SCHWARTZ CROSSROADS

The Utopian Future, or Going Back to It

Peter Shankman gave a wonderful talk at Schwartz this week and he had a lot of interesting things to say about networking, technology and communications, but two pieces caught my attention.

First was an initial concept that everything we predict and know is bulls***. That is, social networking just comprises tools that allow us to do what we should already be doing: meeting, talking and connecting with people. He’s right, of course. But part of that is the concept that prediction is almost impossible. He pointed to Back to the Future Part II as an example, in which everyone in the future (which is closer to today) had a fax machine in every room. Today faxes are passé and inefficient, but in 1985 they were new, exciting and efficient ways to communicate, so it was good comedy to have a future with one even in the bathroom. 

Of course, that same movie featured flying cars. So take it for what it is. 

His second concept was a future in which everything in our house has an IP address and connects to everything else. Hit the snooze button on the alarm clock and it triggers information that starts a chain reaction. Your coffee maker starts, your news downloads, your kids are awoken by gentle singing of angels…. 

Frankly, this sounds a lot like the digital version of Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like machine at the beginning of the original Back to the Future that fed the dog and made eggs, but I digress. 

He goes on, of course, to the point that getting a plane ticket triggers a Twitter (or twitter-like) note to your friends that you’re about to head to another city, then when you arrive your phone registers your location and tells you about local restaurants you may like as well as people who you may want to meet and where they’re dining. 

This utopian ideal sounds great, except I’ve heard it before and we’re supposed to be there by now. I remember hearing about connected refrigerators that read the RFID chips on the food you purchase to tell you when you need more milk or even allow you to run recipes based on what you already have. 

You can buy a fridge that is connected, of course, but it’ll cost you a lot more than a very nice not-so-connected fridge just so you can have a built in TV. And besides, the technology isn’t there to tell you that the foil-wrapped leftover chicken has started to grow something usually reserved for the college chemistry lab. 

But my real problem with this concept is the digital divide. Having an IP address on every electronic item in your house means you have a house-wide network, probably a wireless network. Connecting with people through electronic devices means these people also have electronic devices and are as connected as you. So basically it restricts you to people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. The digital divide is real, municipal wifi networks have failed to take off, so this kind of technology is not available to everyone. We are isolated enough in how we live our lives, I’m not sure that connecting only with people who have similar technological access is the best way to go. 

If we’re going to focus our development efforts anywhere it should be on making sure that those with little or no connectivity get it. Verizon has been great about bringing FIOS to my affluent suburb, but what about less affluent areas? How long will it take for them to get their piece of fiber? Then how long will it take for those people to get on Facebook, Twitter and other communications concepts that may not even exist yet? 

It’s great if I can meet and network with people who can move my business forward, but it’s also great to learn from people who have a very different view on life.  

Tags: communications, future of technology, social media, social networking, twitter

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM