Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the
Speaker 1: Tech are you? Happy New Year, everybody. Welcome to tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: Predicts twenty twenty four. Just so y'all know, I'm actually
Speaker 1: recording this on December twenty eighth, so I build that
Speaker 1: in just in case anything I predict for twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four already happened in the last couple of days of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, and I thought, you know that it
Speaker 1: had been years and years since I did the last
Speaker 1: one of these. Because these episodes are actually really hard
Speaker 1: to do. Unlike a standard episode, there's not really anything
Speaker 1: I can research before I start writing and then recording.
Speaker 1: I can have an idea about something that might happen
Speaker 1: that I could do a lot research to determine is
Speaker 1: it a plausible prediction or am I just shooting in
Speaker 1: the dark. But that's about it. Plus I also have
Speaker 1: to revisit the episode at the end of the year
Speaker 1: to see how well I made out with my predictions
Speaker 1: because I believe in accountability, So these episodes tend to
Speaker 1: be arduous. They're time consuming, they're frustrating because I don't
Speaker 1: have a great track record, and I thought I had
Speaker 1: not done one in many years because of how hard
Speaker 1: they are. In my mind, it was like, man, it
Speaker 1: must have been since like maybe twenty seventeen when I
Speaker 1: did the last one of these. But then I look
Speaker 1: back in my archive and I saw I did a
Speaker 1: prediction episode in twenty twenty one for the year of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, which shows you how incredibly unreliable my
Speaker 1: memory is, which also makes it hard to do a
Speaker 1: predictions episode. It's why I say, like, maybe I predicted
Speaker 1: something that already happened. Heck, maybe I predict something that
Speaker 1: happened like two years ago, because that's how bad my
Speaker 1: memory is. But anyway, gather round the old coat while
Speaker 1: he tells you about the future, and you wonder if
Speaker 1: maybe you could just quietly ship them off to a
Speaker 1: home or something. Let's get started, now, why don't we
Speaker 1: just jump on board with a prediction about x AKA,
Speaker 1: the platform formerly known as Twitter. Now, I'm tempted to
Speaker 1: say that twenty twenty four will be the year when
Speaker 1: x folds. The company has obviously been on the decline
Speaker 1: since Elon Musk bought it, and it actually wasn't in
Speaker 1: the best of shape before Musk bought it either, But
Speaker 1: with advertisers becoming increasingly gun shy around X due to
Speaker 1: Musk's tendency to not only allow hate speech on the platform,
Speaker 1: but also he occasionally promotes it himself, it's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine Elon and company finding a way to course correct.
Speaker 1: On top of that, there are tons of issues mounting
Speaker 1: for the company. One big one is that X as
Speaker 1: a whole hasn't been so good about paying a lot
Speaker 1: of the bills. Last year, we heard about vendors and
Speaker 1: landlords bringing lawsuits against X because the company failed to
Speaker 1: pay what it owed. Current and former employees have also
Speaker 1: brought lawsuits against the company arguing that it hasn't paid
Speaker 1: out contractually obligated compensation and severance, so less money's coming
Speaker 1: into the company due to boycotts from advertisers, and a
Speaker 1: lot of parties are coming up saying you need to
Speaker 1: pay your debts to us. It is not a very
Speaker 1: good situation economically speaking. But I am not going to
Speaker 1: predict that X will die in twenty twenty four for
Speaker 1: a couple of reasons. One, while I personally disliked the
Speaker 1: platform and Elon Musk, I don't want to see any
Speaker 1: company go under. I don't want all the folks working
Speaker 1: at X to find themselves without a job. And two,
Speaker 1: it's too easy of a prediction right. Plus, like Elon
Speaker 1: Musk has what appears to be kind of an obsession
Speaker 1: with this concept of turning X into the everything app,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he's going to be willing to
Speaker 1: give that up, even if it's costing money. So instead,
Speaker 1: I'm going to predict that X actually gets its act
Speaker 1: together this year, that Elon Musk perhaps realizes that maybe
Speaker 1: he should back away from being such an active and
Speaker 1: visible part of X and maybe let the actual CEO,
Speaker 1: Linda Yakarino, work on repairing the relationship the company has
Speaker 1: with brands and advertisers. Maybe they will actually determine that
Speaker 1: X needs to commit to paying the amount it o's
Speaker 1: to all those parties, and that slowly it starts to
Speaker 1: set itself on the right path. I don't think X
Speaker 1: is going to be in a remarkably better position by
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty four, but I'm predicting that
Speaker 1: I'll be pointed the right way. For once, do I
Speaker 1: believe in my own prediction. If I'm being honest, I don't.
