Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tex Stuff from dot Com.
Speaker 1: Happy New Year, everyone, I'm Jonathan Strickland and this is
Speaker 1: tech Stuff. Today's episode is an annual tradition. It's the
Speaker 1: one in which I make predictions about the twelve months
Speaker 1: ahead of us. What do we have in store with
Speaker 1: tech now? Normally I do this with a co host,
Speaker 1: but this year I thought I'd try something a little different.
Speaker 1: I invited a few friends to send me a prediction
Speaker 1: or two an audio format, and so in this show,
Speaker 1: I'll occasionally play a clip from some good friends of
Speaker 1: mine with their insights into what two thousand and seventeen
Speaker 1: may bring us. So let's get started, and I want
Speaker 1: to start things off with a look ahead to c
Speaker 1: E S two thousand seventeen. It is on the mind
Speaker 1: right now for both me and my producer Dylan, who
Speaker 1: is in the room with me. We literally just got
Speaker 1: out of a meeting about c E and the stuff
Speaker 1: what we will bring with us when we go. So
Speaker 1: I'll be sitting through press conferences in Las Vegas by
Speaker 1: the time this particular episode goes live. Actually Dylan might
Speaker 1: be too, and we'll be listening to what companies plan
Speaker 1: to bring to market in the near future, but I
Speaker 1: am recording this episode in December two thousand sixteen, so
Speaker 1: right now it's still a mystery to me. So here
Speaker 1: are some of my predictions of stuff that I will
Speaker 1: see at c E S. First of all, VR and
Speaker 1: A are are gonna be everywhere. There's gonna be a
Speaker 1: whole section for VR and A R at c E S,
Speaker 1: but I would not be surprised to see it pop
Speaker 1: up in booths throughout the show, so there'll be a
Speaker 1: dedicated section. But then big big booths like Intel are
Speaker 1: likely going to have these on display sony, probably with
Speaker 1: the PlayStation VR. We're gonna see that everywhere. Plus we're
Speaker 1: gonna see tons of smart home devices and home automation
Speaker 1: that's also going to be omnipresent at c e S.
Speaker 1: Driverless car technologies and related products are going to have
Speaker 1: a big, strong showing at at c e Drones will
Speaker 1: be everywhere and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
Speaker 1: I've been playing with a Star Wars drone for the
Speaker 1: last couple of days, irritating people and ramming it into
Speaker 1: people's faces. It is amazing, and I think we'll also
Speaker 1: see a lot of three sixty degree cameras at the show.
Speaker 1: That seems to be like the new hot tech stuff
Speaker 1: at C E S. I think three sixty degree cameras
Speaker 1: are gonna be at a lot of different booths. We're
Speaker 1: gonna see a lot of different approaches. You're gonna see
Speaker 1: people claiming to have four K or eight K or
Speaker 1: maybe even sixteen kgree cameras, So we'll explore that when
Speaker 1: we're there. Now, I plan on recording an episode of
Speaker 1: tech Stuff while I'm at C E S with a
Speaker 1: certain Mr Ben Bolan as my co host, and I
Speaker 1: think he's gonna have me on an episode of car stuff, uh,
Speaker 1: and I will be his co host for that, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna kind of trade shows while we're there, and
Speaker 1: at that time, we'll see if I'm on track with
Speaker 1: these predictions. So you'll actually hear that in next week's episode.
Speaker 1: It's really weird to say next week's episode because I'm
Speaker 1: recording this on December twenty one, and I won't be
Speaker 1: recording the c S episode until early January. But for
Speaker 1: you guys, it's like only a week past. So hello
Speaker 1: from the past. I guess that's what I'm saying there. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's the e So let's move on. How about a
Speaker 1: prediction about Apple. So two thousand seventeen, we'll mark the
Speaker 1: tenth anniversary of the debut of the iPhone. Steve Jobs
Speaker 1: debut the iPhone in two thousand seven, So because of that,
Speaker 1: I think the next iPhone, the next generation, whatever it
Speaker 1: might be called, will be a bigger and bolder departure
Speaker 1: from the current design than the last couple of generations were. Um,
Speaker 1: I think Apple really needs to capitalize on this tenth
Speaker 1: year anniversary. So I think we're gonna see some really
Speaker 1: bold choices, hopefully that won't involve getting rid of more
Speaker 1: features like the headphone jack. But I also think that
Speaker 1: two is the year in which Apple gives us at
Speaker 1: least a sneak peek at their autonomous car technology. Now
Speaker 1: they're they're not building autonomous cars from what we understand,
Speaker 1: they're building systems, autonomous car systems that would be or
Speaker 1: at least things that would pair with autonomous car systems.
Speaker 1: Uh So I think we might actually get a sneak
Speaker 1: peek of that next year. That's kind of a long
Speaker 1: shot because Apple is not known for showing their technology early.
Speaker 1: They're much more likely to wait until it's ready to go,
Speaker 1: maybe show it off a month in advance of launching it.
Speaker 1: But I think next year is going to be a
Speaker 1: big year for Apple, or this year for you guys
Speaker 1: listening to this now. Next year from when I'm recording it,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a huge year for Apple, and I
Speaker 1: think they need to have something that is really going
Speaker 1: to blow people away, and I think autonomous car technology
Speaker 1: would be the way to do it. Unless they finally
Speaker 1: came out with an Apple branded television, that might help too.
Speaker 1: And if they do show their autonomous car technology, then
Speaker 1: that might take some of the sting out. If their
Speaker 1: next generation iPhone is not a huge departure or a
Speaker 1: home run, if it's not totally breathtaking, then they can say,
Speaker 1: but we also have this cool thing that's gonna make
Speaker 1: automas cars more interesting. Speaking of driverless cars, I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna see a lot more states start to draft
Speaker 1: rules and regulations for driverless vehicles. As it stands, Michigan
Speaker 1: is the only state that really has a comprehensive legal
Speaker 1: framework for autonomous vehicles operating on state roads, but expect
Speaker 1: to see more states in the US frame regulations and
Speaker 1: not all states might be particularly welcoming of autonomous car technology.
