flavor ever.

    • I don't measure the technology bounce-back by stock prices or by how certain products are doing. I'm measuring it by how easy/difficult it is for me, as a software developer with several years' experience, to get a good job. By that measure, I saw activity increase markedly a little more than a year ago. That's when it happened. It's over now, and things are evening out--they will (hopefully) never restore to the days of the bubble blow-up, so as long as we keep our expectations reasonable...what more do we

  • Doubling share price in 6 months means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:06AM (#11309162) Homepage
    Anyone who believes so probably thought the dot com boom would last forever........

  • I'm not so sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Urger ( 817972 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:07AM (#11309163) Homepage
    that the "bounceback" is begining. I know many individuals who have no intrest in buying new tech products. They are quite happy with the last generation and see no reason to upgrade yet. Just because there is a new product does not mean that people will buy it.
    • The product buying is different now. Gen X is getting more into gadgets and Gen Y is finially starting to have their own money to buy. The end of Gen X and Gen Y have tech built into their everyday lives. They are more likely to buy things but things that look good and are useful in their everyday lives. Not so much on the novelty items.

      Products that are functional in everyday life and that look good should do pretty well.

    • Re:I'm not so sure.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Siener ( 139990 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:55AM (#11309426) Homepage
      I know many individuals who have no intrest in buying new tech products. They are quite happy with the last generation and see no reason to upgrade yet.

      While this is true for some sectors (look at the failure of 3G mobile phones as an example) there are definitely sectors that are experiencing, or on the verge of experiencing a boom.

      They seem to be mostly multi-media related. E.g. iPod/iTunes and PVRs. The wider public is also (finally) realizing that the internet is about more than just sending emails to grandma and a bit of pr0n surfing every now and again.

      I also think that the time is finally right for integrated entertainment/communication devices for the home market. PVR, VoIP, home theatre, video on demand from the net etc. all in one device, with content sharing to portable devices.

    • DMCA and patents will hold US back (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @09:11AM (#11309516)
      I'm not so sure that the "bounceback" is begining.

      I'm not sure the question is even meaningful. Like all first-world countries, the US will continue to consume new technology at the maximum rate its consumers and corporations can afford, because it is no longer possible to even contemplate living without it.

      The bigger question is whether the US will be creating much of it, rather than merely consuming what the rest of the world delivers. I think that there's every likelihood that it won't be creating anywhere near as much new technology as it used to, simply because in the last few years it has created for itself an utterly stiffling regulatory environment that benefits only lawyers and megacorps, and so breaks the widespread positive feedback that fuels innovation.

      It doesn't look good to me, not for the US nor for the rapidly self-immolating Europe. This century seems to be tipping in favor of the far east.

  • Yes! the bubble is back (Score:5, Funny)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:08AM (#11309167) Homepage
    Quick, let's set up a company where people can order dog-food online. We'll ask Fed-ex to take care of the shipping! IPO here I come!

  • Is it -- (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:08AM (#11309168)

    Is it really "technology bounceback" or a new term for "dotcom bubble reinflation" ??

    Not that it would be a bad thing.

    • Re:Is it -- (Score:3, Informative)

      by glh ( 14273 )
      Is it really "technology bounceback" or a new term for "dotcom bubble reinflation" ??

      Not that it would be a bad thing.

      No doubt, a good reinflation would be a nice breath of fresh air for those of us still in IT. I personally think IT is currently undervalued in many cases and a reinflation is necessary to retain good IT workers. When the economy does bounce back, I think we will see a lot of turnover- ie, IT going to the companies that do offer the good benefits again.

      I entered IT when the bubble was
      • isn't calling employees "resources" part of the problem that leads to the acceptability of the lack of loyalty to staff shown by many short-sighted companies?
        • Wow, you really scream liberal (in the worst sense of the word).

          In a (gasp!) for-profit company, people are hired for a job, so that the company MAKES money off of you.

