[stevebot]

If that was the case, I wouldn't have had a problem with the authors viewpoint but it statements like,

For the most part, the portable computer is a dream machine for the few.

that really miss.

And then their is the conclusion, which comes after the author acknowledges the possibility of improvements in laptops.

But the real future of the laptop computer will remain in the specialized niche markets. Because no matter how inexpensive the machines become, and no matter how sophisticated their software, I still can't imagine the average user taking one along when going fishing.

What?! To me that just shows the author downplaying the idea of the technology. He just couldn't imagine any laptop ever being more than a "niche".

[nknighthb]

> "For the most part, the portable computer is a dream machine for the few."

I would say that 30 years ago, this was an objective statement of fact.

> He just couldn't imagine any laptop ever being more than a "niche".

And you'll see he was and is correct if you consider, as the author was, the usage model. People largely use modern laptops the same way they use desktop PCs. They simply transport them between their regular workspaces. Multiple devices have been collapsed to one, but the way people use them remains the same.

You are focusing very narrowly on the physical devices that the (then and now) inaccurate label "laptop" has been applied to. The article makes much more sense if you abstract to the concept of a laptop, particularly as pushed by marketers 30 years ago.

[jrochkind1]

You are ignoring the line "But the real future of the laptop computer will remain in the specialized niche markets..." That's the part that's a prediction, which informs the tone of the whole article, which turned out false.

The false prediction indeed comes largely from the author's inability to believe that such technological advances could come, within only about 10-15 years, that would completely erase all the downsides he correctly identified (size, cost, etc).

I think we're less likely to make such false predictions today, because we've seen such rapid technological advances. This sunk in for me about 10 years ago, before the iphone, talking about digital book readers with a professor, who said to many students who didn't believe digital book readers were in our future: Imagine what you _would_ need in a digital book reader. Smaller and lighter than a paperback? Cheap? Can be read in sunlight? Because all of those things are coming, only in the next few years. Then do you think digital book readers will take off? Lightbulb moment.

Even though the author of this OP continues with "Because no matter how inexpensive the machines become, and no matter how sophisticated their software...", I think if he really believed inexpensive, cheap, small, light, sophisticated computers were coming, and soon, he would have had a different prediction.

[sumedh]

> I would say that 30 years ago, this was an objective statement of fact.

This is what separates us from guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who have the vision to see in the future.