Speaker 1: We might see a few that specifically prohibit driverless cars.
Speaker 1: We're already seeing some for action in California. That's where Uber,
Speaker 1: the car sharing service, although I don't really think of
Speaker 1: as a car sharing service. Uh. They've been butting heads
Speaker 1: with San Francisco officials over the legality of testing autonomous
Speaker 1: cars within the city limits. So we're probably gonna see
Speaker 1: more of those kind of growing pains in different areas,
Speaker 1: particularly if companies like Uber don't bother to I don't know,
Speaker 1: ask permission before testing an autonomous car on city streets.
Speaker 1: We'll have to see. Uber, by the way, has been
Speaker 1: super aggressive with its move toward autonomous cars. It's weird
Speaker 1: to see a company moving so quickly toward a largely
Speaker 1: unproven technology, and I say unproven as an unproven in
Speaker 1: real world cases as opposed to just test cases, even
Speaker 1: test drives within the city itself. We haven't really seen
Speaker 1: anyone adopt this technology on a level that Uber has
Speaker 1: been attempting to do. Also, it would mean that Uber
Speaker 1: would be replacing a lot of its workforce, or at
Speaker 1: least the the drivers who work on behalf of Uber
Speaker 1: so that also comes across as a little weird. You know,
Speaker 1: they're essentially saying, Hey, we don't want all these people
Speaker 1: driving for us, we want robots driving for us. I
Speaker 1: say that before two thousands seventeen is over, expect Uber
Speaker 1: to at least test a truly driverless vehicle. I said,
Speaker 1: no one is sitting in the driver's seat in a
Speaker 1: major market somewhere. Now, that means there's no human operator
Speaker 1: inside the vehicle as it stands right now. Uber has
Speaker 1: been testing driverless cars in Pittsburgh and San Francisco, but
Speaker 1: they always have a driver in the driver's seat, able
Speaker 1: to take over at any second. So I imagine that
Speaker 1: before the year is out, Uber world test a car
Speaker 1: with no one in the driver's seat. Uh, it may
Speaker 1: be a test in which no member of the public
Speaker 1: is in the vehicle at all, So the vehicle may
Speaker 1: just be empty, or there might be an Uber employee
Speaker 1: inside who's writing as a passenger but not an actual
Speaker 1: member of the public. But I do think Uber is
Speaker 1: so eager to take this step, even if the rest
Speaker 1: of the US isn't prepared for it. I'm guessing there
Speaker 1: will be a lot more news about driverless cars in
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen from other players in the game as well,
Speaker 1: like Tesla and Google. In fact, Google recently spun off
Speaker 1: its driverless car division within Google Access, the research and
Speaker 1: development branch of Google, into its own subsidiary company called
Speaker 1: way Mo w A Y m O. I think we're
Speaker 1: still a few more years out before we see that
Speaker 1: this blossom into something more than just a test bed technology,
Speaker 1: but expect to hear more about this throughout two thousand seventeen,
Speaker 1: and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about more pilot
Speaker 1: programs or pilotless programs if you prefer in other parts
Speaker 1: of the world, including driverless trucks and driverless shuttle buses.
Speaker 1: We've seen a couple of experiments in that area already.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see more In other big
Speaker 1: predictions about new technology, I think hyperloop tests will show
Speaker 1: that the concept is basically sound, but requires such an
Speaker 1: enormous investment from both an infrastructure and an operational standpoint
Speaker 1: that it makes it unrealistic. I suspect that, barring any
Speaker 1: phenomenal incentives from state or federal government agencies, it will
Speaker 1: turn out to be financially untenable. So I don't anticipate
Speaker 1: any major engineering fails as companies test out hyperloop designs.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're going to have a catastrophe or
Speaker 1: a massive system failure, but I do think it will
Speaker 1: become increasingly challenging to keep things moving from an investment standpoint. Now,
Speaker 1: I hope that we do see companies push past this
Speaker 1: and create a real hyperloop track that actually functions as
Speaker 1: a transportation method. But I think the odds of that
Speaker 1: are pretty slim. But please prove me wrong, hyper loop companies.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be right about that addiction. It's
Speaker 1: just kind of a gut feeling I have. Now let's
Speaker 1: hear what my friend I as Actar has to say
Speaker 1: about the tech of two thousand seventeen. Hey, they're tech
Speaker 1: stuff listeners, And Jonathan, it's I as actor seen dot
Speaker 1: dot com, gfqu network dot com and other places, And yes,
Speaker 1: I just promoted myself on your show. My tech prediction
Speaker 1: for seventeen is a prediction I keep saying pretty much
Speaker 1: every year. It seems Alphabet will get into the wireless
Speaker 1: internet game. Huge in the division of Alphabet that runs
Speaker 1: Google Fiber Access put a halt to rolling out. It's
Speaker 1: super fast internet service and a lot of cities back
Speaker 1: in August. Now, I think that these divisions of Alphabet
Speaker 1: are reevaluating everything possible to become the biggest deal within Alphabet.
Speaker 1: While the fiber rollout may be paused. Reports have said
Speaker 1: Access is already looking into wireless tech to get into cities.
Speaker 1: Why bother having to drag out physical fiber to holmes
Speaker 1: if you can build transmitters with five G speeds. S
Speaker 1: Net got to try out Verizons five G wireless service
Speaker 1: and it topped out at three point seven seven gigabits
Speaker 1: per second. That's a whole lot of bandwidth, and I
Speaker 1: think that might be enough for Access to invest heavily
Speaker 1: in wireless. That's my prediction. I hope everybody listening has
Speaker 1: a great and crazy fast wireless Internet Access. I think
Speaker 1: i as is right on the money with this one.
Speaker 1: We've seen Google put the brakes on laying out fiber
Speaker 1: infrastructure in the cities that hasn't already committed itself to fully.