          A person is expected to do X amount of work for the time worked. Thats a simple hourly schedule, but common on the lower and consultation classes. The upper-level jobs use a money per event accomplished. No matter what you do, you end up making money for the company.

          However, what happens if certain processes end up costing more money than

          • A person is expected to do X amount of work for the time worked. Thats a simple hourly schedule, but common on the lower and consultation classes. The upper-level jobs use a money per event accomplished. No matter what you do, you end up making money for the company. However, what happens if certain processes end up costing more money than they return? The company stops that process. What happens if the person costs more money than they produce? The company stops the job.

            That's not the point. Calling

            • Calling a person a resource dehumanizes them.

              Not really. Resources are valuable. I suggest doing as Dilbert has shown us, and referring to them as 'livestock'. From now on, refer to it as the HL dept. How many HRdroids already refer to it as a 'stampede' when they post a new job?

            • That's not the point. Calling a person a resource dehumanizes them. Of course you aren't going to keep someone around just because they need a paycheck, but that doesn't mean you should axe them the moment it's convenient. They've shown some level of commitment and they know something about your business. The least you can do is give them some warning. In addition, your business may be cyclical. Keeping them around may be cheaper and safer than hiring new people when demand picks up.

              Understand this: Pe

              • There is no loyalty from the company to you.

                And if you're smart, you won't be giving any loyalty to the company in turn. Remember that although YOU are a resource and nothing more where the company is concerned, the COMPANY is nothing more than a resource to YOU. They don't, and never will, deserve anything like loyalty.

                Max
          • It depends on what you mean by loyalty. I don't think that the loyalty these people are talking about is what you took them to mean.

            When I think of employee loyalty, I don't think of the guy who puts in his 40-45 hours of good work and then goes home. This should be expected of each and every worker at every company. When I think of loyalty, I think of the guy who works 60 hours of good work, or more if necessary, because he cares about doing a good job, and he cares that the company is succeeding becau
        • isn't calling employees "resources" part of the problem that leads to the acceptability of the lack of loyalty to staff shown by many short-sighted companies?

          I think a lot of it depends on the company. At the company I *used* to work for, they threw that term around like you weren't a person, but equated you to a piece of machinery that cranked out code and it made you feel low. When I first started hearing the term at the company I am now at, I was worried because of my previous experience- but I noti
    • Yes it would, the dotcom bubble was a period of avarice and stupidity that sucked up a lot of capital and gave back very little, and made it easy for any warm-body to claim IT skills and get hired. These people are now on the street competeing for the job you have. Unless your HR people are very astute, and know the difference between you and the hoards of clueless-wantabees, you and your skills have been commoditized, and your wages and job security will be adjusted accordingly.

  • RE: Answer.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by fshalor ( 133678 ) <fshalor@comca[ ]net ['st.' in gap]> on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:08AM (#11309169) Homepage Journal
    Nah... Not yet. We're just now getting some stuff that the Korean and Japaneese school kiddies have had for the past 5 years.

    Wait 1-3 more years for us to get them fully integrated into our lives.

    I know some people are already there. But I think for the most part, even those of us with these gadgets, using them constantly to their capabilities is not yet within comonplace.

    I mean, I actidenditly forgot my pda somewhere and lasted like 3 days without it. And that was just after a new year res to use the thing more.

    I haven't synched it in like a monthe either. :)

    • Nah... Not yet. We're just now getting some stuff that the Korean and Japaneese school kiddies have had for the past 5 years.

      Wait 1-3 more years for us to get them fully integrated into our lives.
      [snip]
      I mean, I actidenditly forgot my pda somewhere and lasted like 3 days without it. And that was just after a new year res to use the thing more.

      I keep wanting to get an iPod, a PDA and fancy cell phone, but then I add up the cost, and think about how much I'd really use them, and the answer is: not much.

  • How I personally define a "bounceback" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aendeuryu ( 844048 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:10AM (#11309173)
    When the tech industry is starting to offer better products for more reasonable prices, I call that a bounceback.

