[stevebot]

"People never did end up taking laptops fishing"

The article starts off describing laptops on airplanes, the tag about fishing just seems like an exaggeration by the author. I would say that the author was wrong and this is a good example of a bad prediction. I mean, did you read the line about floppy disks? The authors points were that laptops are #1 to heavy #2 their software doesn't stack up and #3 their price is far to high.

All of the predictions are wrong, so I see this author as betting on the wrong horse.

[PhasmaFelis]

All of those points were true, though. (Also #4, the displays suck.) The author correctly called out all the reasons that laptops weren't popular at the time. Maybe he didn't explicitly say "and once these problems are fixed, laptop sales will rise," but you can read between the lines.

[stevebot]

If you read the last paragraph the author doesn't believe in the idea of the laptop and says they will remain a niche market. I honestly believe he couldn't imagine a light, affordable laptop with features being desired other than in niche settings like the military.

[cm2187]

Well, the predictions about floppy disks was actually true at one point. They were just called USB keys.

[nknighthb]

Could you list the specific predictions you believe the author made?

[stevebot]

The prediction is in the title, and it's that laptops are a drying (or dead) trend because they are #1 too heavy, #2 do not have good software, #3 are too expensive.

[nknighthb]

I feel like we read vastly different articles. I read an article where the author discussed the limitations of laptops as they existed thirty years ago (when, I'll remind you, this[0] 12-pound beast was state-of-the-art), discussed some advancements that would need to be made for them to have more widespread appeal, and discussed some realities of how, when, and where people use computers that remain essentially accurate today.

[0] http://oldcomputers.net/kaypro2000.html

[stevebot]

If that was the case, I wouldn't have had a problem with the authors viewpoint but it statements like,

For the most part, the portable computer is a dream machine for the few.

that really miss.

And then their is the conclusion, which comes after the author acknowledges the possibility of improvements in laptops.

But the real future of the laptop computer will remain in the specialized niche markets. Because no matter how inexpensive the machines become, and no matter how sophisticated their software, I still can't imagine the average user taking one along when going fishing.

What?! To me that just shows the author downplaying the idea of the technology. He just couldn't imagine any laptop ever being more than a "niche".

[nknighthb]

> "For the most part, the portable computer is a dream machine for the few."

I would say that 30 years ago, this was an objective statement of fact.

> He just couldn't imagine any laptop ever being more than a "niche".

And you'll see he was and is correct if you consider, as the author was, the usage model. People largely use modern laptops the same way they use desktop PCs. They simply transport them between their regular workspaces. Multiple devices have been collapsed to one, but the way people use them remains the same.

You are focusing very narrowly on the physical devices that the (then and now) inaccurate label "laptop" has been applied to. The article makes much more sense if you abstract to the concept of a laptop, particularly as pushed by marketers 30 years ago.

[jrochkind1]

You are ignoring the line "But the real future of the laptop computer will remain in the specialized niche markets..." That's the part that's a prediction, which informs the tone of the whole article, which turned out false.

The false prediction indeed comes largely from the author's inability to believe that such technological advances could come, within only about 10-15 years, that would completely erase all the downsides he correctly identified (size, cost, etc).

I think we're less likely to make such false predictions today, because we've seen such rapid technological advances. This sunk in for me about 10 years ago, before the iphone, talking about digital book readers with a professor, who said to many students who didn't believe digital book readers were in our future: Imagine what you _would_ need in a digital book reader. Smaller and lighter than a paperback? Cheap? Can be read in sunlight? Because all of those things are coming, only in the next few years. Then do you think digital book readers will take off? Lightbulb moment.

Even though the author of this OP continues with "Because no matter how inexpensive the machines become, and no matter how sophisticated their software...", I think if he really believed inexpensive, cheap, small, light, sophisticated computers were coming, and soon, he would have had a different prediction.

[sumedh]

> I would say that 30 years ago, this was an objective statement of fact.

This is what separates us from guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who have the vision to see in the future.