Comments on: Realism on the size of nanotechnology market http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2464 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Tim Harper http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2464#comment-230246 Tim Harper Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:57:30 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2464#comment-230246 Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. We already have accurate market numbers for many industry sectors, and this white paper is just an excercise in adding them all together. These are developed in conjunction with industry, economists, and experts in technology diffusion. However I agree that there are many "less-reputable (and sometimes downright suspicious)" market numbers out there. Please don’t tar everyone with the same brush. We already have accurate market numbers for many industry sectors, and this white paper is just an excercise in adding them all together. These are developed in conjunction with industry, economists, and experts in technology diffusion. However I agree that there are many “less-reputable (and sometimes downright suspicious)” market numbers out there.

]]> By: Marc Demarest http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2464#comment-214419 Marc Demarest Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:19:24 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2464#comment-214419 I would think that anyone who is committed, excited or otherwise positive on the notion of a world in which evolutionary and revolutionary nanotechnology shape many aspects of our daily lives would welcome any and all attempts to size -- that is, attach dollar values and growth rates -- to the "nanotech market." This is a clear sign that the nanotechnology phenomenon (in the neutral sense of that term) is of interest to capital -- that is, that investment capital is prepared to consider committing itself to the market. That is, in my view, "the practical value of knowing the market size for nanotechnology-enabled products...." The fact that the sizing estimates we see are crude at best and sometimes laughably so is something most people -- including those managing investment capital -- recognize. They will get better -- that is to say, more predictive of a future reality -- as time goes on, as we understand which traditional markets -- fibers, building materials, etc. -- are most directly impacted by evolutionary nanotechnological methods and materials and to what degree, and the modeling shifts to "nanofabrics" or some similar constructs closer to the market categories we habitually trade in today (and which more easily recognizable by ordinary folk). The market sizing efforts we see today are an important sign of market maturation, and as such I welcome them. The sooner we all know about and discuss something called the "nanofabrics market" or the "nanomedical devices market" using forward-looking market metrics supplied by a reputable market-maker, the better. To get there, we first have to go through a period in which less-reputable (and sometimes downright suspicious) market-makers present us with bad sizing, absurb compound annual growth rates, and untenable modeling assumptions. This is how market maturation works. Bring on the bad models, I say. I would think that anyone who is committed, excited or otherwise positive on the notion of a world in which evolutionary and revolutionary nanotechnology shape many aspects of our daily lives would welcome any and all attempts to size — that is, attach dollar values and growth rates — to the “nanotech market.” This is a clear sign that the nanotechnology phenomenon (in the neutral sense of that term) is of interest to capital — that is, that investment capital is prepared to consider committing itself to the market.

That is, in my view, “the practical value of knowing the market size for nanotechnology-enabled products….”

The fact that the sizing estimates we see are crude at best and sometimes laughably so is something most people — including those managing investment capital — recognize. They will get better — that is to say, more predictive of a future reality — as time goes on, as we understand which traditional markets — fibers, building materials, etc. — are most directly impacted by evolutionary nanotechnological methods and materials and to what degree, and the modeling shifts to “nanofabrics” or some similar constructs closer to the market categories we habitually trade in today (and which more easily recognizable by ordinary folk).

The market sizing efforts we see today are an important sign of market maturation, and as such I welcome them. The sooner we all know about and discuss something called the “nanofabrics market” or the “nanomedical devices market” using forward-looking market metrics supplied by a reputable market-maker, the better. To get there, we first have to go through a period in which less-reputable (and sometimes downright suspicious) market-makers present us with bad sizing, absurb compound annual growth rates, and untenable modeling assumptions. This is how market maturation works.

Bring on the bad models, I say.

]]>