Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Hello it's been a long time since I posted something here but I just had this thought I want to share, so I was discussing with a friend about how the technology it's gradually hitting a point of "diminishing return" which it's basically a moment when future improvement on a certain area becomes slow and it's hardly noticiable. This especially affects companies that make profit selling products tha thrive trough innovation like tv's, smarthphones, computers, etc.

One example of a technology that is recently hitting a wall is screen resolutions, for a regular user 1080p is the wall for smartphones and 4k is for computers and tv, so in this way in about 5/10 years screen resolution will not be a deciding factor when buying a computer/tv/smartphone.

One more subtle example is videogames, improving graphics is becoming not whorth the effort, having better models implies a lot of work which is a lot of money and this doesn't guarantee profits, even that graphics no longer have that mindblowing factor that they used to have. We already experienced this effect with PS3/Xbox vs PS4/Xbox One.

So in this way imagine a future in about 10/15 years when you have a computer that has a 4k resolution, 8TB SSD, a battery life of 1 week, and the capacity to run any recent and future games (because nobody cares about better graphics), what would motivate to buy the next computer?

This also will apply to other types of industries, let's say in 20 years they invent a cheap car that works with water and last for like 50 years. What would you buy when you already have a godly computer, smartphone, car, etc.?

In conclusion I think that all the advances in technology will sink a lot of industries because their products are to "good" and I belive it will be in at most in the next 50 years but my guess is for the next 20 years.

You're thinking of commercial goods when there are many other avenues of technology that are under a geometric curve of improvement. There may be improvements in a technology that may not need tweaking anymore, but that's not to say that technology in those areas will cease to grow. Our technological growth has increased far more than it has ever been in the past.

Hopefully I'll be worrying more about the capabilities of my virtual reality headset by the time we hit physical screen limits.

ie you'll be motivated to buy whatever replaces your super high res computer and phone.

Interesting statement that you have provided, using diminishing return as the prime example for your statement. I can understand your thoughts about technology advancement fading. I believe that there is another reason for why we have appeared to hit a wall. That reason is familiarity with current-day technology. The men and women behind our technology of today have become so accustomed with what is already known, and what works, that they have no reason to strive for bigger, or better.

Think about it; if we are truly reaching the limit of advancement of technology, it must also mean that we aren't motivated enough to incline "better." If we have reached the limit of our advancement in technological progress, it means that we have no desire to advance, as we have it "good enough." I believe that we don't have enough people, and the "ludicrous" expenses to find better technology.

So, it's probable that that your statement about commercial technology is veracious. Maybe we will be hindered of progress for the next 20 years. But remember this; humanity will always try to find ways to improve itself. If it doesn't, then it has failed itself. And who knows? Maybe we will have bigger and better technology in our hands before we suspect it.

But it's just my thought.

Yeah I think it's something to think about, this diminishing return effect I think it's like a quasi-law in the sense it's highly applicable, for example in music, clasical musicians already reached this point, in our era is practically impossible to become as famous as mozart or beethoven.

The radio is a product that already passed this diminishing return effect, there is no reason to make a better radio when the user is perfectly fine with a cheap one. There are radios that are able to listen to international stations or other stuff but in the end they have little value for a regular user.

Internet also goes that way, when the average internet speed is around 1-2 Gb again there will be hardly any reason to improve that speed.

Obviously this is considering our actual life style, maybe in the future we have another things to spend our money. Scientific Improvements on the other hand will continue as far as the human mind is capable of,

cringe

One example of a technology that is recently hitting a wall is screen resolutions, for a regular user 1080p is the wall for smartphones and 4k is for computers and tv, so in this way in about 5/10 years screen resolution will not be a deciding factor when buying a computer/tv/smartphone.

Why do you think that? Small devices like smartphones, yea, might hit a wall there since they are so small, but to say screen resolution as a whole is hitting a wall? really?
4k computer screen and tvs are great, anything better than that would be even better, especially giant tvs and projectors. Very large resolutions are also amazing to pictures and videos, being able to zoom in super far. I see no reason to why it would stop.
Also, lower resolution TVs will almost always be cheaper. I bought a 480p computer monitor for $15, a 1080p monitor costs $100+, so yea, resolution is still something people look at when buying things.

One more subtle example is videogames, improving graphics is becoming not whorth the effort, having better models implies a lot of work which is a lot of money and this doesn’t guarantee profits, even that graphics no longer have that mindblowing factor that they used to have. We already experienced this effect with PS3/Xbox vs PS4/Xbox One.

yea, no difference at all really
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fng-OaFeeO0/maxresdefault.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pBkCB1zRIx4/maxresdefault.jpg
Also look at newer games like The Witcher, you can't tell me the graphics aren't amazingly better than games 5+ years ago

Saying graphics aren't improving very much and better graphics don't improve a game is ridiculous. Have fun playing a VR game with terrible 3D graphics, or even worse, 2D graphics.