Speaker 1: So you know, Google announced that they were going to
Speaker 1: lay down fiber in a lot of different cities, and
Speaker 1: some of them they either have completed their work or
Speaker 1: they're in the middle of it, Like here in Atlanta,
Speaker 1: They're still laying down fiber. Those cities they're still committed
Speaker 1: to do it, but other cities where they experienced they
Speaker 1: expressed an interest, they are no longer going to forward
Speaker 1: with laying down fiber, and I suspect a big reason
Speaker 1: for this is that Google is looking at the economic
Speaker 1: and engineering factors of going with a wireless strategy versus
Speaker 1: going with a wired one, and they're leaning towards wireless
Speaker 1: at this point. And not only that, but as I
Speaker 1: as is predicted in the past, I do think Google
Speaker 1: is seriously thinking about being a bigger player and wireless
Speaker 1: phone infrastructures. Google figh is kind of a first step
Speaker 1: into that world, but that involves partnering with existing cell
Speaker 1: phone carriers and piggybacking off their networks. It would not
Speaker 1: shock me to see Google jump into the game wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: In and speaking of games, I think two thousands seventeen
Speaker 1: is the make or break year for virtual reality. Consumer
Speaker 1: VR finally really got off the ground in with the
Speaker 1: launch of the Oculus Rift, the h d C five,
Speaker 1: and the ps VR, among others. Google's in the game
Speaker 1: with Daydream. There are dozens of companies that sell headsets
Speaker 1: and apps promising to turn your smartphone into a VR HMD,
Speaker 1: but the fact remains that the gear is still in
Speaker 1: general heavy, clunky, it's not really comfortable to wear for
Speaker 1: really long play sessions, and it doesn't look like anyone
Speaker 1: has come out with a killer app or game to
Speaker 1: sell systems yet, So no one can point to a
Speaker 1: specific game and say you have to have VR because
Speaker 1: you have to play this thing, and it doesn't look
Speaker 1: like anyone um is finding a way to bring that
Speaker 1: price tag down. If you're using a smartphone, then I
Speaker 1: guess the price tag isn't that bad because you're already
Speaker 1: probably already have the phone. But when you're looking at
Speaker 1: the headsets themselves, they're still pretty expensive, particularly for systems
Speaker 1: that rely upon a console or a bf PC to work,
Speaker 1: so that's a high barrier to entry. For example, if
Speaker 1: you don't already own a p S four, then you
Speaker 1: have to buy one of those to have the PSVR.
Speaker 1: If you don't already own a powerful gaming computer, then
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to buy one of those in order
Speaker 1: to play with an Oculus Rift or an HDC five.
Speaker 1: This brings that price way up, and it means that
Speaker 1: fewer people can actually afford to get into this this world.
Speaker 1: So if VR companies can make more comfortable gear, if
Speaker 1: they can offer it at a reasonable price, or at
Speaker 1: least not make it more expensive than it is right now,
Speaker 1: and if developers can create some really compelling experiences and aims,
Speaker 1: I think VR will make it through two thousand seventeen
Speaker 1: just fine. But if not, I fear we'll see VR
Speaker 1: kind of take the same role as in Nintendo. We
Speaker 1: so we'll just become something that gathers dust until you
Speaker 1: have a group of friends or family over and then you,
Speaker 1: you know, dust it off and you show everybody how
Speaker 1: it works, and everyone's like, oh, that's amazing, that's that's phenomenal.
Speaker 1: And then you're done, and then you put it in
Speaker 1: the corner and then you don't touch it again until
Speaker 1: the next big gathering. That's what I'm worried VR will
Speaker 1: turn into. And I think two thousand seventeen is the
Speaker 1: year where it either faces that future or it becomes
Speaker 1: the ubiquitous type of computing everyone wants to have in
Speaker 1: their home. It's one or the other. I don't think
Speaker 1: you can just treadwater for another year. Now. One exception
Speaker 1: to that rule with VR is that I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see more uses of VR in attractions or
Speaker 1: experiences that you pay to have, like an amusement park
Speaker 1: or even the equip plent of a virtual reality arcade,
Speaker 1: if the cost of the hardware and the software is
Speaker 1: on a proprietor, and then you pay the proprietor to
Speaker 1: have access to it, so that way you can have
Speaker 1: the experience, but you don't have to pay to have
Speaker 1: the whole UH technology in your own home taking up space.
Speaker 1: I think people would be willing to do it if
Speaker 1: the experiences are good enough, So I suspect we'll CVR
Speaker 1: incorporated into more amusement park rides and related entertainment purposes.
Speaker 1: It's possible that even where that's where VR will live,
Speaker 1: they will just live in the entertainment world where you
Speaker 1: pay to have access to it, but you don't go
Speaker 1: out and buy one of these systems for home use,
Speaker 1: kind of like roller coasters. You go and you pay
Speaker 1: to get into a park to ride a roller coaster,
Speaker 1: but you don't pay to have a roller coaster bill
Speaker 1: at your house unless you get a whole lot of
Speaker 1: land and an engineering buddy. And if you do, I
Speaker 1: want to ride on your roller coaster. Meanwhile, another a
Speaker 1: friend of mine has a prediction about where the world
Speaker 1: of cable television is headed. Hello, I'm Tom Merritt, host
Speaker 1: of daily tech news show and Chord Killers. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna make my prediction actually about cord cutting. In the
Speaker 1: next year, we're going to see launches of what they
Speaker 1: call over the top services TV services that are delivered
Speaker 1: over the Internet, from Hulu, from Google through YouTube. We
Speaker 1: will probably see direct tv now underway, in addition to
Speaker 1: PlayStation View and Sling TV. And there's some rumors out
Speaker 1: there that other folks may be getting into the market
Speaker 1: as well. So my prediction for the United States television
Speaker 1: market is that by the end of the combined number
Speaker 1: of subscribers for these new over the top services so View, Hulu, YouTube,
Speaker 1: direct TV Now, Sling will be the number three if
Speaker 1: you if you, if you combine them will be the
Speaker 1: number three. Large are just cable company in the United States,
Speaker 1: so that would put them after Comcast and what is
Speaker 1: being called Spectrum now, the new combination of Charter and
Speaker 1: Time Warner. I think it will put it in front
Speaker 1: of cable vision. That you know, if I wanted to
Speaker 1: be safe, I'd put it behind cable Vision. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go out on a limb and I'm going to
Speaker 1: say that the combination of people getting their live television service,
Speaker 1: their channel television service over the Internet will make it.