    By that standard, it's hard to say. The video card industry is looking really good right now, but so far there hasn't been all that much competition to IPod, so that just seems like an entrenchment of a single popular product (and experience suggests this leads to stagnation more than innovation). Plus, Google's stock doubling doesn't really seem to have all that much impact upon technology so much as the world of business. We get the benefits of their technology in their services, sure, but it's not like google is all of a sudden THAT much better than it's been for the past few years.

    Frankly, when it comes to technology, I'd say that software is having the resurgence, not hardware. Open Source solutions are as strong and available as ever, meaning that Microsoft has had to pick up the pace in terms of the innovations it provides (or claims to, anyhow). And how spoiled are we that we can look at a game like Doom3 and be bored?
    • Sony's tape walkman was entrenched as "the" product to get for over a decade but if you compare the look, bulk and sound over the period before CDs they got a lot better. I'd expect such incremental improvements in the iPod to keep just ahead of the pack...
    • but so far there hasn't been all that much competition to IPod,"

      Are you kidding? The store shelves are filled with them. Check out this link [google.com] as well.

    • Yes the "bounceback" clearly has different meanings for different people.

      As for the "Google" share price, this just reflects the doubling of _expectation_ of the profitability (or growth) of Google.

      One thing I certainly don't want to see is the reemergence of the "I can code HTML == I'm a qualified web designer" and the "I can code a for loop in JavaScript == I'm a programmer" types. I hope that managers have learned from their past mistakes and see the difference between qualified people and morons. They
    • The video card industry is looking really good right now, but so far there hasn't been all that much competition to IPod, so that just seems like an entrenchment of a single popular product (and experience suggests this leads to stagnation more than innovation).

      Very true. For example, had there been good competition to the iPod then I would have expected to see better battery life, in-line remote with LCD display and gapless playback come far quicker than it has currently.

      (one's come, but the others hav

  • What I want to know is.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cheezemonkhai ( 638797 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:12AM (#11309181) Homepage
    If there is such a bouncback where are the jobs.

    People want to pay a graduate wage to get a person with a good amount of experiance.

    Some jobs demand a MCSE for things that are not even related to the qualification.

    Others are just plain absurd. eg about 1.5 years ago I saw an add asking for CCNA, MCSE and 5+ years commercial experiance with .NET.

    (The salary was £17-22k per year and .NET hadn't even existed for 5 Years).

    If there is a revolution howabout some jobs.. go on please ;)
    • and .NET hadn't even existed for 5 Years

      At least not in a final and public state... but I bet those Microsoft engineers who built it had that 5+ years at the time... although for £17-22k... good luck drawing them away.

    • Re:What I want to know is.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Heem ( 448667 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:32AM (#11309294) Homepage Journal
      I'm seeing jobs like this in my job search as well here in the US. A great example was one that was a Security Admin requiring a long list of skills, Cisco and Microsoft certs, and paying $12/hour. Yea, 12 bucks an hour. I could likely get that working in Fast Food. Another was a Linux admin, in a "rich" part of my state, where you average WINDOWS admin makes about 70-80k, and they wanted an expereinced Linux admin for 30,000/yr.

      I think the real problem though, is SOMEONE is going to take that job and these companies are going to get away with this crap.

      • I'm seeing jobs like this in my job search as well here in the US. A great example was one that was a Security Admin requiring a long list of skills, Cisco and Microsoft certs, and paying $12/hour. Yea, 12 bucks an hour. I could likely get that working in Fast Food. Another was a Linux admin, in a "rich" part of my state, where you average WINDOWS admin makes about 70-80k, and they wanted an expereinced Linux admin for 30,000/yr.

        I think the real problem though, is SOMEONE is going to take that job and

    • Blame PHBs and HR-droids for that stuff. If you're looking for a job (well, in America, anyway), get a list of companies in your area that have positions that match your qualifications and send them your resume. That's how I got my job.
    • I interviewed with a UK-based software consulting company that was just starting an office in Boston. The cultural differences were striking, and their attempts to hire "only the best talent" here were doomed by their lack of clue.