Speaker 1: I really think X is just going to be a
Speaker 1: bigger mess. But I'm going to predict the opposite because
Speaker 1: if it pans out, won't it be a ma that
Speaker 1: I was calling a shot like this that'd be phenomenal.
Speaker 1: And if it doesn't work out, then it essentially just
Speaker 1: meets everybody's expectations. So here's to looking forward to a
Speaker 1: new and kinder X by the end of this year.
Speaker 1: Maybe I suppose the next one should have actually been
Speaker 1: my first prediction. Considering all the fuss around AI in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, I think twenty twenty four we're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot more AI integration. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of talk about it last year, but we didn't
Speaker 1: really see a lot of actual integrations and implementations of AI.
Speaker 1: We saw a lot of hype around it. So I
Speaker 1: think that a lot of those integrations we're going to
Speaker 1: see this year are actually going to turn out to
Speaker 1: be more trouble than what they're worth, because I think
Speaker 1: a lot of business leaders are going to look at
Speaker 1: AI as some sort of cure all for business challenges.
Speaker 1: Now that's not to say that every AI implementation will
Speaker 1: be bad. I think we'll hear about some really creative
Speaker 1: and effective ways to incorporate A into business, whether it's
Speaker 1: for customer facing experiences or behind the scenes where it's
Speaker 1: largely gone unnoticed by anyone outside the organization. But with
Speaker 1: all the hype around artificial intelligence paired with a gap
Speaker 1: in understanding as to what it can and cannot do,
Speaker 1: I suspect we're going to see something similar to when
Speaker 1: companies first heard about the concept of the metaverse. They're
Speaker 1: going to rush in because they're going to be afraid
Speaker 1: of missing out. FOMO will be serious, They're not really
Speaker 1: going to have grips on what AI is good for,
Speaker 1: and we're ultimately going to see a situation similar to
Speaker 1: what we saw with NFTs a couple of years back.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a bubble, and that bubble will
Speaker 1: then eventually collapse, perhaps before the end of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: I actually think this is a shame, because I do
Speaker 1: think there are ways that AI can make a positive
Speaker 1: change for work. Those changes don't necessarily lead to layoffs
Speaker 1: or perhaps saddling some poor human employee with the job
Speaker 1: of double checking to make sure the AI didn't make
Speaker 1: some sort of dumb mistake or invent something that doesn't
Speaker 1: exist that would eventually tank the company. And if there
Speaker 1: is a bubble, and if it does burst, I think
Speaker 1: that's going to set back the AI field in general,
Speaker 1: not just generative AI, although that's where a lot of
Speaker 1: the focus has been in the last year, but for
Speaker 1: AI across the board, because we've seen similar things like
Speaker 1: that happen with other technologies. We've seen it with blockchain,
Speaker 1: we've seen it with virtual reality a couple of times actually,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk more about mixed reality a little bit
Speaker 1: later in this Predictions episode. And I think it's there's
Speaker 1: a good chance we're going to see it with AI.
Speaker 1: And again it's not that AI is bad or that
Speaker 1: there's no place for it, but that the hype around
Speaker 1: it and the expectation around it has a large gap
Speaker 1: between what is an actual good implementation of it, and
Speaker 1: I think particularly we're going to see that in generative AI.
Speaker 1: In fact, we started seeing it in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: but I think twenty twenty four is the year where
Speaker 1: we'll really see generative AI put through the paces and
Speaker 1: in at least several areas it's going to come up short,
Speaker 1: or it's going to cause headaches that could have been
Speaker 1: avoided if the AI had not been implemented in the
Speaker 1: first place. On a related note, I think we're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot more legislators and regulators all around
Speaker 1: the world try to tackle AI. However, I don't think
Speaker 1: we're going to get very many meaningful laws or regulations
Speaker 1: out of it. Perhaps this is because I have become
Speaker 1: cynical when it comes to lawmakers wrapping their heads around
Speaker 1: a technology and then trying to draft legislation, or it's
Speaker 1: possible that I feel this way because there are influential
Speaker 1: people in the AI space, for example Open AIS on
Speaker 1: again off against CEO Sam Altman, who are taking an
Speaker 1: aggressive role in trying to shape these regulations. When the
Speaker 1: parties that are going to be governed by regulations are
Speaker 1: taking an active role in forming the regulations, you should
Speaker 1: expect that they have an agenda and they're trying to
Speaker 1: have the regulations meet that agenda. So my worry is
Speaker 1: that we're going to see regulations that perhaps serve the
Speaker 1: interests of particular parties like open a Eye, while simultaneously
Speaker 1: holding back competition like a startup. Maybe it's also because
Speaker 1: I see a lot of politicians use technology more as
Speaker 1: a way to promote that they have a certain ideology.
