2013: A Bad Year for the Tech Industry | Hacker News Reader

2013: A Bad Year for the Tech Industry

theatlantic.com

81 pointsRyanMcGreal53 comments

Open articleView on HN

I was wondering what was the year like on HN. Here are some top posts from this year

Aaron Swartz commits suicide (tech.mit.edu)

Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king turned its back on Rails (rapgenius.com)

Breaking down Amazon's mega dropdown (bjk5.com)

XKeyscore: NSA program collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' (theguardian.com)

Google Reader shutting down (googleblog.blogspot.com)

I'm learning to code by building 180 websites in 180 days. Today is day 115 (blog.jenniferdewalt.com)

A spreadsheet in fewer than 30 lines of JavaScript, no library used (jsfiddle.net)

Bomberman massively multiplayer in HTML5 (bombermine.com)

Tearable Cloth Simulation in JavaScript (codepen.io)

Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling (blog.chromium.org)

SteamOS (store.steampowered.com)

Amazon Prime Air (amazon.com)

Explain Shell (explainshell.com)

Sprite Lamp (spritelamp.com)

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to retire within 12 months (microsoft.com)

Ubuntu Edge (indiegogo.com)

FBI raids alleged online drug market Silk Road, arrests owner (reuters.com)

Victory Lap for Ask Patents (joelonsoftware.com)

So, in a summary: some bad things, some good things. JS is getting more and more powerful, NSA, BTC, lots of SV drama.

I apologize to HNSearch for DOSing them with my query

> Tearable Cloth Simulation in JavaScript

Not just that, but horrible, no good, and very bad, too.

Tearable, hoarable, no goad, very baed?

Oh, come now, I thought it was pretty impressive, on the whole.

Hilariously, when I tried to google that exact rapgenius article, 'twas not a direct link to be found. I imagine 2013 has suddenly turned into a "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Year" for them, too.

I think there is a lot in technology we can change to make it more appealing. I hope to help facilitate that change with some of the things we're working on. If you're interested check out what we're doing, and what we will be doing in this next year:

http://www.techendo.co/posts/thank-you-for-a-wonderful-year

If someone has ideas, or wants to help out, reach out and let us know.

No mention of Google's Calico or robotics division? I actually expect Calico to make some pretty major announcements by 2014's end.

I think it's a glaring example of blinders-via-self-selection of the "tech" industry and "tech" press.

For EE and integrated circuit design it was arguably a very GOOD year with Bluetooth LE coming out, and new silicon like the Apple A7, FinFets coming to TSMC and Samsung, etc. In the neuro area there are all sorts of nifty prototypes with wireless electrocorticography probes, etc. Even Google's various gizmos - while none are shipping products (Glass is a beta preview, right?) they're still pretty impressive.

Tesla and SpaceX had its ups and downs, but you can't argue they've had some spectacular accomplishments.

Biotech: U Penn's HIV-derived lentiviral vector for leukemia, among others.

But these aren't websites that sell ads so I guess they don't count as "tech"

Or to put it another way - 2013, a year that opened up myrriad opportunities for disruption.

Mobile device penetration reached a point where we can rely upon the platform for application distribution.

Wearables continued to look for a compelling app.

Former giants continued to make way for new technologies and companies.

M&A replaced innovation in big companies (great for the rest of us).

Technology leaders continued to be pr$$$s (so whats new?)

Social Media - again achieved platform status - ready to be used, abused and replaced.

Media (and bitcoin) blah blah

NSA and GCHQ screw up the initial cloud business model and (again) open up new opportunities.

Pretty good start point for a great 2014 I would say

Forgive the flippancy but it looks to me you'd see WW III as an opportunity for entrepreneurial people. Step back and have a look yourself.

Wouldn't it be? All those rations to hoard and trade...

WWII (or any other time of turmoil) was a huge opportunity for some entrepreneurs, and we needed them to restore order and stability after the conflict. Obviously there was some profiteering, but I don't see it as inherently wrong to look at times of trouble as opportunities.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleo... is my favorite example of this. brilliant at every move - like some chess grandmaster of business.

So now we're rewriting post-WWII history to glorify entrepreneurs even further?

If anything, most efforts and programs that resulted in the remarkably fast restoration of countries ruined by the war would today be labelled as examples of "socialist" big government.

I suppose it is possible that one of the items featured in the post resulted in some personal loss to yourself - commiserations if that was so.

I think that most of us are always on the look out for gaps and opportunities to make some headway in this world. Thus the marginal (on a global scale) misfortunes of some ultra large businesses are likely to be seen as a positive from the perspective of a smaller more agile enterprise.