      1. Everyone in their office was wearing a 3 piece suit. This isn't necessarily a problem by itself, but it tipped me off to their extremely conservative business philosophy. They seemed to stress consistency over innovation.

      2. They gave me a programming test, telling me not t
    • You also have to understand most large corporations have human resources people who have to rubber stamp everything - so the description of the job and the requirements could be totally out of whack with reality.

      Go ahead and put in for it anyway, because they will use the certs and education to make the first cull (so, in your example: if no one can have 5 years of .NET experience - then no one will, unless they are lying), then the resumes will go to the hiring manager who will make further cullings to ge
      • (so, in your example: if no one can have 5 years of .NET experience - then no one will, unless they are lying), then the resumes will go to the hiring manager who will make further cullings to get an interview list. If you are the best candidate, you will get an interview.

        Your faith in the process is impressive. I would personally assume that a few of the applicants would just lie, they'd get interviews, all the honest people would go into the circular file, and a lying weasel would then get hired to mak
        • I am not saying I have faith in the process (I assume you mean to bring the right candidates to the fore) - what I am saying is that is the process - good, bad, or indifferent.

          As for the lying weasles: that is exactly what happens in many cases - to the eventual regret of the hiring manager and everyone who works with said weasel. This is particularly true if the hiring manager does not have a clue as to what the position actually requires (skills, knowledge, experience - wise). This is also why a recomm

  • Employment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edack ( 152979 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:15AM (#11309188) Homepage Journal
    Rather than "must have gadgets", how about gaugeing a technology recovery by numbers of unemployed/underemployed technology workers?
    • And steam engine engineers! Don't forget us, it's been a bitch of a market lately!
    • This article [azcentral.com] at azcentral.com reports on a hiring trend here in the Phoenix area that began last summer and is picking up. Some relevant quotes:
      • "...General Dynamics C4 Systems, the Scottsdale-based division of defense giant General Dynamics Corp., will hold a job fair Saturday to fill nearly 300 engineering and program manager jobs. A similar job fair in October drew hundreds of job seekers and resulted in 30 new hires. General Dynamics has won billions of dollars of new contracts in the past two years.

  • That's not an article. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by akadruid ( 606405 ) <slashdot@thedruid.c o . uk> on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:18AM (#11309200) Homepage
    TFA just says 'Is the dot-com boom back? We've published several technology stories this week, here are links to them'.

    I might get into journalism, has to be easier than working for a living.

  • IT (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Konster ( 252488 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:20AM (#11309214)
    The IT "bounceback" will be a real bounceback when hiring takes place in earnest...on our own shores.

    And equating Google's share price with an IT "bounceback" leads me to believe that the bursting of the bubble taught some people nothing.

  • The bounceback overlords (Score:4, Interesting)

    by liangzai ( 837960 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:27AM (#11309257) Homepage
    If people have money, they buy toys. Technology these days are mostly about toys. So, if the economy booms, people spend more, and companies sell more. What they sell goes in cycles. Currently, people have already bought a lot of computers, so this niche will rest for another year or two before there will be new, strong demand (caveat below). Cell phones are being switched more often, due to their lesser price and bundling with subscriptions, and also because there are more features coming out with new phones, 3G and camera phones being the latest. This is already a full-paced market.

    Video cameras and digital cameras also enjoy a more constant demand, and the same goes for mp4 players. iPod will continue to sell well, and there are currently no competitors worth mentioning. As a side effect, there might be an increased demand for Apple branded computers, especially if they sell a basic cheapo-Mac with a small or no margin of profit. This _will_ cut into the Wintel monopoly, because of the iPod.

    However, there are no other spin-offs due to the iPod. When the Web was unleashed, there was an ever increasing demand for content, and a whole array of side technologies arose. This market is now satisified, and can only grow at a moderate rate.

