search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
12 ICT IN THE FUTURE


Future Computing


Using technological growth curves to predict the future development of services By M. O’Brien and T. Ching


THE RATE OF GROWTH in the processing power and capacity of computing hardware has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years. Popularly known as Moore’s Law, the prediction made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors on a single chip would double every year has proved remarkably resilient. For example, the number of transistors on a standard chip in 1980 was 30,000, and by 2000, this had grown to 42 million. In real terms, that represented a doubling of processing power every 18 months. Another law, Kryder’s Law, predicts that the capacity of hardware to store data will double every two years, and the growth curve has largely been in line with this. Memory capacity too has followed a similar exponential growth curve, as has the growth in bandwidth, both wired and wireless. Taken together, these growth curves add up to an exponential increase in the overall performance and capacity of computer systems. A number of interesting predictions for ways in which this


increased performance and capacity will be used are highlighted in a 2007 report by Smart et al. [1]. Drawing together current trends in existing Internet technologies, they identified those which could be used to create shared social spaces. These spaces would provide tools to allow individuals to interact with each other, and with the world around them, in ways which have not been possible before. They put forward three key developments as central to this future. The first was the development of mirror worlds, which would use online data to mirror the physical and spatial reality that we experience in our everyday lives. The second was augmented reality, in which this data would be mapped to the geographical location of an individual. The third was lifelogging, the capture and storage of data on events which relate to an individual’s life. Of the three key future developments identified by Smart et al.


[1], it is perhaps the growth in lifelogging which best reflects the increase in processing power and storage capacity of hardware. In the early 1980s, Steve Mann created the first wearable computer (WearComp) to record details of his life. However, as the size and weight of WearComp made it extremely cumbersome, its functionality was very limited. So to increase this functionality, he began a process of development to make it smaller and more powerful. Although this took some time, eventually the wearable computer was reduced in size to where it resembled a pair of ordinary sunglasses. Consequently, in 1994, Mann was able to use the wearable computer for


Future Computing


‘lifecasting’, transmitting images of his everyday life to the Internet for others to access. This graphically demonstrates how the growth in hardware capacity revolutionized the way in which data could be captured. In 1999, Gordon Bell, a computer engineer and researcher, started the MyLifeBits project, which aimed to capture and store as much information about him and his life as possible. Initially, he stored e-mail, web pages and scanned documents, but as storage became more affordable, he began to record his conversations and archive them. He then began to store photographs taken every 60 seconds, using a specially developed camera which hung round his neck. Although he stores visual and audio data of all his encounters, this extreme lifelogging only takes up approximately 1Gb of storage space per month. While extreme lifelogging is relatively rare, Sellen [2] argues


convincingly that social networking sites are in fact “the emerging popularisation” of lifelogging. Social networking allows users to share data about their lives, using photos, music and video, as well as their thoughts and comments in text form. The growth of the social networking services appears to be linked closely with the fall in the cost of data storage. The rate of the fall can be seen in the landmark decision by Google in 2004 to provide 1Gb of storage as part of its free e-mail service. By 2006, this capacity had reached 2.7Gb, at the same time that the Facebook social networking service extended its free service to anybody over the age of 13. Social networking linked to video began to take shape around this time also, with the launch of YouTube in late 2005. However, not all new developments will depend on the same


technological growth. The Twitter service, which started in 2006, has been described as a form of social networking and micro-blogging. As it uses very short text messages, in contrast to other social networking services, Twitter requires relatively little processing power or storage capacity. As the key feature of Twitter is immediacy, it is possible to suggest that the rate of growth of service mirrors the number of individuals with mobile web access. The spectacular growth of Twitter, with up to 100 million users by the end of 2009, shows that while growth curves can be shown to influence new services, they are not very helpful in predicting them. While Moore’s Law is likely to continue to remain true for some time to come, in one form or another, the shape of the services which will be developed in the near future are still to be revealed.


page 59


Future Computing, vol. 22(7), p. 59, 2010 97


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140