Speaker 1: You know, think of the various politicians who point at
Speaker 1: efforts to think of the children when it comes to
Speaker 1: like taking an approach to objectionable material online. Right, if
Speaker 1: you look closely at the legislation, it almost never addresses
Speaker 1: any of the root problems. Instead, it's like patching symptoms.
Speaker 1: And sometimes they don't even patch the symptoms, so you
Speaker 1: end up with rules that don't address the actual problem
Speaker 1: and don't do anything useful, and it just makes things
Speaker 1: more muddy. In some cases, lawmakers go on and on
Speaker 1: about a problem, but they don't even draft anything. They
Speaker 1: just use the problem again as sort of a political
Speaker 1: stepping point to try and signify to potential voters. Hey,
Speaker 1: this is what I stand for, and the perceived problem
Speaker 1: is just a target, right, It's not anything that they're
Speaker 1: actually going to do anything about. The last few years
Speaker 1: have perhaps taken a lot of my optimism with them.
Speaker 1: So maybe I am being just incredibly pessimistic and cynical,
Speaker 1: but this is how it seems to play out to me. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we may get a few definitive rules in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four regarding AI, similar to how a judge in the
Speaker 1: US deemed that works authored by AI are not eligible
Speaker 1: for copyright protection. But I think there's going to be
Speaker 1: very specific for particular use cases. I don't think we're
Speaker 1: necessarily going to see comprehensive, effective legislation or regulations around
Speaker 1: AI not in twenty twenty four. On a related note,
Speaker 1: because twenty twenty four is an election year here in
Speaker 1: the United States, and because we've seen in recent years
Speaker 1: arise in attempts to influence voters, I suspect we're going
Speaker 1: to see an awful lot of AI assisted attempts to mislead, misinform,
Speaker 1: and deceive US citizens. I think deep fakes will play
Speaker 1: a big part, whether it's video or audio or whatever
Speaker 1: it may be, in a way to try and sway
Speaker 1: voters from one point of view to another or to
Speaker 1: reinforce certain ideas. I think AI drafted misinformation campaigns will
Speaker 1: be a big part of this too, And in turn,
Speaker 1: this is going to prompt the US government to pressure
Speaker 1: the social platforms to identify and remove misinformation quickly and accurately.
Speaker 1: But again, this doesn't actually address the underlying problem, right,
Speaker 1: because even if you are putting pressure on the social platforms,
Speaker 1: the parties that are actually generating the misinformation are still
Speaker 1: active and they're still going to be flooding any available
Speaker 1: channel with that misinformation. So again, it's not addressing the
Speaker 1: underlying issue, although I don't even know how you would
Speaker 1: go about doing that, but the point being that it's
Speaker 1: a little reactive, it's not proactive, and it doesn't solve
Speaker 1: the problem. It just shifts the problem to a different party,
Speaker 1: that being the platforms that serve as the launching ground
Speaker 1: for these misinformation campaigns. And I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to mean that we're going to see less of it.
Speaker 1: I think one consequence of this is we'll see even
Speaker 1: more opposition to TikTok in particular, not that I think
Speaker 1: TikTok necessarily deserves that treatment, but we're already seeing a
Speaker 1: growing belief that the platform purposefully directs users to specific
Speaker 1: videos to push an agenda. Various investigations by journalists have
Speaker 1: shown that there's very little evidence of this, that TikTok
Speaker 1: is more focused on serving up content that will keep
Speaker 1: a user on TikTok longer, and that it doesn't really
Speaker 1: care what the messaging of that content is as long
Speaker 1: as it's not breaking the law, in which case TikTok
Speaker 1: wants to remove it so that they don't get in trouble.
Speaker 1: If someone stays on TikTok longer because of misinformation, and
Speaker 1: that misinformation has a particular like political ideology associated with it,
Speaker 1: TikTok will just keep serving up that content to that
Speaker 1: particular user, not because it's trying to radicalize that person,
Speaker 1: but because TikTok benefits from folks staying on TikTok longer.
Speaker 1: But this is a system that bad actors can gain.