    So, people will buy an iPod. They will love it. They will love the Mac with Mac OS X and the simplicity, usefulness and ease of use it has, saying bye-bye to Kansas (viruses, spy-ware, malfunction). They will discover iMovie and iPhoto, and they might consider buying digital cameras or video recorders. They will embrace the digital life-style offered by Apple, shunning the Microsoft version in progress. Vengeance is in progress.

    This is bad news for Apple bashers, but good news for the rest of us.

    • Re:The bounceback overlords (Score:4, Insightful)

      by a_nonamiss ( 743253 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @09:16AM (#11309567)
      I am by no means an Apple basher. I did not like Apple until years ago when I worked in a computer store that sold both Macs and x86 PC's. I saw that there were a distinct group of people whose copmuter usage habits dictate that they would be better off with a Mac. While I would personally not prefer a Mac, I grew to respect what they had to offer.

      That being said, I think that your post is biased and short-sighted. The Mac platform is not for everyone. While Apple has arguably done more for the computer industry as a whole than any other single company, the fact remains that they are not going to take over a majority of the PC market with their current model. I know it's theit corporate philosophy that they want to be in charge of everything that goes into a Mac (the OS, the software, the add-ins, upgrades, etc.) to maintain quality control over the whole process, but that philosophy doesn't work in our capitalist system. Since they are the pretty much only company that says what goes into a Mac, (I know there are exceptions to this) they don't have as much incentive to decrease prices. Their only motivating factor is making enough profit to keep the company afloat. (which they can do by keeping a small market share and inflating their prices to make a large profit on each unit sold) They will continue to come out with revolutionary products (iMac, iPod, Firewire, etc.) which other companies will eventually copy and bring over to the PC side for half the price. I do not believe that Apple will ever have a majority user base in the PC industry again. The iPod has helped sales, but it's not going to get people to give up their cheaply made PC's.
      • I know it's theit corporate philosophy that they want to be in charge of everything that goes into a Mac (the OS, the software, the add-ins, upgrades, etc.) to maintain quality control over the whole process, but that philosophy doesn't work in our capitalist system.

        I really don't see this as any different than the pair of Dell and Microsoft who decides what goes into a Dell. They seem healthy enough.

        Yes Dell charges a bare-bones price while Apple tries to maintain margins. But that is also because Del

  • Predictions... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MSDos-486 ( 779223 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:28AM (#11309263)
    According to my Cisco teacher the tech industry experiences and up and down pattern about every ten years. First there was PC, and then the Dot Com bubble each followed by a period of less investment but public confidence in the technology. I predict there will be another boom in high tech possibly in Free/Open software. Which will (like the PC and Web boom before them) create a public confidence in Open Source even if investment drops. So you will lose the battle but win the war.

  • Article Text without ads (Score:3, Informative)

    by peterprior ( 319967 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:29AM (#11309273)
    I find the 'printer friendly' version to be far more readable [sys-con.com]. :)

  • Well... (Score:4, Funny)

    by segfault7375 ( 135849 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:32AM (#11309295)
    ...But just as it's difficult to gauge how many swallows make a summer...

    Well, it depends, are we talking about African or European swallows? :)

  • It funny how everyone talks as if it all ended.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Emperor Shaddam IV ( 199709 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:34AM (#11309307) Journal
    Its funny how everyone talks of the dot-com crash as if the entire industry was almost wiped-out. It was just a correction, an economic cycle. I mean, I'm showing my age here, but I remember a time when I had to get online with a 300-baud modem, and only about 10 people besides myself had a computer at my entire high-school. And we all new each other. Technology never went away. Its so far ingrained into everyone's life now. The Dotcoms may have gone bust, but I can buy a 50 dollar DVD player now thats better than the 300 dollar one I got in 2000. The internet and telecom is not technology, just a subset of it. I wish people would remember that fact, and not base the entire tech sector on just a few areas.
    • "The internet and telecom is not technology, just a subset of it. I wish people would remember that fact, and not base the entire tech sector on just a few areas."

