`
` q [ x x x `
`
`k q O b R
`
`R k j n
`
` t M v d M
`d d c S R b h M v l
` a
` O O O
`
`b O i
` ju O u
` R Q M
` M M O i
` M
` [ N
` M M O x
`
` N M
` O u
`
` ¸
` M M
` O
`
`R j
`
`i ju
` I O OM |T ~JO u b
`o n
` q
` M
` R Z Z Q H I b M n
` M jc n
`M u M b u Gu JM
` N I h n
` JM N
` O u
` k t M d f p b d M
` q e b Iq e b J ET OV
` O t |V ~M
`
` O
`u R Q M
` M M
` O x
` M `
`i ` b
` ` b
` M M
`
` M
` |S ~O x
` H H
`
`O h If OJ[ i v d HZ Z M m o d t R X Q X M O R R X NR S T M R Z Z Z O
`i ONx
`(cid:244)
`t Nw c i R Z Z Z
`
`q b h f
`
`1
`
`p g 7
`
`
`
`R R Y
`
`k Oq O b
`
` M R Z Z Q H
` q d N M
`
` O u
` M M
` M O x
`
`
` ¸
` O
`x
` ` u
` [ M M
` H O
`u
` O j M
` M O b
` M M ju
`
` |U~O b I O OM r x
`f s u z
` JM M M
` M
` O u
` M O
`
`S i d
`
` q e
`
`e b c jPj
`h O SVSY M M
` M RZYX
`RZZXO u
` O u RO
`
`u RO i M O
`
`q q
`z
`v
`e
`
`t
`
`q
`
`S Q Q R
`S Q Q Q
`S Q Q Q
`R Z Z Z
`R Z Z Z
`R Z Z Z
`R Z Z Y
`R Z Z Y
`R Z Z X
`R Z Z X
`R Z Z V
`R Z Z V
`R Z Z V
`R Z Z V
`
`R T
`S OU
`V
`S OX
`R OW
`U OY U
`V
`R OT W
`R OU
`S OW
`W OR
`S
`R
`U
`
`
`q e b M v t
`
`
`
`q e b
`q e b
`q e b M v t
`q e b
`q e b
` N
` N
` N
` N
`
`je d
`z h
`e
`e
`n
`
`g
`m s
`c jt
`c jt
`c jt
`e
`j
`c jt
`e
`
` R Y Z Y
`j M n
` M S S k Z W
`j x
`{ Ne v l M U k R Z Z X
`h Im JM R b Z W
`d s o M b R Y Z U
`d s o M t S W Z U
`v M k R Z Z U
`d s o M t S W Z U
`d s o M b R Y Z U
`d s o M g S R Z U
`t G n
` n
` g Z R
`d M k T Z R
`b b M o R R Z R
`c x
` n
` T Q M Z S
`
`q b h f
`
`2
`
`p g 7
`
`
`
`i d q [ x
` x
` x
` `
`Handheld Computing Predictions: What Went Wrong?
`
`R R Z
`119
`
`R Z Z V
`X Q
`1995 70m
`1994 3.2m
`R Z Z U
`T OS
`
`u
`q e b
`Technologic
`PDA
`hand-held Data uest
` N
`e
`
`d M b T R Z S
`Computerworld, Aug 31 92
`Sales & Marketin M tFeb 91
`t G n
` n
` g Z R
`
`u M
`The handheld computing predictions can be divided into three distinct periods,
` O
`based on the most common definition of what the product category was assumed to be.
`u M
`Though these products were always assumed to be highly portable, and were
` M O q
`computing devices, the names given to them varied over time. Predictions before
`R Z Z S N O q
`1992 tended to focus on handheld computers being pen-based. Predictions made
` R Z Z U q e b Iq e b JM
`around 1994 tended to define handhelds as Personal Digital Assistants CPDAs), while
` O
`predictions afterwards used the label handheld computer or handheld companion.
`x
` N
`While longer-terrn predictions about the handheld computer market were inflated
` I N JM
`in the first stage (the pen-based stage), they were surprisingly accurate in the second
` I q e b JM
`stage (the PDA stage), and even became excessively conservative in the third stage
`I JO g R
`(the handheld stage). Figure 1 plots these numerical predictions against the actual size
` M e O
`of the world handheld computing market, as reported by Dataquest.
`
`i d
` t g Iv J
`Handheld Computer Sales Forecasts (Units)
`
`q e b IX Q J
`
`PDA (70m)
`PB (6.lm)
`q c IW OR J
`
`A
`
`5m
`V
`
`q e b
`
`4m
`U
`
`3m
`T
`
`2m
`S
`
`R
`
`q c
`
`q c
`
`q c
`
`q e b
`
`q e b
`
`lm
`
`q e b
`
`i i
`
`i i
`
`Bmecasts
`g
`
`PB = Pen-Based Computers
`q c ^ q Nc d
`PDA = Personal Digital Assistants
`q e b ^ q e b
`HH = Handheld Computers
`i i ^ i d
`
`Q = Actual Shipments (Dataquest)
` ^ b t Ie J
`
`1995
`R Z Z V
`
`1996
`R Z Z W
`
`1997
`R Z Z X
`
`1998
`R Z Z Y
`
`1999
`R Z Z Z
`
`g O R O i M
`Fig. 1. Handheld computer sales forecasts appear to be almost random, unless the forecasts are
` O u I N J
`classified by product concept definition.
`The first definition (pen-based)
`results
`in
` M I J
`overestimates, the second definition (personal digital assistants) is not as inaccurate as often
` M I J
`suggested, and the third definition (handhelds) is conservative
`
`e N
`During the period when handheld computers were assumed to be primarily pen-
` M
`based computers, the predictions of future market size can be fairly criticized for
` O p X Q q e b
`being both highly variable and too inflated. One prediction of 70 million PDAs by the
` R Z Z V O z M R Z Z U M
`year 1995 falls into the category of pure fantasy. Yet, by 1994, when the industry
` q e b M
`began to talk about the importance of PDAs more generally, the widely published long
`
`q b h f
`3
`p g 7
`page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`R S Q
`
`k Oq O b
`
` O c
` M
` M M M O
`t M
` M
` M O x
` M M
`
` ` u M
` M
` M O
`
`T q d e ju q
`
`u
` O u
`
` O u
`
` O
`j
` |S ~M
`
` M O u S
`
` M b c jPj
` |R ~O
`
`u SO q O
`
`e
`
`q
`
`l q
`d
`
`
`
`f
`
`
`
`q
`d
`
`
`
`
`w
`
`
`q Nc
`d
`
`
`j
`
`
`
`
`d
`
`
`
`q
`
`
`¶
`¶
`¶
`
`¶
`
`¶
`
`¶
`¶
`
`¶
`
`t
`d
`d
`
`q
`I
` J
`j
` I
` J
`x
`
`u
`
`q
`
`b q IRZYZJ
`i q ZVm y
`IRZZRJ
`q q d IRZYZJ
`q t T IRZZRJ
`b o n
` q
`IRZZTJ
`d Pu { IRZZTJ
`h s e d IRZZSJ
`t f q IRZZTJ
`
`f p q d
`IRZZTJ
`n
` f IRZZVJ
`n
` n
` IRZZVJ
`t n
` m IRZZUJ
`
`q b h f
`
`4
`
`p g 7
`
`
`
`i d q [ x
`
` x
`
` x
`
` `
`
`R S R
`
`i
`d
`
`
`t
`
`
`
`
`¶
`¶
`
`¶
`
`t
`p
`
`d
`
`
`g s f y IRZZXJ
`i q TSQm y
`IRZZXJ
`q q IRZZWJ
`t t f NVQQ IRZZXJ
`
`u
` O u
` M M
` O u
` M M
` M s b n
`M O u
` M R Z Z R M
` M
` O
`u
` N O u
` O q N
` M
` O q N
` M
` O
`b N
` M q e b
` O b q e b
` O x
`
` M
` O
`j R Z Z W M
`q q M
` O u M M
` M M
` O t
` O j
` O
`j M
` M
` M
` O f N
`
` M O u q q R Z Z W M M
` M
` M N M M
` O u
` O
`
`q b h f
`
`5
`
`p g 7
`
`
`
`122
`R S S
`
`J .P. Allen
`k Oq O b
`
`U d
`4 Conclusion
`
`x
` ` b M
`What went wrong with handheld computing predictions? According to this analysis,
` M
`predictions about the size of the market improved over time, and even became
` O u M
`excessively conservative.
