Live data from Hacker News

The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

cdixon.org

101–110 of 209 posts

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before smart homes are more than just a toy, they need to have functionality that is actually time saving. I've messed with smart home stuff and so far the only thing that has been useful beyond being a toy is our robot vacuum, which I'm not sure is really classified as a smart home thing. As someone that lives in California, something that could be an actual $$ and time saver rather than just a toy is if I could hav…

which I'm not sure is really classified as a smart home thing. This is amusing to me, I think as soon as something becomes somewhat common it will no longer be classified as "smart home". Sort of like how the definition of AI is a moving target.

[deleted]

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#102
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder, though. I wonder if you went back to the very earliest days of the WWW, did everyone see it as a toy? Or were there already people (those developing it, perhaps) who saw that it had awesome non-toy potential? I suspect people brand new tech as "toys" when they're not, and I bet there's also developers that take their toys and call them products :) Maybe the solution is to completely discard the…

> I wonder if you went back to the very earliest days of the WWW, did everyone see it as a toy? The WWW that was created to share scientific papers? Or you mean the GP's Internet that was created to organize the US troops on the event of a nuclear strike? I guess so, there was plenty of people aware they were not toys. Most of those people did use them as toys most of the times, like everybody else at the time, but t…

I meant the WWW. Thanks for checking!

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#103
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exchanging data for value will be normal and young people will ask how it ever could work without that. How is this different from using a credit card to e.g. purchase a streaming movie? Is it just more seamless? Or does the fact that there isn't a centralized bank behind the transaction somehow significant for the consumer or business? (I'm really just trying to understand this btw) > Kids will aks if it's true th…

Legacy payments network is a dumpster fire. It works but just barely. Crypto is much cleaner and will take it over eventually, give it time.

This is an example of what I meant by speculating on a growth story.

1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before.

2019 cryptocurrency lets you pay for something, sort of, not really, but will be very clean one day — never mind that millions are already paying for things and sending money because “it’s a dumpster fire”.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#104
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me wonder, though. I wonder if you went back to the very earliest days of the WWW, did everyone see it as a toy? Or were there already people (those developing it, perhaps) who saw that it had awesome non-toy potential? I suspect people brand new tech as "toys" when they're not, and I bet there's also developers that take their toys and call them products :) Maybe the solution is to completely discard the…

> I wonder if you went back to the very earliest days of the WWW, did everyone see it as a toy? The WWW that was created to share scientific papers? Or you mean the GP's Internet that was created to organize the US troops on the event of a nuclear strike? I guess so, there was plenty of people aware they were not toys. Most of those people did use them as toys most of the times, like everybody else at the time, but t…

>The WWW that was created to share scientific papers?

Most of the citizens of the western world (even those with a degree) definitely pidgeon-hole expensive university projects as "toys", because they don't have one and don't see a need for one.

Academia is a weird place and is often underestimated.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#106

If you're hung up on the word "toy," another way of phrasing this is the next big thing will look like just a hobby to most people. Looking forward, smart homes and 3D printing are 2 industries that fall in this bucket. Both feel like toys to the majority of the market right now, but have the potential to completely change how we live. 3D printing - low-cost manufacturing has completely revolutionized what's possible…

Before smart homes are more than just a toy, they need to have functionality that is actually time saving. I've messed with smart home stuff and so far the only thing that has been useful beyond being a toy is our robot vacuum, which I'm not sure is really classified as a smart home thing. As someone that lives in California, something that could be an actual $$ and time saver rather than just a toy is if I could hav…

A simple example of useful stuff than can be done today but is annoying to set up is to have all the lights in a home turn off when everyone is gone, but switch back to their previous state when one or more people get home.

Another is to have blinds that open just before sunrise, so that you can sleep in darkness but wake up with the sun (especially useful if you're in a city). This is what I do myself, but it's a pain to change anything because the legacy motorized shades don't integrate with anything.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#107
post #11

Imo if a statement about the future doesn't contain word "probably" - it is probably wrong.

probably.. suppose... it seems to me.. I hate it when people try and hedge their opinions.