Speaker 1: Right Meanwhile, lawmakers look at TikTok as being the problem
Speaker 1: rather than those who are creating the actual content. So
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see a lot more political
Speaker 1: posturing about how TikTok is destroying the United States and
Speaker 1: should be banned. And to be clear, I am not
Speaker 1: a fan of TikTok, but I really feel like the
Speaker 1: concern is directed at the wrong place here. I will
Speaker 1: say that I expect there to be increased rhetoric around
Speaker 1: banning TikTok here in the United States, but we're not
Speaker 1: actually going to see that happen at least not on
Speaker 1: a national level. I think it'll be used more as
Speaker 1: a political tool for folks who are running in the
Speaker 1: election rather than as an actual policy. So I predict
Speaker 1: that by the end of twenty twenty four, TikTok will
Speaker 1: still be a thing and folks in the US will
Speaker 1: still be able to access it legally. Okay, I've got
Speaker 1: several more predictions to go through before we get to those.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break to think our sponsors. Okay,
Speaker 1: Next up, I'm gonna stick my neck out about an
Speaker 1: Apple product. Now, historically, I have a terrible record for
Speaker 1: this because I famously dismissed the iPad back in the
Speaker 1: day because I thought no one wanted a tablet form
Speaker 1: factor computer system. Tablet computers had been around for years
Speaker 1: before the iPad came out. Also, I thought the iPad
Speaker 1: was a really dumb name. It's funny because now it's
Speaker 1: been around for a while, but when it was first
Speaker 1: and an lots of folks said, iPad, are you serious?
Speaker 1: But then boom, the product comes out and like the iPhone,
Speaker 1: it establishes itself in the hearts of consumers and Apple
Speaker 1: fanatics everywhere. Hecker Ment other companies could actually produce their
Speaker 1: own consumer tablets and sell those to the public as well.
Speaker 1: And previously you would only really come across tablet computers
Speaker 1: if you happen to work in certain environments, like say
Speaker 1: a hospital, But now you know, like kids are using
Speaker 1: them as playthings. However, I really feel that the Apple
Speaker 1: Vision Pro headset, which is an upcoming mixed reality device
Speaker 1: that leans heavily on the augmented reality part of the
Speaker 1: mixed reality spectrum, I don't think it's going to be
Speaker 1: a big success, and that's partly because no one has
Speaker 1: managed to make a mixed reality viable consumer product that
Speaker 1: is at like the high end of the tech spectrum. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there are VR headsets that are popular among a subset
Speaker 1: of gamers, but even that, it's like a slow of
Speaker 1: a slice of a demographic, right, it's not the general public.
Speaker 1: General public has not adopted VR, but some gamers have. Now,
Speaker 1: I'd say that there's no real precedent here, and that's
Speaker 1: why I think Apple's going to fail. However, I also
Speaker 1: have to face the fact that that's the same thing
Speaker 1: I said about tablet computers years ago, before the iPad
Speaker 1: had come out. But that's just one reason I think
Speaker 1: it's going to fail. Another one is because the price
Speaker 1: tag the Apple Vision Pro is going to retail for
Speaker 1: three four hundred and ninety nine dollars thirty five hundred
Speaker 1: dollars is incredibly expensive, and it puts the Vision Pro
Speaker 1: outside the price range for most consumers. Now, I have
Speaker 1: not experienced the Vision Pro personally. I have watched some
Speaker 1: videos and I've read some reviews that said the experience
Speaker 1: is really impressive, that Apple delivers a good experience, But
Speaker 1: a lot of those reviews also raise concerns that there
Speaker 1: are a limited number of things you can do with
Speaker 1: the Apple Vision Pro, that some of those things probably
Speaker 1: aren't practical at least not for say, like productivity purposes
Speaker 1: for a full day of work, because you know the
Speaker 1: battery won't last that long. And this also leads us
Speaker 1: to a chicken in the egg problem that a lot
Speaker 1: of new technology faces. Maybe instead, I should say the
Speaker 1: hardware and the software problem. So launching any new computer,
Speaker 1: hardware or platform is a tricky thing, whether that's a
Speaker 1: video game console, a brand new computer system, or an
Speaker 1: augmented reality headset. And that's because the hardware needs good
Speaker 1: software in order to be useful, and something that's valuable
Speaker 1: to consumers. Otherwise you end up with a very expensive
Speaker 1: piece of technology, like a pair of electronic goggles that
Speaker 1: only is able to perform a limited number of tasks,
Speaker 1: and so consumers don't see the necessity of purchasing such
Speaker 1: a thing, right Apart from the desire to have the newest,
Speaker 1: coolest techechnology, if the tech only does a limited number
Speaker 1: of things, then you might say, well, how is this
Speaker 1: worth the money? Meanwhile, software developers need to feel confident
Speaker 1: that they're going to see a return on investment for
Speaker 1: their work for developing applications for the hardware platform. If
Speaker 1: you're a developer and you have the chance to build
Speaker 1: apps for a platform that's brand new, but you also
Speaker 1: see that the platform is not likely to receive widespread adoption,
Speaker 1: you might pull a fagin and review the situation, because
Speaker 1: it won't do you any good. If you spend hundreds
Speaker 1: of developer hours, spending significant amounts of money to develop
Speaker 1: something that only a few people will ever purchase or experience,
Speaker 1: you're not going to get a return on your investment.
