New Study: Nanotechnology Poised to Revolutionize
Gina Miller writes "New Study: Nanotechnology Poised to Revolutionize Tech, Manufacturing Markets; Market Will Rival Sales Volume of Combined Tech and Telecom Markets. Sales of products incorporating nanotechnology will total $2.6 trillion in 10 years, approximately one-fifth of the current Gross Domestic Product, greatly exceeding previous estimates, according to a new report released by a leading Wall Street financial analyst. Nano- enhanced products will account for 50 percent of all electronics and information technology products and 16 percent of all healthcare products by 2014, according to the report. This story was found at U.S. Newswire 10/29/04."
Ed. Note… Maybe its slowly sinking into the minds of those who are supposed to be predicting the future how disruptive nanotech is likely to be….
October 30th, 2004 at 5:44 PM
Or not…
> Maybe its slowly sinking into the minds of those
> who are supposed to be predicting the future
I can't help but wonder how those "who are supposed to be predicting the future" do it? Do they gaze into a crystal ball? Read Nostradamus? Take long bathroom breaks for inspiration? If I had to guess, I would say that this "analyst" listed all current products that say they have "nanotechnology" in them, added them up, and plotted a graph of their prices for the last few years. He then fitted an exponential curve to it, because growth is supposed to be that way, and because the "nano" buzzword is relatively new and has surged significantly in the past couple of years. His prediction, of course, was a point on that curve ten years into the future. So, you see, all predictions of this kind are most likely complete bullshit, up there with "high oil prices will not hurt", "dot com businesses will dominate the economy in 2010", and "the world will end in 2123".
October 31st, 2004 at 10:04 AM
Re:Or not…
Why are you so derisive of those who seek to proactively work on managing future events? The term "analyst" refers to someone that works with available data to develop judgements on future scenarios. Analysts are not fortune tellers and are using the same tools of reason, extrapolation and judgement that you have. In fact, a healthy dose of critical examination is very helpful to an analyst. But to drop a blanket judgement of it is all bullshit reeks of adolescent angst rather than mature evaluation of a proposed scenario.
November 1st, 2004 at 1:51 AM
Re:Or not…
i can't but help agree with Chemnisor, these predictions are mostly off the ground – for previous examples just look at the predictions for mems or for that matters optical networking or dot.com … also they never take into account other disruptive technology which will eat into the nano pie .. and then the VC's wll be interested for only so long b4 moving on to "buzz-word"tech
November 1st, 2004 at 6:36 AM
Re:Or not…
> Why are you so derisive of those who seek to proactively work on managing future events?
Because you can't manage a future event until you have some idea what it is. "Nano-analysts" are completely clueless, seeing only the materials science "nanotechnology", the benefits of which are not terribly exciting. We've had surface coatings and polymers for decades, but now they have a new name and suddenly everyone is excited for some reason.
> The term "analyst" refers to someone that works
> with available data to develop judgements on future scenarios.
I will always be derisive of those who "work with available data", because they don't understand the technology to which the data pertains. Those who measure without understanding will always make incorrect assumptions which will invalidate any "predictions" they might make.
> Analysts are not fortune tellers and are using
> the same tools of reason, extrapolation and
> judgement that you have.
Hah! What reason? What judgement? All they do is plot numbers and fit curves to them. Extrapolation is the biggest fraud of fortune tellers and economists alike. The trouble with trying to predict the future by looking at the past is that you can never predict anything new. You can simply create an analogy. Suppose in 1996 there were two nanotechnology companies whose stock price rose for three months and then crashed to 10% of its initial value. An analyst will look at this and apply the same curve to all current nanotechnology companies, creating a prediction of a stock crash for them too. Will he take into account what the companies are doing? No. Will he take into account the competence of their employees? No. The soundness of the principles behind their products? No. In fact, such "analysts" are not qualified to make any judgements except useless extrapolation of "the available data".
> But to drop a blanket judgement of it is all bullshit
> reeks of adolescent angst rather than mature evaluation of a proposed scenario.
Even if the proposed scenario "reeks of adolescent fantasies"? I have not seen any valid future scenarios proposed for nanotechnology by an "analyst". How can you say what the nanotechnology products will be worth if you have no idea what they will be? How can you say that "nanotechnology will be everywhere in 10 years" when you have no idea how to make an assembler? How can you give a deadline to a scientific research project? "You will discover a cure for cancer in 5 years" is a ludicrous statement to make to your R&D department and like promises, coming from clueless marketing departments everywhere, should rightly be ignored as raving of uninformed visionaries.
November 1st, 2004 at 7:22 AM
Re:Or not…
There is an Arab proverb,
"He who predicts the future is a liar – even if he turns out to be right."
The most reasonable futurist (analyst) tool I've seen is a scenario "quartet". It relies on two elements of uncertainty. For this exercise, let the x-axis be the speed of nanotech advance. On the right, we get MNT in ten years. On the left in ten years, we get slightly better paint. On the vertical axis, we have an open architecture at the bottom and proprietary on top.
The four scenarios are in the corners of this space of potential futures. In the upper right (rapid advance, tightly controlled) we get a potentially Orwellian future. In the lower right are the reefs of anarchy. The upper left is IPO world. I'll leave the naming of the fourth future world to the student. (Hint: Humor is NOT penalized!)
The idea is to consider the consequences of all four possibilities. You might be able to develop a robust strategy that works fairy well whatever happens.
November 1st, 2004 at 10:09 AM
Wise guy…
> On the right, we get MNT in ten years. On the
> left in ten years, we get slightly better paint.
> On the vertical axis, we have an open
> architecture at the bottom and proprietary on top.
You obviously failed to consider the state of the economy in ten years. The upper left might be a booming economy based on better paint, but it might also be a bunch of people living in beautifully painted caves.
> The idea is to consider the consequences of all
> four possibilities. You might be able to develop a
> robust strategy that works fairy well whatever happens.
All right, wise guy, let's try to apply this to a concrete example. You find a company manufacturing nanostructured paint, which will be self-cleaning and self-patching, and will generate electricity too. Or, at least, that is what their "analyst" says. Would you please enlighten us by considering your four scenarios to determine whether to buy the stock? (Hint: Humor is NOT penalized!
November 1st, 2004 at 11:13 AM
Re:Or not…
Here's hoping for the lower right.
November 2nd, 2004 at 7:39 AM
More on the nano scenario-space
I assume you mean that such a product will exist in ten years. I would have to know the name of the company now in order to invest. (Sherman-Williams, if you believe their logo.) And I surely would invest if I had that kind of predictive power.
Your example is a prediction, and I am trying to avoid specific predictions. Instead, I'm asking you to consider a wide range of possible futures. You want to build a strategy for success (or survival) that works reasonably well in any corner of this scenario-space. For instance, should you invest the bulk of your assets in a big house in the country or rent a small place and play the stock market? Consider the consequences of your decision (or any other decision) in the context of each of the four scenarios.
Or, create your own scenario-space with more relevant axes. See http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html
for a more complete description of scenario building.