Speaker 1: The combined will be the number three cable company, if
Speaker 1: you were to call it a cable company in the
Speaker 1: United States of America. And uh, we will start to
Speaker 1: see more of the traditional cable companies offering services or
Speaker 1: at least talking about offering services outside of their normal markets.
Speaker 1: That that's kind of a corollary to this. We'll start
Speaker 1: to see Comcast saying, hey, we haven't over the top
Speaker 1: service of our own, which they already do right now.
Speaker 1: They only offer it to their existing Comcast subscribers. They'll
Speaker 1: start offering in places that aren't Time Warner territory the
Speaker 1: Comcast doesn't operate in anyway. That's my prediction, Jonathan, Thanks
Speaker 1: for inviting me on if you'd like to find out
Speaker 1: more about cord cutting, of course, courd killers dot com
Speaker 1: or Daily Tech News Show. Thanks again, Happy New Year.
Speaker 1: I can't argue with Tom's logic. Over the top or
Speaker 1: o t T services are growing more popular every year plus,
Speaker 1: we're seeing more televisions and entertainment system components that incorporate
Speaker 1: O T T services into the hardware themselves, making it
Speaker 1: easier than ever to get content without actually subscribing to cable.
Speaker 1: In two thousand sixteen, we saw some cable companies kind
Speaker 1: of make a bit of a rally against declining subscriber numbers,
Speaker 1: which suggests that we may have leveled off of the
Speaker 1: number of people who are just jumping ship and cutting
Speaker 1: the court entirely. So maybe we won't see even smaller
Speaker 1: numbers of subscribers in the future, but rather a growing
Speaker 1: number of people with O T T services, many of
Speaker 1: whom may also be cable subscribers in addition to having
Speaker 1: the O T T services. I've got a lot more
Speaker 1: predictions ahead, but first, let's take a quick break to
Speaker 1: thank our sponsor. Okay, now that we're back, let's talk
Speaker 1: about those personal digital assistance that we have out there.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about p d as in the old
Speaker 1: fashioned sense, but rather the stuff like Sirie Cortana, Alexa,
Speaker 1: Google's assistant who I guess doesn't merit an actual name.
Speaker 1: For a while, those have served primarily as a user
Speaker 1: interface and by that I mean that the early implementations
Speaker 1: have mostly been used as a replacement for like a
Speaker 1: touch screen or keyboard and mouse. They weren't really living
Speaker 1: up to their full potential. It was just a different
Speaker 1: way to access your devices and to make them do stuff.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, there wasn't a whole lot of power
Speaker 1: to them. As time has gone on, that has changed.
Speaker 1: Developers have created more skills for a for example, or
Speaker 1: apps for other services, and we started to see a
Speaker 1: little bit more functionality in two thousand and sixteen. For
Speaker 1: one thing, the companies behind those services are starting to
Speaker 1: collect a lot of data to work with and to
Speaker 1: see how people are using their services. And by looking
Speaker 1: at that data, they can make changes to those services,
Speaker 1: make them work better, make them do more things, and
Speaker 1: we'll likely see those services take a more proactive approach
Speaker 1: where it starts to anticipate our needs as we move
Speaker 1: through our routines. So, in other words, if you do
Speaker 1: the same thing every work day or school day, if
Speaker 1: you have the same kind of routine set up, and
Speaker 1: the systems in your house start to learn what your
Speaker 1: routines are, they can start to prepare things in advance
Speaker 1: of your routine to make it more smooth. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of thing I'm thinking about. By the end of
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen, I expect to see an enormous increase
Speaker 1: in the number of Internet of Things devices that can
Speaker 1: interoperate with these digital assistants. So we've already seen Amazon
Speaker 1: be very aggressive in this space. Amazon works very hard
Speaker 1: to try and get partnerships with various Internet of things
Speaker 1: companies so that Alexa can also interact with things like
Speaker 1: lighting systems, thermostats, that kind of stuff, electronic locks, cameras,
Speaker 1: everything you can think of, the same thing for Google Home.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to continue to see that grow
Speaker 1: in ten to a huge extent. Now that actually ties
Speaker 1: into another prediction a different friend of mine made. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about my buddy, Shannon Morse, who was a podcaster, hacker,
Speaker 1: and wearer of many hats, both literally and figuratively. Shannon
Speaker 1: made two predictions for me this year, and this is
Speaker 1: actually her second prediction, but I'm gonna play it first.
Speaker 1: I'll play the first one later in the show, but
Speaker 1: it fits better in a different discussion. So for now,
Speaker 1: here's what Shannon has to say about the Internet of
Speaker 1: Things in for my second prediction. I believe if that Mirai,
Speaker 1: which was a really big bot net this year that
Speaker 1: was able to attack Internet of things devices such as
Speaker 1: security cameras and the like, UH will create critical changes
Speaker 1: for the Internet of things manufacturers and is going to
Speaker 1: spot spur more security focus from consumers on IoT devices. So,
Speaker 1: for example, I believe that consumers are going to be
Speaker 1: a lot more aware of what kind of security their
Speaker 1: IoT devices have on them before they actually buy them,
Speaker 1: and I hope that they will start asking the correct
Speaker 1: questions to figure out that security. I also predict that
Speaker 1: we are going to see a more consumer focused software
Speaker 1: program made to detect IoT vulnerabilities and help you patch them. Currently,
Speaker 1: there is nothing that I know of, at least that
Speaker 1: allows consumers to really easily check their IoT devices for
Speaker 1: any kind of vulnerabilities. Yes, we do have things like
Speaker 1: malware um detection and antavirus for computers, but we don't
Speaker 1: have anything like that for OOT devices, for open ports
Speaker 1: and like. So I would love to see somebody create,
Speaker 1: for example, and open source software that can be audited
Speaker 1: that would allow consumers to quickly check their devices, quickly
Speaker 1: check their ports to make sure everything is safe on
Speaker 1: their routers. And given the high concerns that we've had
Speaker 1: with mere I bought net this past year, I can
Speaker 1: see that as a quite a high possibility for now.