      Actually, you're wrong. We don't build any of the electronic gadgetry you see sitting on the shelves of Best Buy. We don't even design most of it anymore. This is all done in various parts of Asia. Software and telecom are all that's left in the USA. Therefore, software and telecom are what defined the tech bubble for us. If you want to say
      • I guess the F-117 Raptor was built by a telecom company? And the M-1 tank was built in the Philippines? And Intel didn't design any of its CPU's using American Engineers? Apple designed the Mac's in Thailand?

        Maybe most of it isn't "Assembled" here. But there are still a lot of things designed in the US.

        A lot of pure research is still done in the US and Europe: http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/Informationen/a ccelerator_list.html

  • Looking better (Score:5, Informative)

    by rikkards ( 98006 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:38AM (#11309332) Journal
    My contract ended Dec 31 and I have been looking for a job ever since. I can say it looks better than it did last year this time.
    • So, in total for 2003 I had part of one month of employment. PART OF ONE MONTH.

      So far it's looking better, I've worked 4 months in 2004, and this is my first month of 2005. I expect to find another slot, tho, megacorp lifestyle is not for me. Here's to sticking things out, and nose to the grindstone.

      • So far it's looking better, I've worked 4 months in 2004, and this is my first month of 2005. I expect to find another slot, tho, megacorp lifestyle is not for me. Here's to sticking things out, and nose to the grindstone.

        Hey, Vail [vail.com] is hiring. Sure, the pay sucks, but you can Ski and network all the damn time.

  • Didn't RIM just lose their lawsuit and are now prevented from selling any more Blackberry products in the U.S.?

  • "Return of Technology" underestimates continuity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:50AM (#11309400)
    Technology never went away, even if there was a reduction in investment and a slowdown in markets. The reason is very simple: civilization is now so deep into technological dependency that it is quite impossible for the first world to function without its modern accoutrements. That makes any apparent breaks or slowdowns in the march of technology merely temporary and largely illusory anyway --- engineers and scientists continue doing their thing regardless of investor indifference. In adverse economic conditions, their efforts come to life in products later rather than sooner, that's all.

    Technological progress has something equivalent to inertia, in that it resists any attempt to stop or even slow it down. In part this is because insight and innovation occurs more in the head than in the lab, and budget cutbacks never stopped anyone thinking. On top of that, science and technology is subject to positive feedback and exponential growth not just in scale but in number of dimensions as well, so it's no surprise that technology sees almost no slowdown regardless of the lack of helpful but non-critical investment.

  • No bounce back here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @08:57AM (#11309431) Homepage
    I'm an early adopter and I don't see anything I'm going to buy. My next computer purchase might be one of the $500 apples if they can get me one before I read a sucky review (like review of a cheap video chip in the new imacs). I don't need any more disk space. I'll buy a gig sd card when they are below $70 and not before since I've never used most of my current sd memory or my usb memory stick but having a gig of tiny memory would be cool for some stilly reason.

    I don't need another mp3 player. In fact I've given away at least two and the ones around the house never get used. (but I'm going to hack one for underwater use if I can get the oregon sci replacement headsets).

    So Mr toy makers... impress me or you won't see my money. Get me a postscript color laser printer for $200 or get me a 7 inch LCD touch screen that will work in a midwest summer in a car. I don't need fancy software unless its real cool and I'm not into security snake oil. I would by security dongles if you provided open source source code to talk to the thing but I'm installing your binaries on my box. I don't need bigger hard drives since I've got nearly .55tb I can't use right now (thanks sun!). Maybe I'm getting to old for the toys but I haven't seen anything real impressive in a while.

  • We're still far from "the top" and IT must grow. "The bubble" had to burst, it was just too fast. It was a spike on a slowly growing curve, and the spike's drop seems to have ended. Now is era of growth and flourishing, at slow, ballanced pace.
    Of course it will end some day. In 30-50 years. Just like era of Steam got replaced by era of Electricity, which got replaced by era of Information. I predict the next era will be of biotechnology. But no worries - just as basic electric engines still get developed an
    • I predict the next era will be of biotechnology
      So do I... just not what you think.