`This suggests that even in evolving, highly uncertain
` M
`technology industries,
`it
`is possible to talk about
`the general
`importance and
` O x
`
`significance of new product categories. Where the industry fared much more poorly
`
`was in predicting the product concept definition that would become commercially
` O j
`dominant.
`Industry thinking had a tendency to lock on to product concept definitions
` O
`that were eventually unsuccessfiil commercially.
`p M O c
`Obviously, predicting the future of technology is extremely difficult. Being
` O b M N
`flexible about uncertain futures can be a useful strategy. And yet,
`in fast-moving
` M
`emerging industries, there must be some level of bold and sustained commitment to a
` M O u
`new technology, based on educated guesses about the future. The first step towards
`
`understanding and improving how people think about technological futures is to look
` [ ` x
`
`at past performance: what was predicted relatively well? What was predicted
` ` b ` u
`relatively poorly? And what were the common pitfalls or traps? This research argues
` M
`that in the early handheld industry, predictions about the significance of a broad
`
`technological area were much better than predictions about which key performance
` O c
`criteria would become the most
`important. Beliefs in the industry about
`the
` M M
`appropriate definition of a handheld computer changed substantially, rapidly, and
` M R Q O p
`certainly more than once, over a 10 year period. One possible implication is that
`
`participants in an emerging industry should be more confident about the potential of
` M
`new technology areas, while at the same time be more flexible about specific product
` O
`concept definitions and application areas.
`c M M
`Before the process of predicting technology futures can be improved, however, we
`
`need to know much more about how companies and industries
`form their
` O u
`understanding of appropriate product concept definitions. This would require an
` M M M
`analysis of the interaction between producer, expert,
`investor, and consumer
` |U ~M
`understandings of a technology in wider communities [4], forcing researchers to look
`
`beyond the usual interest in the internal connection between product development and
` O d M
`marketing in individual companies. Clearly, the companies who have had the most
` M
`influence over this industry to date have not been the biggest, or possessed the most
` N M
`leading-edge technology, but
`they certainly have been successful at
`identifying
` OR
`product concepts and redefining the vision around new technologies}
`
`s
`References
`
`R O b M k Oq O[ x
` t g ` q g e
`1. Allen, J.P.: Who Shapes the Future? Problem Framings and the Development of
`i d O d t M k IR Z Z Y J T NY
`Handheld Computers. Computers and Society, June (1998) 3-8
`c M x
`Of O[ p c M c M c O u u
`S O
`2. Bijker, W.E.: Of Bicycles, Bakelite, and Bulbs.
`Toward a Theory of
`t d O n
`ju q M d n
` IR Z Z V J
`Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts (1995)
`
`R u v l f t s d ²
`1 This research was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council ‘s
`If t s d J w t ` O n
` w
`(ESRC) Virtual Society? programme. More information about the Virtual
`t ` [PP O O O P P O
`Society? programme can be found at http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/virtsoc.
`
`q b h f
`6
`p g 7
`page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`i d q [ x
` x
` x
` `
`Handheld Computing Predictions: What Went Wrong?
`
`R S T
`123
`
`T O e M k Od O[ e q O b j H m d j O
`. Dvorak, J.C.: Dvorak Predicts. An Insider’s Look at the Computer Industry.
`p n
` h Ni M c IR Z Z U J
`Osborne McGraw-Hill, Berkeley (1994)
`n
` m M jO[ d u d O u t u
`U O
`. McL