Speaker 1: Like I said earlier, I'm recording this episode in December
Speaker 1: twenty one, two thousand and sixteen. I can tell you
Speaker 1: right now that Shannon is on target with this particular prediction.
Speaker 1: The Internet of things is a big focus of the
Speaker 1: upcoming ce SEEN trade show. Again, that's that big electronics
Speaker 1: conference that will be going to in Las Vegas. One
Speaker 1: of the categories of products that I'm seeing concentrates specifically
Speaker 1: on IoT device security IoT stands for Internet of Things.
Speaker 1: Just in case I didn't explain that a few different
Speaker 1: companies are offering up smart home hubs to add in
Speaker 1: kind of a layer of protection between the gadgets in
Speaker 1: your home and the big bad world of people who
Speaker 1: want to exploit your devices. So, if you recall in
Speaker 1: my review episodes of twenty sixteen, I talked about several
Speaker 1: examples of hackers using unsecured devices to attack targets like
Speaker 1: web servers or even the heating system of some apartment
Speaker 1: buildings in Europe. So if nothing else, we're going to
Speaker 1: see a strong push from the electronics industry and various
Speaker 1: agencies within it to employ new strategies to protect COOT
Speaker 1: devices and the people who use them. So I agree
Speaker 1: entirely with Shannon's prediction. In fact, I think security tech
Speaker 1: alone will see enormous growth in tween we saw so
Speaker 1: many accounts of de dos attacks and worse stuff like
Speaker 1: intrusions into what should have been a secure system that
Speaker 1: I suspect the security industry will have the biggest year
Speaker 1: ever in twenty seventeen. All of that won't really matter
Speaker 1: much if people don't learn to practice healthy security, though,
Speaker 1: as we see numerous times, people tend to be the
Speaker 1: weakest link in secure systems. There's no need to brute
Speaker 1: force an attack into a computer system if you can
Speaker 1: convince someone to give you access to it. Switching gears
Speaker 1: over to hardware for a second, I predict that we'll
Speaker 1: see a hardware kind of development level off a little bit.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're gonna see as fast progression in
Speaker 1: hardware capabilities as we have in previous years, or at
Speaker 1: least not an increase in power at the at that
Speaker 1: same rate. So in other words, yes, once again, I'm
Speaker 1: going to predict that Moore's law will become less of
Speaker 1: a factor. I think most companies are now concentrating on
Speaker 1: ways to make more efficient use of their components in
Speaker 1: their microprocessors, rather than dedicate themselves to perpetuating an observation
Speaker 1: that was made half a century ago. As a result,
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna see focus placed on developing software
Speaker 1: rather than pushing hardware. Even if hardware companies try to
Speaker 1: break new barriers, I think most spending will be on
Speaker 1: the software end of things. This is particularly true as
Speaker 1: more companies embraced cloud based services in favor of native
Speaker 1: applications on corporate computers. I also suspect we'll see at
Speaker 1: least one major issue with a cloud based service, perhaps
Speaker 1: even a catastrophic one, before the end of SEEN, and
Speaker 1: that might shake things up for the second half of
Speaker 1: the year. It could cause big companies to reassess the
Speaker 1: strategy of offloading everything to the cloud. If a cloud
Speaker 1: service suffers a terrible failure at some point in SEEN,
Speaker 1: then you're gonna have companies saying, well, maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: put all of our eggs into the online basket. Maybe
Speaker 1: we should have localized backups, localized instances of our data
Speaker 1: and a lot of companies still do that, but we've
Speaker 1: been seeing more and more kind of adopt the cloud
Speaker 1: approach over the years because there's a lot of savings involved.
Speaker 1: You don't have to have the physical space to hold
Speaker 1: all the equipment, you don't have to have as many
Speaker 1: people you're paying for a service in that sense, But
Speaker 1: if one of those services fails, it could be huge news.
Speaker 1: And now I'd like to play another prediction, and this
Speaker 1: one comes to us from my buddy Jason Howell over
Speaker 1: at this Weekend Tech. Hey, Jonathan, this is Jason Howell
Speaker 1: Tech News Today for Twitter dot TV. You're no stranger
Speaker 1: to the show. We've had you on many times, but
Speaker 1: thanks for asking for my prediction. For I'm thinking that
Speaker 1: maybe throughout the course of the year, maybe there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of a resistance, a pushback on things like
Speaker 1: social media, things like over sharing everybody's details to technology companies.