Speaker 1: That time and money could go to something else that
Speaker 1: would actually reach more customers. So software developers really want
Speaker 1: a large user base. They want to have as many
Speaker 1: users as possible on the hardware so that they're likely
Speaker 1: to see success with their app. Meanwhile, the user base
Speaker 1: or potential user base wants a product to have lots
Speaker 1: of apps on it. They want a real good library
Speaker 1: of applications, and that needs to be there for the
Speaker 1: consumers to feel confident to purchase the product. So you
Speaker 1: have potential users waiting for more features and functionality, and
Speaker 1: you have developers waiting for enough users to justify the
Speaker 1: work that is needed to build out those features in functionality,
Speaker 1: and it's a classic Chicken and the software problem or something.
Speaker 1: I'm bad with metaphors. So I think that the Apple
Speaker 1: Vision pro will impress reviewers at least as far as
Speaker 1: the functionality goes when it launches, But I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to become an Apple flagship product like the iPhone.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what, if anything, will ever make mixed
Speaker 1: reality headsets a successful consumer item. I worry that the
Speaker 1: form factor as it stands now, the bulky headset is
Speaker 1: a really big herd. Just like people didn't flock to
Speaker 1: three D televisions despite multiple manufacturers really pushing three DTV
Speaker 1: like a decade ago, because nobody really wanted to deal
Speaker 1: with the hassle of having to wear special glasses just
Speaker 1: to watch TV at home. So I predict that the
Speaker 1: Apple Vision pro will be a commercial failure. I look
Speaker 1: forward to being gobsmacked at the end of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four when it becomes one of the top selling items
Speaker 1: on the market or something. But I just I don't
Speaker 1: think the market is there. I think if Apple had
Speaker 1: been able to actually create a pair of ar glasses
Speaker 1: that look like eyeglasses, it would be a totally different story.
Speaker 1: But it just didn't happen. That form factor is so
Speaker 1: small that cramming in all the components, you would need
Speaker 1: to have a decent pair of AR glasses that one
Speaker 1: could do all the things he wanted to do, and
Speaker 1: two had a battery that would support it for longer
Speaker 1: than say, five minutes. It just was isn't realistic, And
Speaker 1: I just don't think consumers are eager to strap a
Speaker 1: big headset to their face for multiple hours a day,
Speaker 1: even though it honestly could be super cool as far
Speaker 1: as the experience goes. I just don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to be there. Another thing I think is going to
Speaker 1: be big in twenty twenty four will be news about
Speaker 1: quantum computing. But that being said, a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: actually has to happen for quantum computers to transform from
Speaker 1: being impressive technological and scientific achievements to becoming a practical technology.
Speaker 1: Quantum computing has the potential to totally change the world.
Speaker 1: It could disrupt fundamental technologies like encryption methodologies, but that
Speaker 1: only is true if the quantum computer is paired with
Speaker 1: the proper quantum algorithms and programs. Again, it's a hardware
Speaker 1: software issue. It's not just that you have a device
Speaker 1: that from a technical level could do these things. You
Speaker 1: have to actually build the programs or algorithms to achieve
Speaker 1: those things on the hardware, and we haven't heard a
Speaker 1: whole lot about that second category of developments in quantum computing.
Speaker 1: We've heard a lot about the incredible advancements companies have
Speaker 1: made in building larger and larger quantum computers, but not
Speaker 1: so much on the algorithm development side. So my guess
Speaker 1: is we're going to see more stories not just about
Speaker 1: impressive quantum computing hardware, but on the development of the
Speaker 1: software side of the equation. So again, it's one thing
Speaker 1: to make a quantum computer work. It's another thing to
Speaker 1: make it work for you, and I think that's really
Speaker 1: where we're going to see more of the story shift
Speaker 1: in this year, because otherwise you're just going to have
Speaker 1: a really powerful machine, but you have nothing to run
Speaker 1: on it. It's not very useful. And it's not like
Speaker 1: quantum computers can replace classical computers. They work on entirely
Speaker 1: different principles, at least from a a scale perspective, and
Speaker 1: quantum computers would be terrible at the things that classical
Speaker 1: computers are good at, just like classical computers would take
Speaker 1: ages to complete tasks that quantum computers, when paired with
Speaker 1: a correct algorithm, could complete in a fraction of the time.