I know that my 2014 project is all about running rings around the established players in a major market place. I do not apologise for relishing the prospect.

I disagree with all this negativism that is taking over lately. I think that there are several very positive trends for the tech sector:

1 - Big data is coming age. People are becoming more realistic about what it means, Data Science is becoming a profession, and the hype is being replaced by results.

2 - It has gotten even easier to learn how to program. Udacity, Coursera and StackExchange continue to improve. The resources available for the resourceful have multiplied.

3 - The IPO market is back. Facebook's investors no longer feel burned. Twitter's investors and employees are doing great. The better the IPO market, the more money that gets recycled into technology.

4 - We are aware of the privacy beast. Some view this as terrible. Awareness is actually the first path to fixing the problem.

5 - SF may be seeing hostility towards tech firms, but the tech scene is thriving and being welcomed with open arms in NYC, Austin, Boston, and perhaps even Tokyo.

6 - It's been a good year for gay marriage, which is the defining civil liberties battle of the day.

7 - Computer Science is a trendy major. Stanford undergrads flock to it. Harvard's cs50 competes with intro to economics as the most popular major. Every that this occurs, our technological capability as a society increases.

Yes, there are a lot of reasons for 2013 to have been crappy, but I'm optimistic about 2014.

It's entirely unfair to put #6 on that list.

Here is the logic behind #6 being in the list:

Many attractive markets are heavily regulated. Just ask Uber. Think of customs, law enforcement, transportation, education, finance, health. So far, tech industry is doing great in unregulated industries and has a lot of tough barriers in government controlled areas.

Any step towards more liberties is a sign that new previously regulated markets can open up for innovation.

That's not an argument that it is good for the tech industry. That's an argument that it is good for everyone-everywhere.

You may as well claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was good for the timber industry.

From an economics point of view (and paraphrasing the Economist) legalizing gay marriage is the quickest and cheapest way to increase total happiness for the population.

That would remain true if there didn't exist a tech sector.

Fair point

The article's author is stretching to be cranky. Does anyone think wearables have been figured out? They might someday disappoint, but the author doesn't understand, or is being deliberately obtuse about why Samsung would ship a bulky, half-baked watch.

Similarly, bitcoin seems hardly overhyped. Not since you had to install a third-party TCP stack in Windows in order to get on the Internet have I seen so many people be so motivated to overcome so much complexity to get something they want.

Not since you had to install a third-party TCP stack in Windows in order to get on the Internet have I seen so many people be so motivated to overcome so much complexity to get something they want.

Not that I personally remember the 19th century, but I still see artifacts of people being very motivated to overcome the complexity of mining for gold in the Yukon.

What can I say? Cliff Stoll is still making a living as a futurist.

In terms of introducing new mind blowing things, I agree that 2013 was not good at all (the new consoles deserve a special mention for completely failing to generated any enthusiasm at all) I also think though, that it was an incredible year for bridging a gap - specifically, the number of people becoming comfortable with using technology in their daily lives, and much more common than 2012. The sheer number of gadgets I see on a daily basis on my commute is unbelievable and very exciting. I think we have finally jumped over a hump where even grandparents have at least one decent device (ipads seem to be the most common). The coming years will only be more exciting because of the legwork done by this year.

If smartphones are maturing and being commoditized that's a good thing. I no longer upgrade my PC every 18 months; I'd quite like to stop doing that with my phone too.

2013 is the eye of the storm.

Mobile phones stagnated - Mobile phones now have desktop class processors in them. The line between phone, and laptop is becoming simply a matter of form factor. Something big might wiggle through, and 2013 is when the technology got there.

Wearables were a letdown - We finally have the technology, we're just looking for the right mix of form and application. There's a lot of potential there, we just haven't found it yet. However the roots have been planted.

Former giants let down - They're learning their place. IBM has no business making mobile phones, they cater to guys who need to do a lot of database stuff quickly. Microsoft has no business making consumer products, now that the line between producer and consumer is very clear. They're good at making a platform that enabled business customers to quickly develop apps. Apple is mobile. I have this theory, a company can only do one section of a market well, or everything poorly. Whatever the result, they have finally embraced open source tech like HTML 5, Angular JS, bootstrap etc. Microsoft is no longer holding back the web. With a "sane" platform, we got some more rope to hang ourselves with.

Social media became profitable - great, now the platform can pay for itself.

The rest is interesting, but not proof of a year of stagnation.

Agree completely, there was incremental movement on the outside, but powerful forces are at work beneath the surface.