      If by "Biotechnology" you mean "having to drive around in a horse-drawn buggy because all the oil is gone" then you're right on the money.

      The Amish are going to have the last laugh.

  • Measurement here (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm at the #1 company that provides precision A/C units for mainframes. In the mid 90's we made about 150 deluxe units a week. Sales climbed with the bubble over a period of years. We were making 550 units per week by the time the bubble burst. Sales dropped to a tenth of that when the bubble burst. The 'new' people on the shop floor have now been there for 7 years. We are now staffed for 150 again and waiting for the bounceback.
  • Its the dot.com boom all over again here in Bangalore.
  • I don't generally consider my sex life to have anything to do with the start or end of seasons.

    Ok, maybe the end...
  • GOOG is fueled by hype, and a GMail system that is STILL in beta. Institutional investors would rarely put GOOG as part of their list of stocks, even though GOOG's initial share price is indeed targetting thouse. The iPod is not exactly the same because it's more of a portable music device such as a walkman or discman. The Blackberry is more an ugly cell phone but with hormone-enhanced SMS. Returning of technology? THAT should be judged by technology spending at the corporate level, not a couple consumer ga
  • Claiming the bounceback of IT based on the success of a few gadgets and the stock price of Google seem a bit exagerated. What about spending in network infrastructure and large-scale ERP deployement ? That's what IT is as far as I am concerned.
  • JDJ's suggestions include indicators from 2004 such as the doubling of Google's share price in just

    Was this guy in a cave during the dot bomb? I would see this a very scary flashback, not a sign of industry health.

  • 2005 is the year of Rune Radionics (Score:4, Funny)

    by djplurvert ( 737910 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @10:33AM (#11310173)
    I don't know about the past, but with exciting new technology like the Rune Radionics [runeradionics.com] leading the way I'm QUITE sure the bounceback will be here soon.
  • My theory has been that a lot of busniness plans were based on a certain number of people "jumping on the bandwagon" and failed becuase there weren't that many people on line.

    The number of people online has grown a lot, and now some of those business plans might profit, so I predict that there will be another boom and it might be as good for the kind of people who read slashdot as the last one.

    M@

  • Stock speculation and toys bad indicators (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @11:37AM (#11310706)
    It's hard to see a single company's stock price validate a recovery of an entire economic sector; Google's a unique company and many people may see such a "brain trust" as valuable simply because there may be much that comes out of it.

    As for iPods and Blackberry? iPods are consumer electronics and have little business relevance -- big-screen TVs have been doing well for over a year now (LCD RP, DLP, and more recently ED plasma) and no one thinks of that as an economic recovery checklist entry, just the portion of the economy that has done well buying toys (and perhaps those that haven't done well commiting credit suicide).

    Blackberry isn't a terribly expensive complex technology to roll out until you get to multi-server enterprise levels and can be done with home ISPs. It's also a major upper management status toy, and since when has the technology downturn denied that particular economic segment anything?

    I'll believe a technology turnaround when *hiring* becomes more common, *salaries* start to get a boost, and business start investing in large, long-term IT projects. Up 'till now it's been small projects and keep-your-head-above-water stuff to prevent total obsolecense, not big-spending projects.
    • I'll believe a technology turnaround when *hiring* becomes more common, *salaries* start to get a boost, and business start investing in large, long-term IT projects.

      That pretty much sums the situation up in a single sentence. Excellent.

      And, this is really funny:

      It's also a major upper management status toy, and since when has the technology downturn denied that particular economic segment anything?

  • Shedding water. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Monday January 10, 2005 @11:53AM (#11310842)
    My father once told me that the world was waiting for the next watershed technological leap and that it had been for some time. People in high places were biting their fingernails. We were overdue.

    I said, "A water shed? Like an outhouse?"

    He said, "No. A Watershed is a geographic term. It's a high point. Something which defines the terrain and the river systems. The flow of water."

    Ah. . . The flow of life energy. Gotcha. Powerful term. Didn't say that, though. He continued. . .

