Yesterday’s tomorrows:Genevieve Bell Æ Paul Dourish

I'm reading an paper called '

where paul dorish says 

The first possibility is that the ubiquitous computing

vision can never come to pass. The proximate future is a

future infinitely postponed; when we are continually

about to enter a new age, when we are continually

anticipating what happens next, and when our attention

is continually directed over the horizon, then by definition

ubiquitous computing is never about the here and

now. Indeed, within this particular model of a technological

future, it is hard to imagine how we could ever, as

a community, say, ‘‘There. It is done.’’

The second possibility is that ubiquitous computing

already has come to pass. Clearly, of course, we do not

live in ‘‘Sal’s world,’’ as described in the scenario outlined

in Weiser’s paper. But perhaps ubiquitous computing

is already here, but took a form other than that

which had been envisioned. Arguably, and as we will

explore at more length below, our contemporary world,

in which mobile computation and mobile telephony are

central aspects not just of Western commercial endeavors

but also facets of everyday life in the developing

world, is already one of ubiquitous computing, albeit in

unexpected form

Which is kind of irritating. Clearly there is a third possibility that the general view of ubiquitous computing has become too vague and nebulous to permit any thing to be clearly seen as a success or failure. That is if the original paper carries through a nice feeling about what would like to see but in such a permissive way that practically any interpretation goes. At this point it becomes impossible to point to a particular technology as an exlampar of the success or failure of the technology. 

Secondly while there have been a few attempts at what might be clearly inspired by ubicomp ( the orb tech and the rabit thing) you actually need a large number of attempts to create a business to get it right. 

That is just because a business fails you cannot blame the technology ( Pan Am failed and I don't think this proves the failure of air flight, Tower records failed and this does no prove the failure or record or CD, Enron failed but this does not prove that electricity and gas is an irrelevant technology). 

Personally as an outsider I think that ubicomp as a paradigm has failed to deliver any useful technology in exactly the same way that say virtual reality failed. That is not enough people in the field where inspired enough to get the backing to form a company and make sure that the customer got something they would find value in. To get this right takes a large number of start-up people with the right connections, time, commitment, even then most will fail ( think of the number of early computers with only the Commador Pet,Sinclar spectrum and Apple II as profitable survivors. 

Surely this says more about the inability of human computer interaction people to get the design of new technology right (useful or rewarding) than the failure of the vision of ubicomp per-say.