Speaker 1: So I think we're going to see the narrative shift
Speaker 1: a bit in twenty twenty four as we approach a
Speaker 1: future where quantum computers are actively doing incredible stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: some predictions are a bit too easy. For example, I
Speaker 1: could say we're going to see a lot more development
Speaker 1: around electric vehicles, but that's no brainer. With various regions
Speaker 1: passing laws that will phase out internal combustion engines over
Speaker 1: the next decade or so, it's pretty much a guarantee
Speaker 1: that electric vehicles are going to be big news from
Speaker 1: this point moving forward. Likewise, I could make a prediction about, say,
Speaker 1: the next Nintendo video game console. I could say, oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to get a new Nintendo in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: But there's there's been leaks of internal Nintendo documentation that
Speaker 1: already suggests that that's going to happen, right that we're
Speaker 1: going to get a follow up to the Switch. No
Speaker 1: one knows outside of Nintendo anyway. No one knows what
Speaker 1: it's going to be called. We're pretty sure the form
Speaker 1: factor isn't going to be that different from the Switch.
Speaker 1: It'll still be some sort of handheld console hybrid. But
Speaker 1: beyond that, you know, we don't have details, but we
Speaker 1: do know it's coming. There's not much point predicting something
Speaker 1: that is already pretty likely to happen due to the
Speaker 1: bits we know. I do think I can make a
Speaker 1: couple of other interesting predictions. I think we're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot of change in the streaming media space.
Speaker 1: For the last couple of years, streaming services have encounter
Speaker 1: challenges when it comes to running a profitable business. It
Speaker 1: turns out you can't depend entirely on never ending growth
Speaker 1: of subscribers, because sooner or later you're gonna plateau because
Speaker 1: adoption will hit us saturation point. There just won't be
Speaker 1: more people willing or able to subscribe to your service.
Speaker 1: And if that's how you are looking at growth and
Speaker 1: revenue is by adding subscribers, you're kind of up the creek.
Speaker 1: The cable industry faced the same thing because you had
Speaker 1: cable networks that we're trying to solve this problem, right,
Speaker 1: how do we get more subscribers when we're already on
Speaker 1: pretty much all the cable packages. Well, the solution that
Speaker 1: the cable industry adopted, for the most part was to
Speaker 1: find new regions to launch their networks in and just
Speaker 1: start the process all over again. Right when I worked
Speaker 1: for Discovery Communications, or rather when Discovery Communications owned the
Speaker 1: company I was working for before they sold us off,
Speaker 1: I observed this personally. I saw the plans being, well,
Speaker 1: we can't really expand in the United States anymore because
Speaker 1: pretty much every cable package has the Discovery network as
Speaker 1: part of it. So what we're going to do focus
Speaker 1: on other regions like Asia or South America, and we'll
Speaker 1: just do it there. Which, if you're thinking about this,
Speaker 1: eventually run out of places to expand into, and you're
Speaker 1: back at the problem you were already facing. How do
Speaker 1: you grow when you're already everywhere? Well, streaming services have
Speaker 1: kind of run into a similar issue. The snazzy thing
Speaker 1: it looks like to do in twenty twenty four is
Speaker 1: to bundle streaming services with other streaming services to kind
Speaker 1: of spread both the risk and cost and also the
Speaker 1: profits around a little bit. So again, the hope is
Speaker 1: really to reach new customers, new subscribers, and then share
Speaker 1: the expense of generating content for folks to watch. This
Speaker 1: is the really complicated thing with streaming services, right, How
Speaker 1: do you generate enough revenue to support the generation of
Speaker 1: content that you need to have in order to convince
Speaker 1: people to subscribe and stay with you. If you stop
Speaker 1: me content, eventually your subscribers are going to say, I've
Speaker 1: already watched everything that i'm interested in on here, there's
Speaker 1: no reason for me to stay, and they cancel their subscription.
Speaker 1: But if you keep generating content, especially like high end,
Speaker 1: high quality content, that's expensive, and if you're no longer
Speaker 1: adding lots of subscribers each quarter, it looks like your
Speaker 1: service isn't profitable. It's a tough position to be in.
Speaker 1: It's a very tricky business, and maybe that's why Amazon
Speaker 1: Prime Video is introducing advertising to its service. The costs
Speaker 1: keep coming, but the subscriber numbers aren't increasing at a
Speaker 1: rate that's fast enough to satisfy leaders and stakeholders. So
Speaker 1: if you can't compensate the cost by adding more subscribers,
Speaker 1: you've got to find some other way to generate revenue.
