Sigh. Why do they pit e-readers against tablets all the time. They're not in the same game. Tablets are multi-purpose entertainment devices. E-Readers are mobile books.
Anyone who to lumps them together has never tried to read an entire book on one of those low-res TFT or Amoled displays.
A lot of BS. This article is more about things that will start dying in 10-20 years, but are still very much used right now: Blu-Ray, credit card, combustible engines, etc. Not worth reading.
Ah, well... it's understandable when you realize that businessweek is seeking entry to the "dying technology" list...
Presumably they think that aggravating their readers they'll be able to hasten their suicide. I support that ambition for all such user-hostile practitioners of 'journalism.'
A bunch of futurism infected guesses likely to be about as accurate as a random collection (a lot of technologies will be obsolete in the next few decades).
Edit: think about all of the many technologies that are still more than a little popular despite good "objective" reasons why they should be completely obsolete. The violin is 5 centuries old. The fountain pen is similarly ancient. The bicycle is a century and a half old. The ax dates from neolithic times. All have been improved and evolved over time, and their popularity has waxed and waned as their competitors have come and gone, or stayed, but they are still with us.
P.S. You'll notice a glaring omission in the form of traditional magazines and newspapers, which are already dying today. Perhaps that hits a bit too close to home for business-week though.
I just bought a new landline phone for my home office. I know I'm way in the minority, but I still feel the call quality is far superior to my cell phone, skype or anything else they mention.
Games consoles? E-Readers? USB keys? WTF? Apple have turned things around for the usb key for a start. Tablets and e-readers are not the same market. e-readers are far superior to tablets for reading.....this article was nonsense written to fill space...much like my post :)
The combustion engine isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Vast areas of the earth have people who need to drive but no serious and reliable electrical distribution infrastructure. The sheer inherent reliability of petrol as a fuel - you can carry it, store it, put it in a bucket, leave it sealed up for a year, bake it (be careful doing this one!), freeze it and still rely on it - means we'll still be making combustion engines for a long time to come. Granted, people in advanced countries who will rarely travel outside the electrical distribution network can switch to electric cars, but even there, petrol engines will stick around as emergency vehicles.
9 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 24.1 ms ] threadAnyone who to lumps them together has never tried to read an entire book on one of those low-res TFT or Amoled displays.
Presumably they think that aggravating their readers they'll be able to hasten their suicide. I support that ambition for all such user-hostile practitioners of 'journalism.'
Edit: think about all of the many technologies that are still more than a little popular despite good "objective" reasons why they should be completely obsolete. The violin is 5 centuries old. The fountain pen is similarly ancient. The bicycle is a century and a half old. The ax dates from neolithic times. All have been improved and evolved over time, and their popularity has waxed and waned as their competitors have come and gone, or stayed, but they are still with us.