(because nobody cares about better graphics), what would motivate to buy the next computer?

head smash
*sigh
Why would nobody care about better graphics? Graphics in videos games will ALWAYS be improving. Even if it didn't, you'd still need to upgrade your RAM and CPU to deal with memory and calculations. Even if there was a 80TB SSD, we would still buy more of them since they often crash, and, eventually, 80TB won't be enough. Ask anyone if they would ever see a future where we even need a 1TB HHD 15 year ago, and I doubt anyone would.

A Windows XP computer from 2005 worked perfectly fine, yet no one today would chose between that computer and a modern one if they were the same price.

The radio is a product that already passed this diminishing return effect, there is no reason to make a better radio

I'll kinda agree with that. A radio could still use improvements (such as sound quality and range), but people have moved on to other services, making a traditional radio less useful.

Internet also goes that way, when the average internet speed is around 1-2 Gb again there will be hardly any reason to improve that speed.

Why is that? Even today, new AAA games can be 50GB+ can you imagine in 10+ years? Gb internet is behind even today.

So in this way imagine a future in about 10/15 years when you have a computer that has a 4k resolution, 8TB SSD, a battery life of 1 week, and the capacity to run any recent and future games (because nobody cares about better graphics), what would motivate to buy the next computer?

Well, it might have 8TB of storage, but imagine the space software 10/15 years from now will take up. You have to keep in mind that even though that seems like a shit ton now, it probably won't be in 15 years. Imagine if games get to be like Sword Art Online, that would take an incredible amount of space on your system. I don't think that we will see what you are talking about anytime soon. Kind of like what lisa said, certain things will be replaced. Maybe gamers won't give a shit about TVs anymore, but VR headsets.

Poochyena you seem to completely miss the point of my post and nitpick every detail,

{4k computer screen and tvs are great, anything better than that would be even better, especially giant tvs and projectors. Very large resolutions are also amazing to pictures and videos, being able to zoom in super far. I see no reason to why it would stop.}

First the screen resolution topic was completely aimed for smartphones, computers and your average tv, things a regular person would care, cameras are good point that I didn't consider but I'm really skeptical about the usage of a 4k-8k for normal person. About resolutions:

"For a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k."

{yea, no difference at all really
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fng-OaFeeO0/maxresdefault.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pBkCB1zRIx4/maxresdefault.jpg
Also look at newer games like The Witcher, you can’t tell me the graphics aren’t amazingly better than games 5+ years ago}

Again missing the point, yes there is a difference but is marginal, if you compare PS2 vs PS3 it's mindblowing, if you compare PS3 vs PS4 it's nice, PS4 and Xbox were highly criticed for the lackluster graphical capacity because most people were expecting a mindblowing graphics, better graphic also have the problem that skyrockets development costs at the point that is very risky to make a gorgeous game.

{A Windows XP computer from 2005 worked perfectly fine, yet no one today would chose between that computer and a modern one if they were the same price.}

Wrong a 2005 computer had tons limitants, resolution, processing, storage, hell even mutitasking was enough to freeze a computer, also a regular computer of that time was pretty bad for playing videogames. A budget computer today can run recent videogames in low/mid settings.

{Why is that? Even today, new AAA games can be 50GB+ can you imagine in 10+ years? Gb internet is behind even today.}

The only way that this is relevant is if people constantly download 50GB+ games, any non-gamer would not care about this stuff, also I say average internet speed, there still be higher speeds if you require, it's hard to believe that the average internet speed will be better than that.

But the main is point that you miss is that commercial technology will reach a point that will become to good and it will be hard to make a significant improvement, this also make me think that companies will have a hard time justifing their new iphone 10 when the iphone 9 is good enough.

Again it's pretty much speculation I'm not nostradamus or something, just a random topic that I found interesting.

What you are saying has been said time and time again, and is always proved wrong
Worst tech predictions

Just like no one from 1999 would have predicted that we would have supercomputers in our pockets, you have no idea the advancements that will take place in the next 15 years.

Edit: there is one quote I really like. A guy from the early 1900s saying how technology had become so advanced, he couldn't imagine it changing much anymore. I just can't find it.

It's not about concrete predictions but about the fact that there are "walls" that will stop the improvement, screen resolution sum it up, our human eyes can no longer detect a difference between 4k and 8k unless it's on a gigantic monitor and we are sitting very close to it, a small monitor has no reason to have a 8k resolution, that's the wall.

Maybe all my other numbers are completely off but my theory is this walls are very close to our present, maybe internet speed caps at 1 TB maybe the pc storage wall is at petabytes but the point remains.

Then holograms and VR tech come in and make screens obsolete. My point is that these walls you speak off are so far off, that I can't imagine the time when we reach them.

You mean this quote "Everything that can be invented has been invented."?
I looked it up too for this thread, found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell

but yea, Rikkhan, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k
VR gear, you are, like, 1 inch away from the screen, and people are even able to use their phones for VR, so people will want super high res for their phones too so they can go into VR mode whenever they want.

• if you compare PS2 vs PS3 it’s mindblowing, if you compare PS3 vs PS4 it’s nice*

I completely disagree with that. ps4 games have added much more details.