Speaker 1: So with Amazon, they're going to add advertising in with
Speaker 1: the service, which could be really frustrating for those people
Speaker 1: who are actually spending the money to be subscribed to
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime and who had previously enjoyed a relatively ad
Speaker 1: free experience. Disney Plus and Hulu are merging. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you're subscribed to both already, you've seen this for yourself,
Speaker 1: but the rest of us have to wait till later
Speaker 1: this year to get the truly bundled service. As I
Speaker 1: record this, Warner Brothers Discovery is reportedly considering an acquisition
Speaker 1: of Paramount, though various analysts say that it's doubtful this
Speaker 1: will actually happen, but it does show how media companies
Speaker 1: are looking for solutions to this tricky problem, and it's
Speaker 1: a problem that has extra weight to it in the
Speaker 1: wake of the union strikes. In the entertainment industry, artists
Speaker 1: and crafts people want a slice of the profits, and
Speaker 1: that makes sense. They're the ones actually creating the content,
Speaker 1: so they deserve compensation. They should not be cut out
Speaker 1: of things like residuals. However, for the companies, the media companies,
Speaker 1: it means profit margins get even trickier for them. So
Speaker 1: I suspect we'll see a few streaming services fail outright
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four as companies decide they're just not
Speaker 1: profitable enough and they cease to be Like, I'm actually
Speaker 1: surprised that Max hasn't been completely scrubbed at this point.
Speaker 1: Consumer frustrations are going to continue to grow because no
Speaker 1: one wants to subscribe to a dozen different services in
Speaker 1: order to get the entertainment they want. That's another reason
Speaker 1: why I think the consolidation is going to happen. Partly
Speaker 1: is going to happen because otherwise consumers are going to
Speaker 1: drop their subscriptions out of frustration and out of a
Speaker 1: need to prioritize, especially in an economic climate where things
Speaker 1: are still seen as being uncertain. Okay, with that in mind,
Speaker 1: we're going to take another quick break when we come back.
Speaker 1: I've got a few more predictions to close out for
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, so we're back, and a lot of
Speaker 1: predictions that I would try to make depend on factors
Speaker 1: that are outside of the tech world. So, for example,
Speaker 1: in recent years, the US government has taken a more
Speaker 1: hardline stance on anti trust issues, right about anti competitive practices,
Speaker 1: companies becoming monopolies, that sort of thing. But that can
Speaker 1: all change depending on how the twenty twenty four elections go.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that we're going to see the same
Speaker 1: momentum heading into twenty twenty five depending on how those
Speaker 1: elections turn out, right, And I don't know if we'll
Speaker 1: see dramatic events unfold as a result of, say the
Speaker 1: anti trust lawsuits brought against companies like Google, or if
Speaker 1: those efforts will actually fizzle out. Maybe there'll be a
Speaker 1: change in administrations and the support for going after companies
Speaker 1: that are seen as being anti competitive will just drop out.
Speaker 1: That's a possibility. I'm tempted to say that even without
Speaker 1: a change in administrations, we're not likely to see much
Speaker 1: happen with Google. It's actually been a couple of decades
Speaker 1: since the US government really pushed back against a giant
Speaker 1: corporation on anti trust issues, and I suspect there's not
Speaker 1: enough political momentum to make things actually have a meaningful change.
Speaker 1: So my prediction for the Google anti trust lawsuit is
Speaker 1: that Google will come out of it just fine. It
Speaker 1: may have to pay some fines, but ultimately it will
Speaker 1: remain intact and will continue to consolidate its power. And
Speaker 1: maybe it'll be freaking out because AI enabled search is
Speaker 1: totally disrupting the advertising market. In fact, I'm sure that's
Speaker 1: happening already. But likewise, besides political factors, you have economic
Speaker 1: factors that play a huge part in the tech world,
Speaker 1: especially in the space of startups. You know, we've already
Speaker 1: seen a major Silicon Valley bank, in fact, it was
Speaker 1: the Silicon Valley Bank collapse because of factors like high
Speaker 1: interest rates. With the unpredictability of the global economy, it's
Speaker 1: hard to say if twenty twenty four will be a
Speaker 1: rough year for funding startups. You know, as angel investors
Speaker 1: show their angelic natures, can only go so far, because
Speaker 1: if they can't take out a loan to pour into
Speaker 1: startup investments, they might not be willing to part with
Speaker 1: their own cash. So it could be another tough year
Speaker 1: for folks who dream of starting a company and then
Speaker 1: getting acquired before you know, they have to figure out
Speaker 1: a way to make money themselves. I might also be
Speaker 1: really cynical about startup culture in the podcast world. I
Speaker 1: think we're actually going to see the number of shows decrease. Overall.