The iPhone 5s was widely derided as an incremental product, but it forced every other smartphone and mobile processor designer in the industry to throw out their entire technical roadmap for the next few years and start again from scratch. It also introduced the first consumer application of a biometric sensor that actually feels like it's part of our future here today.

Google Glass is highly controversial, but setting it's consumer acceptance issues aside, the potential for the technology in a whole host of industrial/business applications is stunning. Ditto for commercial drone technology like that demonstrated by Amazon.

I can understand a non-tech journalist looking at all this and not getting excited, but for a tech journalist to completely miss the implications of these developments is just lazy.

One bright side: kickstarter

I hope it will make people think twice about what is innovation, and how to market innovation in a healthy fashion. Programmable computers are 95% invention.

Does anybody really care about smart watches?

I've talked to many friends who are generally delighted about their mobile phones, and they have minimal interest in smart watches that cost close to a mobile phone.

I suppose a category disruptor like the iPad could emerge, but I'm not holding my breath. I think we're getting device fatigue.

(On the other hand, Google Glass and related devices are a bit different, and may have more applications)

I think there's significant potential for a wristband fitness/health device, like a more advanced Fitbit.

But yeah, anything like the Pebble is probably a dead end; in five years or so, Glass will have replaced all its functionality and much more for anyone who already wears eyeglasses.

Good point. I agree a purpose-specific device could find a niche.

But the smart watch thing seems to be a dead end - too small a screen to compete with a smartphone (which 'everybody' has now), too bulky and 'uncool' to compete with a basic watch (telling the time) or fashion/jewelry watch (pretty accessory).

Of course that was what people said about iPads - why would you want that if you have a laptop and smartphone ... so maybe I'm completely wrong.

I doubt it; wristwatches have origin in the military need for a readily accessible chronometer for coordination among forces in different locations, and I tend to think that their having become popular in civilian life is an accident of history resulting from millions of soldiers having worn their watches home from the two world wars. We're now roughly two and a half to three generations from the latter such war, and wristwatches have been largely reduced to the status of niche fashion accessory; even in my own childhood, a wristwatch was still considered de rigeur and I had several growing up, but now not even anyone in my own generation much bothers with the things, to say nothing of my generation's kids.

Absent some repopularizing event, a category for which "Apple and Google would really like to sell a lot of smart watches" fails to qualify, I see no reason to imagine the trend spontaneously reversing itself.

The fall of the wrist watch has a lot more to do with the rise of the mobile phone that has a clock (even "dumb" phones had the time). Regular people have an equal if not greater need to coordinate with each other than soldiers in war.

Civilians also tend to have a lot more clocks handy, even absent mobile phones. I'll grant, though, that wristwatches would've stuck around, as an acceptably convenient means of carrying around a timepiece, had not mobile phones with clock displays come along.

The point, in any case, is that there's nothing intrinsically special about wearing a chronometer, or any other information display, on one's wrist, such that "smart watches" are necessarily a qualitative improvement over, for example, "smart phones".

But these are nothing new; you could get them 10 years ago. My Suunto is at least 6 years old (heart rate, GPS, calories, training effect, yadda yadda).

I'm a trained watchmaker from WOSTEP, so you can trust that I know a thing or two about watches. I picked up a Pebble because of "hot new tech", and honestly couldn't find a use for it immediately. Only when I decided my normal watch needed to be serviced did I actually commit to wearing the Pebble full time for a couple weeks.

Agreed that any knockoff/clone of a Pebble is a dead end. The Pebble is a great annoyance device. It's fun when I'm working at my computer to see what order an iMessage from my Wife comes in on. Is it going to be my iPhone, then Pebble and then my Mac, or the Mac, Pebble then iPhone? It's a fun game, if you like receiving the same alert on 3 devices within a couple seconds of each other. Any new product that is any old product with a screen and connecting to the internet or another device over BTLE is going to be 2014's "It's X, but social!" from a couple years ago. This includes Glass, since it does absolutely nothing more than create an extension of your portable notification device's screen projected up to your eye. It's quite literally "Eyeglasses, but with a screen connected to the internet!". It doesn't make people more connected, it makes the wearer disconnected from the world.

I find the pebble excels at not, "Here is your message" but just vibrating while I'm doing something to alert me that I have received a message.

The only way pebble can get external messages is through your smartphone, which almost certainly has a vibrate option?

I'll say this: a year ago I started wearing a watch again, and I've been amazed at how awesome it is compared to a cellphone. If I want to know the time, nothing beats just looking at my wrist and getting back to what I was doing, as opposed to getting my phone out, pressing unlock, putting it away, and sometimes forgetting the time.