    "The Steam Engine was a watershed mark. So was the Printing Press. Telephones. You understand? The world is waiting for the next big one, and nobody knows what it will be."

    "Any ideas," I asked.

    He shook his head. "I don't know. I think it might have something to do with digital switching." (My pop worked at Nortel) "We've made some spectacular advances in the last few years. It's possible to do things now with the switches we make that you simply couldn't have imagined only a few years ago. None of that potential has been tapped yet. But I don't know. Telephones are old news."

    We had this conversation before there was an internet. --We had modems and BBS's, but the internet hadn't breached the shell of public awareness. GUI web browsers and email were the big steps I think. They were the watershed. There would have been no tech bubble without email and GUI web browsers. Netscape and Eudora and similar were the tips of the iceberg. Tips of the rising watershed.

    The bubble itself was then all about hype and over-excitement. --Justifiable over-excitement, (if that makes any sense). After all, the web did change the world, and it did make some people very, very wealthy. Amazon.com is finally the giant everybody suspected it would become. It didn't happen over-night, and people were anxious and stupid about it, but it certainly happened.

    Watersheds only come about once in a long while, and not often in the same medium. Star Wars introduced high-tech production values never before seen. It re-defined the way movies were made. Spielberg understood this and tried to push the same kind of hype around Jurasic Park, using extensive CG animation and touting that as the next big step. His so-so film just happened to ride the coat tails, and he knew it. --Annoyingly enough, his plan sort of worked. CG animation certainly wasn't his invention, but he did bring it to the spotlight.

    But in computer IT? What's the next big thing? What's going to make everybody go hoola-hoop rubic's-cabbage-patch again?

    Well, first you need unformed power, like the advanced digital switches my father worked on at Nortel, which have massive potential but no application. Then you need somebody to come along and define that power.

    So what's out there in tech land? Heck if I know. I'm not a technologist. This wireless bullshit is interesting, (and rather threatening, I think), but just a small step. People already understand that technology. It's not new. It's not unimaginable, like the simple graphic web page would have been twenty years ago. We've had walkie-talkies for ages now.

    So what will it be?


    -FL

    • It struck me that all the big advances in the last couple of centuries, watershed technologies, were all about communication, and that they have all slid up a notch in terms of. . . Hm. How do I put this. . ?

      That is. . , after the advent of industrial manufacturing, automatic weapons, air travel, all the big watersheds seem to have slipped into a higher frequency realm.

      Even the Steam Engine was a form of communication, and so was the airplane. They simply operated on a lower vibrational frequency. The
    • tips of the mixed goddamn metaphors more like.

      Just say it straight, please, although I know that is too much to ask of you.
  • OMG! An MP3 player! Underwater! And its Orange!

    That's not innovation, that's stapling random features onto existing products. Without basic R&D, which too many companies have abandoned in order to get improved stock prices, there can be no new products and technologies.

    The economy will have to get much worse before companies have no choice but to invest in basic R&D. Those that do will recover first, and the stock market will start rewarding them for their "long term view".

    Yes, we've be

  • No (Score:2)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 )
    GOOG is a good example of things not changing. Just look at the money Brin is making off you suckers:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GOOG [yahoo.com]
  • The JDJ page is mostly previous articles except for the CES coverage...we have even discussed some of it already here on /.
    I for one would welcome our overdue rebound in the tech industries but I am going to have to hear of it from a source that doesn't make its money from ad revenue based on publishing technology news to a technical audience.
    I will really see a rally when the VC's crack open their purses to pursue opportunities that they can see. A recuiter showed me a list of 6 startups that are hiring

  • Bounceback, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MerryGoByeBye ( 447358 )
    Didn't /. just post an article like a month ago about how the IT sector unemployment rate is actually higher than the national average? Aren't we in the middle of the biggest outsourcing orgy in history? Isn't there disaster brewing on both sides of the pond with the software patent quibbles?

    Saying that Google's shareprice is the bellwether for the health of an entire economic sector is like a doctor saying you don't have cancer cuz your head's not warm.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close