I can't decide what gave me more amusement: the stuff they got right (ipass/ezpass idea, video conferencing and skype like stuff), the stuff they got wrong (phone booths!, tablet pcs being more than a gimick) or the stuff they claimed they would do, which they now actively oppose (skype like stuff).
I remember these commercials fondly, as they were a big push to get me into programming when I was a boy -- such cool and endless possibilities. Of course back then they were so futuristic, and now they look rather quaint -- who would want devices that are so big and bulky?
or the stuff they claimed they would do, which they now actively oppose (skype like stuff).
Remember that AT&T isn't actually the same company it was in the 90's. Depending on whether you're talking about hard lines or mobile, it's either SBC or Cingular.
To be fair, I think there's a million or so iPad customers who would dispute that tablet computing is merely a "gimmick" (though even as an iPad owner, I'll admit that's not a done deal yet).
I probably won't be using mine to send faxes though :-)
That's the interesting thing about this type of predicting: they usually fail to account for certain technologies being pushed out by others. You probably won't send a fax because faxing is nearly obsolete. Everyone uses email instead. And you probably will use your tablet to send email.
It's the same as with the phone booth. The same technology that lets the guy send a fax from the beach allows him to make calls from almost anywhere, (even video conferencing if you have an Evo or similar phone) pushing the phone booth out of common use. And, when everyone has a computer with an internet connection, why would someone have to go to a cash machine to buy concert tickets?
It is almost impossible to get everything right, and if there are certain key technologies that aren't predicted correctly (like desktop computers, high-bandwidth cell signals, internet everywhere, etc), then it has a cascading effect of invalidating many of the other predictions.
if there are certain key technologies that aren't predicted correctly (like desktop computers, high-bandwidth cell signals, internet everywhere, etc), then it has a cascading effect of invalidating many of the other predictions
Which is why it's better to work on something truly innovative and disruptive that has the potential to become one of those key technologies. Elon Musk type stuff, rather than think X for Y to get buzzword soup and series A projects.
I remember these commercials fondly, as they were a big push to get me into programming when I was a boy -- such cool and endless possibilities. Of course back then they were so futuristic, and now they look rather quaint -- who would want devices that are so big and bulky?