Speaker 1: We've gotten to the point to where we've really started
Speaker 1: to give so much of our identities of our lives
Speaker 1: in exchange for conveniences. And I think what we're starting
Speaker 1: to realize is and and many people have realized this
Speaker 1: for a long time, but uh and warned against it,
Speaker 1: But is that as we give away all that information,
Speaker 1: it's really hard to take it back, and there's the
Speaker 1: potential there's a lot of potential for abuse, be it
Speaker 1: weaponized information, be it hacking and security, be it just
Speaker 1: reliance on things. You know, people are worried of the
Speaker 1: thought of, like leaving Facebook, even though they don't like it,
Speaker 1: because that's how I keep in touch with people. Is
Speaker 1: it healthy to make one single, you know, service like
Speaker 1: Facebook or other social networks the one way that you
Speaker 1: get all of your information that you stay in touch
Speaker 1: with people. There's there's potential for abuse there, and I
Speaker 1: think we're starting to realize, uh, you know, starting to
Speaker 1: react to that a little bit. I'm wondering if there
Speaker 1: is a little bit of a pull back, a pull
Speaker 1: away from over sharing, where people kind of start to
Speaker 1: take their digital lives back into their own hands, and uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, just realize that there there are alternatives
Speaker 1: that they don't have to feel beholden to these companies
Speaker 1: who are really just you know, doing all of this
Speaker 1: in the best interests of themselves and their shareholders, not
Speaker 1: necessarily for the users. I know, maybe that's a pipe
Speaker 1: dream something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and
Speaker 1: I'm kind of hoping that going into twenty seventeen people
Speaker 1: think about that too. Anyways, thanks for asking me to
Speaker 1: do this. There's a lot of fun. I'm really hoping
Speaker 1: for a fantastic seventeen, but that is that happy new year,
Speaker 1: you know. I'd like to think we'll see behavior kind
Speaker 1: of like what Jason predicts, but I'm not sure. I
Speaker 1: definitely saw a lot of people become disenchanted with social
Speaker 1: media over this past year, particularly after events like the
Speaker 1: Brexit vote in the UK and the elections here in
Speaker 1: the United States. But that's purely anecdotal and based upon
Speaker 1: my particular group of friends, and just because several people
Speaker 1: I know decided that they wanted to take a bit
Speaker 1: of a social media sabbatical doesn't mean it's an overall trend.
Speaker 1: But it's also possible that it is a trend, and
Speaker 1: the people I see in my group are just part
Speaker 1: of a smaller part of a much larger movement. Now,
Speaker 1: whether that prediction is true or not, I do hope
Speaker 1: that in tween people give more thought to what they're
Speaker 1: participation on social media really means. And I know you
Speaker 1: guys know this because you've been listening to tech stuff,
Speaker 1: your tech savvy folks. But it means that when you
Speaker 1: participate in social media, you give up some, sometimes a lot,
Speaker 1: of your privacy and security in return for the rewards
Speaker 1: you get with social media. That that level of connection,
Speaker 1: that immediacy of communication, those come into price, and those
Speaker 1: companies like Facebook and Twitter, they all profit off of
Speaker 1: our participation in these systems, Like we're the ones that
Speaker 1: make it valuable. It's not that Facebook is valuable because
Speaker 1: of all of its features. Facebook is valuable because there's
Speaker 1: so many of us on Facebook. We're the part of
Speaker 1: those platforms that make those companies money. And if that's
Speaker 1: all okay with you, well that's totally cool. You know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with that. If you are aware of
Speaker 1: it and you're okay with it, that's fine. But if
Speaker 1: you're not okay with it, then you should ask yourself
Speaker 1: hard questions about using social media. Now. Personally, I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue to use social media. Even if it were
Speaker 1: not part of my job, I would still use it.
Speaker 1: I don't have a whole lot of time that I
Speaker 1: can spend with my friends in real life, so social
Speaker 1: media remains one of the easiest ways for me to
Speaker 1: stay up to date with what my friends are doing
Speaker 1: and understand what's going on. Also, I can organize events
Speaker 1: really easily with stuff like Facebook. But then if everyone
Speaker 1: else leaves, it's gonna get awful lonely in there for me.
Speaker 1: So I won't obviously won't be nearly as useful if
Speaker 1: everyone else does. So. Will we see people pull back
Speaker 1: from social media? Um? Some Sure. I think we will
Speaker 1: see some people pulled back from social media in I
Speaker 1: just don't know that it's going to be a large
Speaker 1: enough number for the majority to notice. But maybe Jason's right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. I feel like something is
Speaker 1: going to change. At least awareness is going to change. Now.
Speaker 1: That brings me to a related prediction that I have,
Speaker 1: which is that Twitter is going to have a very
Speaker 1: rough In fact, I worry that if no one steps
Speaker 1: up to acquire Twitter with a serious bid, we could
Speaker 1: see the service completely die. That's hard to imagine considering
Speaker 1: how many people use Twitter as a way to follow
Speaker 1: people and brands they like, or sometimes the people and
Speaker 1: brands they don't like it depending upon their inclinations, or
Speaker 1: the fact that celebrities, politicians, and brands use Twitter to
Speaker 1: reach out directly to an audience, but unless the company
Speaker 1: can make some positive changes soon, it may not be around.
Speaker 1: At the end of complicating that matter is the ongoing
Speaker 1: issue of harassment on Twitter. The company has struggled to
Speaker 1: create and enforce a policy that satisfies users, and some
Speaker 1: people continue to be the targets of online harassment. Now
Speaker 1: that's not helping matters. And all that being said, I
Speaker 1: think it's most likely that someone will buy Twitter before
Speaker 1: the end of seventeen, but I bet they're going to
Speaker 1: buy it for way less than what Twitter was hoping for,
Speaker 1: so significantly less. Like essentially, if Twitter doesn't sell, then
Speaker 1: it's not going to be around. Uh that's my prediction
Speaker 1: for seventeen with Twitter. On a related note, I suspect
Speaker 1: we'll see a renewed attempt to curtail fake news from
Speaker 1: spreading online. Personally, I think that's nearly impossible if you
Speaker 1: go back to the eighteenth century. In seventeen ten, Jonathan Swift,
Speaker 1: another brilliant Jonathan, there's been so many of us wrote,
Speaker 1: falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it. The
Speaker 1: same thing is true now, more true than ever now
Speaker 1: falsehood flies across the Internet very very quickly, the truth
Speaker 1: stumbling along behind. And you know, Jonathan Swift made this
Speaker 1: observation all the way back in seventeen, you know, back
Speaker 1: when the Internet was super slow because it hadn't been
Speaker 1: invented yet. But Google and Facebook both have recently pledged
Speaker 1: to identify and limit the impact of fake news sites
Speaker 1: to prevent misinformation from spreading so quickly. And here's my prediction.