I hate when people make no effort to hedge their opinions. It comes off as lacking nuance.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#108
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>With cryptocurrency, there's nothing new or interesting you can actually do, no meaningful human connections to be made. It's just speculating on a made-up growth story, like penny stocks you can trade 24/7 — but we already had penny stocks and boiler room scams. You really should look into that tech (Blockchain, DLT) a bit deeper. This sounds exactly like the "It's just a toy it's never gonna change the world." tha…

> Exchanging data for value will be normal and young people will ask how it ever could work without that. How is this different from using a credit card to e.g. purchase a streaming movie? Is it just more seamless? Or does the fact that there isn't a centralized bank behind the transaction somehow significant for the consumer or business? (I'm really just trying to understand this btw) > Kids will aks if it's true th…

In short credit cards do not move value at all. You authorize payment instructions. Which in turn leads to balances being adjusted. It's basically a debt transaction instead of a value transaction. It has several advantages like that banks can adjust balances for a specific time with many parties and then calculate the effective difference (a lot will cancel each other out) and only settle the real differences. There is more of course but that's the basics.

For the consumer, streaming value doesn't need any kind of subscription. It doesn't even require a contract. You do not need to stream from netflix because that's what you already have an pay for monthly. You pay whoever gives you what you want. It's kinda like if you could use cash without the obvious downsides of physically moving coins and with the ability to split it in whatever fraction you'd like. Please watch the youtube video. He explains this way better than I could. It goes down to the level of IP data packages. Something similar could be made (is being made) with value.

>If I understand correctly, the current situation is that there are free services where you can upload/insert data, free services where you can download/consume—and there are paid services for both too.

Most of the content people access on the internet is "free" as in no need to pay for it other than pay for the internet access. Same is also true for "inserting" as in upload it somewhere. However physically inserting it (hosting) isn't free even if you find a free host it's just paid by someone else. Hence hosting (inserting) costs while pulling is mostly free. Every other market works exactly the opposite way. You can't get an apple for free at any store. There is no way someone else is gonna pay the apple for you if you just look at some ads.

If the internet would work more like a store, some people would insert data and other people would access/download and they would pay for that directly not let someone else pay in exchange for horrible userexperiences, horrible privacy, huge additional traffic waste etc. All of that could really only turn successful because data started moving freely over the internet and it grew exponentially while moving value basically has not changed at all.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#109

I'm trying to brainstorm what I think is a "toy" in today's tech market, and I can't think of much. Tech pundits who have seen 30 years of crazy endeavors are taking everything overly seriously. Companies have the resolve to invest billions in "jokes" (like Facebook Portal) stubbornly refusing to recognize a sunk-cost fallacy. Instagram is the most recent example of a revolutionary toy - when everyone thought social…

Some examples of 'toys' in today's market - AR/VR, Drones,

Another factor is that investment in tech is dramatically higher today that it was 20 years ago (partly due to success that early investors had) and people are willing to invest in anything that looks like a 'toy' in the off chance it pays off.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before smart homes are more than just a toy, they need to have functionality that is actually time saving. I've messed with smart home stuff and so far the only thing that has been useful beyond being a toy is our robot vacuum, which I'm not sure is really classified as a smart home thing. As someone that lives in California, something that could be an actual $$ and time saver rather than just a toy is if I could hav…

which I'm not sure is really classified as a smart home thing. This is amusing to me, I think as soon as something becomes somewhat common it will no longer be classified as "smart home". Sort of like how the definition of AI is a moving target.

It's definitely a smart device. But to me a smart home has a central system that can monitor a variety of inputs and, in response, control a set of things to accomplish some goal.

We have a robot vacuum and robot mopper. Me going over and pressing the robot vacuum button, then once its done, placing the robot mopper in position and pressing the start button, is using smart devices but isn't a smart home. If I can tell a central system to "clean the kitchen" and it starts the vacuum, and when that's done dispatches the mopper, that's a smart home.

I know higher end iRobots can do this sort of thing in their dedicated app. And if you can control that via a smart home hub then that would be smart home functionality to me.

Post reply on HN