Technology is not dead. It is exponential.

Electricity greatly improved our quality of life. But I'm not going to get excited about buying a basket of utility companies. Same for the Internet. Can't live without it, but can't live with it (in my portfolio).
--James Altucher via online.wsj.com

James Altucher will eat his words. To count tech out at a local minima is absolutely absurd. Fred Wilson is right: Tech is alive and well. But there are deeper reasons than what Fred Wilson mentions.

Other than computing technology, what field can boast exponential gains? Green tech is much talked about of late, but what are the rates of improvement for battery power, photovoltaics, and clean energy? Miniscule, in the single digit percentages. We can only wish for exponential advancement in almost all fields of technology. It's just not a reality.

With computers, we are blessed by the exponential curve of Moore's Law. Ray Kurzweil plots this exponential curve:

Just look at the innovation that has happened in 40 years. Bill Gates is famed to have said in 1998: "If General Motors had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty five dollar cars that got 1000 miles/gallon."

Instead, GM has gone bankrupt, and now we have one-inch-thick netbooks that we can buy for less than $300 that provide 300,000x the computing power of the ENIAC, which cost $500,000 and filled a very large room in 1946!

The exponential march of software begets the exponential march of software capability. Software has gone more and more high level. Instead of slinging machine-readable bits, we started writing assembly. Then C/C++. Then Java and Perl. Now, Ruby and Python -- each step is less efficient for the computer but more efficient for the human. In 1946 you needed a PhD to even get near a computer, and only now are we seeing the rise of the truly interconnected, paperback computer that costs next to nothing but is indispensible for everyday life -- not just for an educated elite but for every person on the planet.

The advent of the Gutenberg printing press and modern mass-produced book changed society at its core -- at its basic fabric, humanity as a whole became more educated, more equal, more enlightened, and far more human, rising out of the depths of ignorance. The rise of cheap, ubiquitous books formed the modern world. But now we have a book that is infinite in length and unbounded in capability to teach, share, educate, and think.

So we've got an exponential engine of innovation, and it is transforming society before our eyes. And we're at a such a local minima where the WSJ is calling the whole engine dead.

We're still only beginning this mad experiment of infinite and ubiquitous computing. The greatest, most earth shattering software has yet to be created. On the upslope of an exponential, you'd be insane not to go long.

Loading mentions Retweet
Posted 4 months ago

15 comments

Jul 19, 2009
Bradley Farless said...
Sometimes I wish I could live to be 150 just to see the leaps that the Internet will take in affecting society as a whole.
Jul 19, 2009
Garry Tan said...
Tales -- seriously, me too.
Jul 19, 2009
Aviraj Saluja said...
I didn't know about the Bill Gates quote; loved it.
Nice article, Garry.
Jul 19, 2009
michael said...
@Tales & @Garry: I'd bet good money you'll both get your wish.
Jul 19, 2009
Bradley Farless said...
@Michael: Oh really? Well, if I die before I'm 150 I'm going to come asking for
My good money. ;) 

Sent from my iPhone

Jul 19, 2009
michael said...
That's the best part about my bet---if I lose, you won't be around to collect!
Jul 19, 2009
Bradley Farless said...
Yup nutthen again you wouldn't be around to collect from either so I guess it wouldn't matter much.

Sent from my iPhone

Jul 20, 2009
Tony Long said...
Garry, great post! I'm with you in theory, but...

What Altucher's saying - without actually saying it - is that the current marketplaces as we know them and the analysts who feed / guide them do not have the proper metrics to provide relative guidance on the companies' health. It's not apples to apples (excuse expression) to evaluate a no-business-model company like Twitter or Skype against a real business model company like Cisco or even MSFT.

Now, equating utilitis and internet companies is silly because utilities operate as practical monopolies, and internet companies are dandelions in their shadows...except for one key similarity: neither generates much in the way of a big bump. Utilities can't "do something" (like cheaply and cleanly create power from rocks) that will cause their market value to explode. And internet companies start out life as a "big idea" looking for a way to ake root and grow.

His points are typical financial-market hyperbole, but he really is not that far off for investors today. Also, my rule of thumb: the exponential curve of Moore's law has done nothing to create sustainable growth of the NYSE and Dow composites, except maybe more easily compute their ballooned heights and crashing falls.

Jul 20, 2009
Jul 20, 2009
ethan lane said...
I like the spirit of this post but I agree with Tony on this. Altucher was not implying that tech was going to slow down or stagnate in terms of invention or usefulness. He was refering to business models and the ability for tech companies to show growth like they did in the 90s. That's why he said he can't live with it *in his portfolio.* No reason for him to eat his words...
Jul 20, 2009
Garry Tan said...
Tony, Ethan -- That's a temporary phenomenon related to Web 2.0. Skype was a contemporary of Google. They have similar social implications, but have radically different profit structures.

Altucher is screwing up because he's mistaking Web 2.0 for big dislocations. Twitter and Skype may not have profit potential, but that doesn't mean the technology sector for the future of the universe will fail to do so.

We need a much longer time horizon than the past 4 years of incremental innovation. That's why saying "not for my portfolio" is absurd. Daytraders may care, but for the rest of us, the most awesome tech revolutions that are *PROFITABLE* lie ahead.

But thanks to continuing aspects of Moore's Law, the grand story continues to unfold. The next Google or next Microsoft comes along every half a decade or so, and the same pundits will be lauding the return of tech, I guarantee it.

Jul 21, 2009
Steven said...
I know this is an odd place to ask, but I searched and looked and couldn't find an e-mail for you.

I notice our header is actually a picture. I would like to do the same, but I was wondering how you pulled it off. I tried an embed code, but had no such luck.

Jul 22, 2009
blogdrop said...
yes, bill gates might have say so. but if the car industry had moved the same way ... we all would be asked by our cars "do you realy want to open the door?" and they might brake down just because we use air cooler, brakes and blinker at the same time :-)
Jul 23, 2009
rajit said...
the interesting thing is that tech permeates all increasingly profitable organizations. even though many of the fortune 500 are not classified as "tech", does not matter if they are in construction, finance, gaming, materials, energy, travel, hospitality, etc they would be a fraction of their value if they had not capitalized on tech. tech's true value shouldn't be classified as just the NASDAQ but gains made across industries
Aug 02, 2009
Michelle said...
michio kaku talks about our growth in science being exponential. As you discussed its only if we keep trying, if we don't put effort in our projects that exponential growth deteriorates

Leave a comment...

 
To leave a comment on this posterous, please login by clicking one of the following.
Posterous-login     Connect     twitter