The only way that this is relevant is if people constantly download 50GB+ games, any non-gamer would not care about this stuff

Anyone who streams 4k videos, anyone in a household of more than 1 person who streams 4k videos, people who like to back up their data online. There are plenty of reason to need super fast internet.

• make me think that companies will have a hard time justifing their new iphone 10 when the iphone 9 is good enough.*

People always want more. I'm perfectly happy with my $50 smartphone, I honestly have no clue why people pay $500+ for a phone every few years…
But, there will always be a new gimmick to pursue people to buy a new phone. Maybe they'll soon add a HMDI cable and a USB to phones and they'll be able to replace consoles.

I just think it is silly to think "well, this stuff is good enough how it is now, so I see no reason why it would need to be any better in the future."

PCs will continue to get more powerful. As PCs get more powerful and programs smarter and more complex, things that take a lot of time and money now can start being cheaper and easier to make.

For example, when it comes to video games, someone could create a program that could intemperate 2D art into a 3D asset with just a simple scan. So for example, I draw an Overview of the map, then draw a few assets of key areas, the game could assemble the rest of the level itself, Textured and modeled completely the only thing left would be coding. Then the costs of making games looking better would become drastically cheaper.

What we are seeing is a stagnation before innovation breaks through. Similar things had to happen before computers and TVs could even reach the level they are now. It will need to happen again and again. We improve technologies a lot faster than we can make new ones, this is why this happens. Plus many tests are going on for new technologies such as quantum computing which would probably quickly catch up to regular PCs and surpass them once they could be created for personal use.

{ Then the costs of making games looking better would become drastically cheaper. }

& the people required to create it ever more obsolete.
Along with "can technology grow unlimited infinitely" you have to consider "should we let it".

Yes. and Yes.
You can't just stop technology to preserve jobs, that would have horrific probabilities.

You have to consider our ability to find resources. Planet earth only has so much space and resources. We need to be able to get more and use the stuff we already have better. Machines are simply more efficient than humans.

What do resources and space mean if nobody can afford to use them? We need resources to produce goods to sell to the people whose jobs were replaced by automation and now they're living off government scraps and can't afford nonessential goods anyway? There has to be a balance. There's nothing in this world that we can let grow infinitely without drastically detrimental effects.

Machines require power.
If machines could power themselves, Collect resources infinitely, and Manufacture anything with the minimal amount of waste, then all goods become cheap and affordable to all.
Everything could be evenly distributed then.

Do you mean like sentient machines? I have reason to believe AI can't be made through a computer program alone, but meh. I actually made some lengthy posts on smogon a few years ago when I played pokemon, but they were all deleted by some mod because I mentioned evilution and ended up likening e.coli to humans. I just don't see it happening.

{Humans are simply more efficient than humans.}

At least we are more efficient at extracting energy from fuel. Glycolysis in cells is like 40% efficient while engines can go from 10-30%

Rikkhan said:

…what would motivate to buy the next computer?

The more advanced a computer gets, the more advanced the software gets. Age of Empire's 2 required 300 MB of hard drive space. Age of Empires 3 requires 2 GB. Remember when that 40 gig hard drive was bigger than you ever thought you'd need? Now there's games the require 40 gigs. That 8 TB hard drive may seem big now, but in a decade, it'll be tiny.

Same for most requirements, from RAM to CPU. Games will continue to bloat. Not even necessarily because of graphics. You'll probably see GTA 8 take place over an entire state with dozens of cities, including several the size of Liberty City. Graphics aren't the only thing video games improve over time.

Then there's stuff like Photoshop or Premiere. You think those 3 TB, 4k HD files that are now standard are going to render and edit themselves?

…last for like 50 years…

In industry, there's a thing called planned obsolescence, which is when a product is specifically designed to have a limited life so it can be replaced with a newer product to be purchased. It's very doubtful any company would intentionally design their product to be perfect. Most cars can last decades if properly maintained, but there's always new and better features that get put into the new models. Plus design aesthetics.

Rikkhan said:

…maybe internet speed caps at 1 TB…

They've been able to get speeds up to 32 TB/s on a single fiber optic line.

Basilius said:

Collect resources infinitely…

There's only so many resources in the solar system. Even with 100% efficiency, baring matter/energy conversion, we'd run out once we hit the real cap--FTL. We're stuck in the solar system until we can figure out how to crack the universal speed limit.

We’re stuck in the solar system until we can figure out how to crack the universal speed limit.

Not really; we don't need FTL to get to some of the nearer sights in the galaxy, which can be 4 light years or so (alpha centauri). We already have the tech to get to 20-50% of light speed (although the legality of it is disputed), so an 8-15 year trip certainly wouldn't be impossible.

No it would be basic programming at best.
Machine A collects fuel.
Machine B transports the fuel.
Machine C Uses the fuel to generate power.

The power is transported to machines who use it to collect resource, produce goods, and transport those goods.

Doesn't need a massive AI to keep it running, just need a massive communication network and GPS for it to work.