A common theme of failed predictions is the "X are interesting toys, but not suitable for Y" statement. Let's unpack that statement.
A toy is something which fascinates the mind in some way. An "interesting toy" suggests something that has a scope of operation within some small realm. I'll posit that Legos are an "interesting toy" whereas a toy car is "just a toy".
Substituted, this is now "X are things which have great possibilities within a smaller realm of operation, but are not suitable for Y".
The problem should now be obvious. The next question is to ask what it would take to scale the X's realm up. If it's economically feasible, it will happen.
The use of "toy" is the rhetorical trick here, because it implies the thing in question has permanently limited scope, and it might not be. (There's also the implied put-down, that those who find them worthwhile are childish.)
So what things today are "interesting toys" but not suitable for "real work"? Mobile devices? Social networks?
The underlying fallacy is in imagining that there is some strict segregation between "toys" and tools. When a tool is too expensive and only moderately practical it is deemed a toy. But toys of such sort can become cheaper and evolve in function and scale, becoming imminently practical in the process. Many of the most practical tools began as toys of such sort: the steam engine, the automobile, the airplane, the laser, the rocket, personal computer, etc.
Today the premier example would be mobile devices and mobile OS tablets. They have enormous potential, even the potential to replace traditional PCs, but today they are often regarded as toys.
A toy is something which fascinates the mind in some way. An "interesting toy" suggests something that has a scope of operation within some small realm. I'll posit that Legos are an "interesting toy" whereas a toy car is "just a toy".
Substituted, this is now "X are things which have great possibilities within a smaller realm of operation, but are not suitable for Y".
The problem should now be obvious. The next question is to ask what it would take to scale the X's realm up. If it's economically feasible, it will happen.
The use of "toy" is the rhetorical trick here, because it implies the thing in question has permanently limited scope, and it might not be. (There's also the implied put-down, that those who find them worthwhile are childish.)
So what things today are "interesting toys" but not suitable for "real work"? Mobile devices? Social networks?