It's truly the smallest of speedups to get over the pettiest of inconveniences, but for something I do constantly, having a watch is awesome. Even though the current crop of smart watches don't interest me, I could see myself getting a watch that makes other common tasks easier if it came at a reasonable price.

What phone needs unlocking to see the time?

I think GP refers to pressing a screen-on button.

Right, and I could see getting myself a $30 Casio sport watch so I have a basic watch / alarm / stopwatch.

This article is preposterous sensationalist stupidity.

"Mobile Phones Stagnated" - backed up not by sales figures or technological hurdles, but "things aren't innovative enough," ie "I don't like this batch of smart phones." Bad year for tech... because I don't like profitable, more powerful smart phones.

"Wearables Were a Letdown" - more opinions without sales figures, but at least not as contentious ones.

"Former Giants Continued Their Inglorious Decline" - a corporate capitalist struggle between large companies is "a bad year for tech" because some of those companies are losing the struggle (while others are winning). Mobile still on the rise (see first reason why the year was bad for tech (???)) with desktop declining, which is here presented as overall negative for tech industry... because...?

"M&A Replaced Innovation" - which is somehow code for "corporate giants did normal corporate things." Microsoft bought Nokia instead of "innovating." Think about that. What in the world does the first half of the sentence have to do with the second? The tech industry is failing because Microsoft didn't invent a new smart phone, and they bought Nokia? That is a very compelling... argument.

"The Arrogance of Technology’s Ruling Class Increased" - and the explanation is that technology is taking the place of menial labor. Bad year for tech when tech continues to be more productive and accomplishes a wider variety of tasks. Bad year because advances are being made. Re: no jobs, I don't care what your political or economic ideology is, if you think wealth inequality is a direct consequence of technological advancement you're a moron. Maybe such an A -> B is a little simplistic? Maybe not quite up to what should be the standards of serious journalism (or casual thought!)?

"Social Media Became Profitable, If Not Compelling" - Unpacked as "neither I nor anyone else likes social media, but the profits are back up." How does that work?

"Media Ravenous for Stories Bought Into Techno-Hype" - by far the most ruinously idiotic bullet point. The suggestion that covering bitcoin was "hype" and not legitimate news... the author should be embarrassed. Suggesting that bitcoin is a phenomenon of sensationalism is a child's idea of how economic value works. Yes, and we all buy smart phones because we read tech blogs that sensationalized them.

"The NSA Spying Scandal Put a Chill on the Biggest Technological Shifts of Coming Years" - news stories bring surges of interest in cryptography, interest in tech in general, and shape future implementations of large-scale tech. Sounds like a Bad Year for the Tech Industry yes?

Printing this trash anywhere outside of "My blog about my feelings" is irresponsible and embarrassing.

Ok, just started to read the article, and already I am not agreeing with "Samsung’s update to history’s best-selling Android phone, the Galaxy S series, delivered on the technical specifications but continued the line’s “unpleasant, cheap design.”" The Galaxy S series is to me by far better than the ongoing iPhone look. The only thing keeping me to getting the Galaxy now is a contract.

So, now I read about the "phablets" and the first thing that came to my mind was the then sleep Palm Pre, which already allowed me to call, take pictures, and use it a tablet, where I could use my stylus to do many tasks I can hardly do on the iPhone. "Phablet" is definitely a bad name, I say we call it like the "Walkie-talkie", a "Walkie-talkie-browsie-typie" device.

Walkie-talkie-browsie-typie

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on that name. "Phablet" is bad, but you've gone from bad to worse.

Innovation was replaced by financial engineering, mergers and acquisitions, and evasion of regulations.

Wait, this is new?

there is NO such thing as a "lost year for tech"

https://medium.com/p/fe1e46b8c02f

My take on this: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/was-2013-a-te...

I completely get your attacking the superfluity of the Atlantic article. It's expected from outlets like them. It's the end of the year. But you don't exactly give any reasons why this year was special, or whose work right now is going to come to fruition in 2030, or any other concrete reasons as to why 2013 wasn't, on the whole, an embarrassing year.

2013 was an incredibly embarrassing year for the technology industry. And no, I don't think the positive accomplishments of this year were, on the whole, special in comparison to those in other years. At least, we won't know if any were until a long time from now.

My point is that it wasn't a lost year. Done right, technology is about hard work, year after year, and getting rich slowly. The fact that a few jackasses made public embarrassments of themselves is mostly irrelevant to the people doing that work.

Moreover, the embarrassingness of the Valley's 2013 is a great thing for humanity in the long run, because it might move the technical focus outside of the Valley and the VC-funded world, and back into places that are more hospitable to Real Technology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com