Speaker 1: If they do a good job of identifying these sites,
Speaker 1: those sites will quickly die off because those sites only
Speaker 1: exist because people are clicking on those links. When people
Speaker 1: click on the links, they drive up the page views
Speaker 1: on those pages. Those page views are linked to ads
Speaker 1: running on those pages, which means the pages start to
Speaker 1: earn money. They earn ad money for the number of
Speaker 1: impressions they get. The more impressions or views they get,
Speaker 1: the more money the sites get. So if Google or
Speaker 1: Facebook refuses to sell ads against those pages, or they
Speaker 1: adjust their algorithms to completely exclude those pages from their services,
Speaker 1: it won't be profitable to operate those sites, and the
Speaker 1: people writing for those sites will go and do something else. Now,
Speaker 1: some of those people might truly believe in whatever message
Speaker 1: they're sending out even if they're sending out fake news,
Speaker 1: they may really believe in the point of view that
Speaker 1: they are stating, but many of them, perhaps even most,
Speaker 1: are just doing it as a way to make money.
Speaker 1: They're not It's not that they particularly hold the viewpoints
Speaker 1: that they espouse in there in their episodes or in
Speaker 1: their in their sites. They're just writing what they think
Speaker 1: people will click on, which is pretty darn cynical. But
Speaker 1: then I'm doing a job I love, and so I'm
Speaker 1: in a position of luxury when it comes to that
Speaker 1: sort of thing. I'd like to think that if I
Speaker 1: didn't have this job, I would not be writing fake news.
Speaker 1: But since I'm not in that position, it's kind of
Speaker 1: hard to say for sure. Maybe i'd be a a
Speaker 1: fake newsmonger. Who's to say, Well, I've got a few
Speaker 1: more action But before I get into those, let's take
Speaker 1: another quick break to thank our sponsor. Okay, we're in
Speaker 1: the homes trench, so how about some doom and gloom.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna see a lot more automation in jobs
Speaker 1: in several industries. In some examples may just be kind
Speaker 1: of test cases, you know, not like a widespread rollout
Speaker 1: of technology, but more prototypes to see how it goes.
Speaker 1: Things like fast food restaurants moving into more automated systems,
Speaker 1: or delivery services relying on more automation like self driving
Speaker 1: vehicles or other shipping methods. Now that's going to prompt
Speaker 1: more discussions about how automation will affect the workforce as
Speaker 1: a whole, and how to prepare people for the jobs
Speaker 1: of tomorrow. As more of today's jobs become automated, I
Speaker 1: suspect we'll also see more people advocate for a universal
Speaker 1: basic income concept, though I cannot imagine the upcoming US
Speaker 1: administration to be at all interested in that. We might
Speaker 1: see examples of it in other countries outside the United States. However,
Speaker 1: something else we might see is an increase in electronics
Speaker 1: prices because I suspect trade relations between the US and
Speaker 1: China could get a little prickly. President elect Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has been really critical of China and has talked about
Speaker 1: imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, so we may see some
Speaker 1: fallout in the consumer market as a result of all this.
Speaker 1: Now it's still early, so this could all change. But
Speaker 1: my bed is that we'll see trade strained in between
Speaker 1: China and the US, and stuff is going to cost
Speaker 1: more than it has for the past few years. On
Speaker 1: a related note, some analysts are saying that it's getting
Speaker 1: more expensive for companies to operate in China, so it's
Speaker 1: actually possible that we might see some of the manufacturing
Speaker 1: companies move out of China entirely and into a friend
Speaker 1: country like Vietnam or the Philippines. Now back in the States,
Speaker 1: we have another concern that's also politically related, and that
Speaker 1: concern is net neutrality. So to talk about net neutrality,
Speaker 1: here's Shannon Morse again with her other prediction, which technically
Speaker 1: was her first prediction, but I saved it until now
Speaker 1: prediction number one. I believe that we are going to
Speaker 1: start seeing some large hits to security and privacy, starting
Speaker 1: with net neutrality in bulk data collection for example. Just recently,
Speaker 1: just last week, net neutrality came under fire due to
Speaker 1: an FCC commissioner wanting to remove some of the regulations
Speaker 1: that it creates under the new newly led government that
Speaker 1: was recently elected in I suspect that other privacy regulations
Speaker 1: such as the us A Freedom Act, which did a
Speaker 1: weigh with a lot of the bulk data collection that
Speaker 1: the government was allowed to do from the Patriot Act
Speaker 1: will also be stripped away to allow for more of
Speaker 1: a surveillance state kind of United States due to fears
Speaker 1: of terrorism. Now, while I do know that this prediction
Speaker 1: is kind of negative, it is something that I'm very
Speaker 1: keenly aware of due to the fact that I'm currently
Speaker 1: studying privacy and security regulations for my own podcast. So
Speaker 1: it's something that I've seen as a growing concern in
Speaker 1: the last half often and something that will continue to
Speaker 1: be a concern in I think net neutrality is going
Speaker 1: to suffer a huge setback in Net neutrality covers a
Speaker 1: lot of territory, but one thing in particular I'd like
Speaker 1: to address is the issue around Internet service providers, as
Speaker 1: common carriers will likely see that decision reversed in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: giving I s p s more freedom to operate the
Speaker 1: way they had been before the FCC reclassified them. And
Speaker 1: since many I s p s are also content providers,
Speaker 1: we could see fragmentation of the Internet experience as companies
Speaker 1: give their own content preferential treatment over competitors content. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, if you if you own the pipes,
Speaker 1: but you also own the stuff that's in the pipes,
Speaker 1: or at least some of the stuff that's in the pipes.
Speaker 1: Maybe you give the stuff you own more speed than
Speaker 1: you do other people's stuff. You don't own that stuff,
Speaker 1: so but you own the pipes. So you're gonna make
Speaker 1: sure that your stuff goes through fine, and everyone else's
Speaker 1: stuff can move as at whatever speed you feel is necessary.