Speaker 1: We're still going to get new podcasts launching throughout the year,
Speaker 1: I have no doubt about that, but with companies like
Speaker 1: Spotify cutting back on how much they spend on podcast production,
Speaker 1: the money will dwindle and you'll see less that will
Speaker 1: be available to fund the creation of shows they're Also
Speaker 1: I'm guessing there's going to be a decline in the
Speaker 1: willingness to support shows that aren't pulling in big numbers. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: there might be a show that's a prestige on a network,
Speaker 1: but if it's doing really poorly a number of listeners,
Speaker 1: Like maybe it's highly regarded among critics, but no one's
Speaker 1: really subscribing to it. I think we're going to see
Speaker 1: less support for those kinds of shows, because, I mean,
Speaker 1: it never looks good to cancel a Prestie's show, but
Speaker 1: it also is not great to fund the production of
Speaker 1: something that's not making its money back. So I think
Speaker 1: we're going to see a reversal of the podcast trend
Speaker 1: this year. Like over the last couple of years, we've
Speaker 1: seen so many podcasts launch that we've even joked about
Speaker 1: everyone and their dog getting a podcast. I think in
Speaker 1: some cases that's true. I think there probably are podcasts
Speaker 1: that are hosted by a person and their dog. I
Speaker 1: don't think we're going to see as much of that
Speaker 1: this year. Now. For independent podcasters, the people who are
Speaker 1: doing everything themselves, maybe they're doing it just as a hobby,
Speaker 1: maybe they're not looking for a way to make a
Speaker 1: living through their podcasts. I don't think this is applicable.
Speaker 1: I think we're still going to get those folks who
Speaker 1: have a story to tell and they're willing to put
Speaker 1: in the work to tell the story, and they're not
Speaker 1: expecting anything back out of it. I don't see that
Speaker 1: changing necessarily in twenty twenty four. But when we're looking
Speaker 1: at the big networks, I suspect we're going to see
Speaker 1: some scaling back. Now, in the interest of full disclosure,
Speaker 1: I have to say I am an executive producer for
Speaker 1: iHeart Podcasts. But I don't actually have any insight into
Speaker 1: what will happen here. It's not like I've been part
Speaker 1: of deep strategic discussions about whether or not we personally
Speaker 1: as a company are going to launch more or fewer shows.
Speaker 1: I do not know. I am not privy to that information.
Speaker 1: In fact, it may very well be that by the
Speaker 1: end of twenty twenty four I'll have a ton of
Speaker 1: new shows added onto my slate, and it may turn
Speaker 1: out that I'm one hundred percent wrong on this and
Speaker 1: that we'll actually see another boom period for podcasts on
Speaker 1: big networks. But I don't feel like that's where things
Speaker 1: are headed for twenty twenty four. And this is just
Speaker 1: a gut feeling I'm going with. And that is a
Speaker 1: selection of my predictions for the tech space in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. I didn't go into a lot of specific
Speaker 1: like products or anything like that, because honestly, it's if
Speaker 1: you're looking at products, chances are you're looking at things
Speaker 1: like leaked information about stuff that's already been in development
Speaker 1: for a couple of years. It would be a real
Speaker 1: a miracle if I just predicted something out of the
Speaker 1: blue that no one is knowingly working on. But I
Speaker 1: don't have that kind of creativity in me right now. However,
Speaker 1: at the end of this year, I will revisit this
Speaker 1: episode and I will see how I did with my predictions.
Speaker 1: One thing is for certain, twenty twenty four will have
Speaker 1: a ton of events that no one saw coming right,
Speaker 1: stuff that just isn't predictable. Maybe a massive company will
Speaker 1: go out of business, Maybe some tech leader will end
Speaker 1: up behind bars, Maybe NFTs will have a massive comeback.
Speaker 1: Maybe the most will become more than just a vague
Speaker 1: collection of ideas fueled by wishful thinking. By the way,
Speaker 1: for that last one, I do think you're gonna still
Speaker 1: have evangelists talking about the metaverse, but there'll be an
Speaker 1: increasing number of people who will have the mean girl's
Speaker 1: reaction of stop trying to make the metaverse happen. It
Speaker 1: isn't going to happen. But we'll see. I could be
Speaker 1: wrong about that too. Maybe it turns out that the
Speaker 1: metaverse was one of those ideas that was announced a
Speaker 1: little early and then took some more time to kind
Speaker 1: of solidify and become cohesive, and will be the next
Speaker 1: big thing. That is a possibility. I am personally skeptical
Speaker 1: of it, but as I've said many times before in
Speaker 1: this episode, I've been wrong before, so we'll see. I'll
Speaker 1: definitely come back and talk to y'all about these predictions
Speaker 1: at the end of the year, and until then, I
Speaker 1: hope you all are having a wonderful new year and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is
Speaker 1: an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.