[tim333]

Moore's law was always partly an economic phenomena - that companies figured things would improve by x per year and so invested accordingly to keep up with their competitors. I imagine something similar will happen with batteries. It relies on there being a lot of demand to fund the investment but I think that will be the case here - indeed battery spend per year will probably pick up as they become more practical for cars and grid use. These things can end or morph as you hit limits from the laws of physics as is happening with Moore's law but there seems a way to go with batteries.

[philwelch]

There was also a "Moore's law" of aviation. We got from the Wright Flyer to the first jet fighter, the Me 262, in just under 40 years--1903 to 1942.

[usrusr]

Then another 25 years from the 262 do the 737, then twice as many years from the 737 to the 737 MAX. I always think of aviation when someone tries to extrapolate technology.

(PS: imagine the bold branding experiment if they had called it "50 years anniversary edition" instead of "MAX")

[rootusrootus]

Reminds me of the B-52, which first flew less than 50 years after the Wright Flyer, but will have been flying for about a hundred years by the time it is retired. Feels like we haven't really fundamentally changed aviation technology since the early days, just incremental improvements in materials.

[philwelch]

Even supersonic flight was common by the 1950's. The obvious breakthroughs from here, like hypersonic flight, have been achievable but expensive and not worth it since the 1970's or so.

[sgc]

No doubt every 15% price drop will add at least 30% demand. So the main economic bottleneck is production capacity.