Speaker 1: That's the concern. Um here's an example. If you have
Speaker 1: Comcast as an Internet service provider, you might notice in
Speaker 1: this world, this hypothetical world, I should add that Comcast
Speaker 1: content pops right up on your connected devices. So anything
Speaker 1: you have connected through your home that you're accessing that's
Speaker 1: a Comcast service, you get it immediately. It's perfect, no weight, great,
Speaker 1: great experience. But stuff like Netflix, which isn't owned by Comcast,
Speaker 1: doesn't have that smooth experience. Meanwhile, someone who's using a
Speaker 1: T and T S service has a different experience than
Speaker 1: you do. Comcast stuff doesn't come through on a T
Speaker 1: and T S service. Instead, some native A T and
Speaker 1: T content comes through easily, but other stuff it's really slow.
Speaker 1: Discouraging people from using that other stuff and encouraging them
Speaker 1: to use the I, S P S own content. See,
Speaker 1: that's the kind of stuff that could happen if we
Speaker 1: see net neutrality dismissed. We could even get to a
Speaker 1: point where companies just say, you know what, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to allow that content across my network period. That's
Speaker 1: a possibility. It's not necessarily likely, but it is possible,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of other implications as well
Speaker 1: beyond this. Now, it's not necessarily true that all I
Speaker 1: s p s will immediately resort to strategies that fragment
Speaker 1: the Internet experience. You could see companies to used to
Speaker 1: remain fair with all content as a means of being competitive.
Speaker 1: In other words, they're not gonna sit there and act
Speaker 1: against somebody else because the customers would say, well, I
Speaker 1: don't want to get my Internet service from Company A
Speaker 1: because they're doing this jerk face move. I'll go with
Speaker 1: company B. But that assumes that consumers have access to
Speaker 1: multiple I s P options, which isn't exactly the case necessarily.
Speaker 1: In the United States. For example, where I live, there's
Speaker 1: only one I s P that delivers speeds greater than
Speaker 1: ten megabits per second. So there's one that delivers at
Speaker 1: a hundred megabits per second, and then all the others
Speaker 1: are at ten megabits per second or slower. Because of that,
Speaker 1: there's no incentive for the I s P I use
Speaker 1: to cater to customers because it's already got an enormous
Speaker 1: competitive advantage over all of the other I s p s.
Speaker 1: It's already ten time is faster than the other I
Speaker 1: s p s in my area. So if it's already
Speaker 1: ten times faster, why do they need to bend over
Speaker 1: backwards to make sure that they're being fair to me?
Speaker 1: They don't. There's no incentive there. I don't have any
Speaker 1: real option. If I leave that I s P, I
Speaker 1: have to go with somebody who is one tenth less speed,
Speaker 1: which is not terribly attractive to me. And without those
Speaker 1: regulations of net neutrality, I don't have any protection that
Speaker 1: my I s P won't go off and do something
Speaker 1: that is puts me on a disadvantage. It's not great,
Speaker 1: not great for me. It's fantastic for the companies, but
Speaker 1: for the consumers not so much. Now, I don't want
Speaker 1: to end this show on a downer note. So here's
Speaker 1: a positive prediction for I think in we're gonna see
Speaker 1: some real movement in the renewable energy market, both from
Speaker 1: big companies and from consumers. Google will be purchasing enough
Speaker 1: electricity from renewable sources to power all of its offices
Speaker 1: and data centers in just with renewable energy. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's amazing. Google consumes a huge amount of electricity, so
Speaker 1: to purchase all of that from renewable sources is fantastic. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Tesla and Solar City will be merged at some point
Speaker 1: in seventeen. The merger has already started, and they will
Speaker 1: offer people the chance to switch to solar power and
Speaker 1: get off the grid, depending upon where you live and
Speaker 1: how much money you have, because it is not cheap
Speaker 1: to switch to solar power. Over the long run, you
Speaker 1: might save money, but it's a big initial investment. But
Speaker 1: if you're able to do that, then you would be
Speaker 1: able to get off the grid and generate electricity through
Speaker 1: a renewable source. I think we're gonna see a lot
Speaker 1: more of that in tween. However, it's all so possible
Speaker 1: that we'll see fewer tax incentives and programs that make
Speaker 1: it easier to switch, like to create a financial incentive
Speaker 1: to switch. We might see fewer of those um and
Speaker 1: that might slow down adoption quite a bit. But I
Speaker 1: still have high hopes that by the end of Seen,
Speaker 1: we'll see a big push for environmentally friendly power sources
Speaker 1: in lots of new places, both in big companies and
Speaker 1: in consumer homes. And that's it for my predictions for
Speaker 1: I want to thank I as Actar, tom Merritt, Jason Howell,
Speaker 1: and Shannon Morrise for their contributions to this show. I
Speaker 1: As works for c Net. He is at I As
Speaker 1: I Y A Z on Twitter. Tom Merritt hosts the
Speaker 1: Daily Tech News show and another show called Cord Killers.
Speaker 1: He is at ACE Detect on Twitter. That's a C
Speaker 1: E D T E C T and uh. Jason Howell
Speaker 1: is a host of Tech News Today over at Twitter
Speaker 1: This Week in Tech and is at Jason Howell on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And Shannon Morrise is a host on Hack five That's
Speaker 1: j K five and tons of other shows. You can
Speaker 1: find her on Twitter at at s n U B
Speaker 1: S snubs And thank you for listening to tech stuff
Speaker 1: for another year. I got a lot of plans for
Speaker 1: but I always want to hear from you guys too.
Speaker 1: If there's a subject you'd like me to cover, or
Speaker 1: someone I should interview on the show or have as
Speaker 1: a guest co host. Please let me know. The email
Speaker 1: address is tech stuff at how stuff works dot com,
Speaker 1: or send me a message on Facebook or Twitter. I
Speaker 1: use tech Stuff H s W for both. Hopefully the
Speaker 1: next time you hear me, I will not have a cold,
Speaker 1: because I know you're all wondering why a sound weird
Speaker 1: or weirder than usual. And I will talk to you
Speaker 1: again really soon. Happy New Year. For more on this
Speaker 1: and thousands of other topics, is it how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com m