The End of Moore's law - what might the business implications be?

[7.62x51]

The progress we've seen in computers over the last 50 years can be roughly described by Moore's law.

Essentially we've been making increasingly smaller transistors so that we can put more of them on a single chip. That technique is now approaching its fundamental limits.

My personal conclusion is that this means that the current technology that the average consumer and business has will probably be here to stay for a while. Perhaps the end of Moore's law will force us to come up with a revolutionary break through but new technology is typically expensive and people are slow to catch on. From an entrepreneurial perspective, I think there are some huge opportunities here as computers become more specialized to the way they are used.

source://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-03-12/after-moores-law

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[devine]

We're currently at the very peak from which we can observe complete irrelevance of current computer technology development paradigm.
Currently, no computer system can calculate and display even 0.000...01% of Graham's Number. If our current technology will increase at 10x rate per year, we'll still be nowhere near of calculating and displaying such a small number from large number perspective.

From practical point of view, I see the next PC-scale technology being a mind-to-digital technology. Our brain is capable of producing pretty solid visuals and, with less accuracy, sounds. It will open thousands of possibilities that we can only imagine now and create thousands of new fields and professions.
I have 100+ page writing on this subject, even though I'm not in this particular field of technology. I think people work on it for at least a decade already.
Main question is: will it be enough to support this kind of technology without having a technological break through? Will it be enough for something even more advanced?

 

[jesseissorude]

Moore's law will continue to hold true for transistors, but a new computing paradigm will come in right behind it and pick up where the physical limitations of doped-semiconductor-based electronics start to fail.

Vacuum tubes held to Moore's Law too when they extrapolated the law backwards in time, and just like transistors replaced those, something else will replace the transistor and keep the curve going.

 

[Ultra Magnus]

I approve of the OP - usually the discussion concerning technology on the FLF boils down to irrational optimism bordering on transhumanist fervor (perhaps because of the quintessentially American belief in progress?). The slow down in the development of transistor technology has been known for some time now, and it'll be interesting to see where new limitations will lead us when everything's said and done. Paradigm shifts await, or perhaps a spell of stagnation.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[jon.a]

I approve of the OP - usually the discussion concerning technology on the FLF boils down to irrational optimism bordering on transhumanist fervor (perhaps because of the quintessentially American belief in progress?). The slow down in the development of transistor technology has been known for some time now, and it'll be interesting to see where new limitations will lead us when everything's said and done. Paradigm shifts await, or perhaps a spell of stagnation.

wow

 

[Mineralogic]

I approve of the OP - usually the discussion concerning technology on the FLF boils down to irrational optimism bordering on transhumanist fervor (perhaps because of the quintessentially American belief in progress?). The slow down in the development of transistor technology has been known for some time now, and it'll be interesting to see where new limitations will lead us when everything's said and done. Paradigm shifts await, or perhaps a spell of stagnation.

excellent commentary my friend

all transhumanists and technocrats also seem to keep pushing "universal basic income", "mission to mars" and "life is a virtual reality game" to program the masses for that next phase as well, sold under the guise of growth/evolution since the stagnation has been here for a while now.

 

[GuestUser155]

Partially due in part because of Intel's (and to a lesser extent AMD's) monopoly and their views that making consumer chips faster is adding only marginal benefit, and thus not worth the cost.

Other firms are bypassing those expenses by going to quantum computing.

Atoms are much smaller than transistors and don't wear out -- in the traditional sense.

And for all of you nerds, with QC each "atomic transistor" has more than two states (!).

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AlexCph]

Moore's law will continue to hold true for transistors, but a new computing paradigm will come in right behind it and pick up where the physical limitations of doped-semiconductor-based electronics start to fail.

Vacuum tubes held to Moore's Law too when they extrapolated the law backwards in time, and just like transistors replaced those, something else will replace the transistor and keep the curve going.

This makes the most sense to me too. We will just invent technology that will be xxx times more powerful at some point.

 

[nradam123]

Sounds cool, maybe this fundamental limit of Moore's law will create some radical changes. If market demand is not met by technology people are going to try harder to meet it.

Interestingly, this is what happens usually

• Market demand is NOT met by technology -> Development of Disruptive Technology
• Market demand is met by technology -> Still Development of Disruptive Technology

The first one seems like common sense.
The second is not common sense, but it is the single biggest factor for the death of well managed billion dollar businesses in the last 100 years.

Its mentioned in a book called "Innovators Dilemma" that sustaining technology will almost always overshoot the market demand and creates a vacuum in the market which will be filled by a new disruptive technology. And disruptive technology will be expensive and will have less performance than the previous technology initially. Soon, the disruptive tech will get better and better and knock the sustaining technology out of the mainstream market.

This is what happened when -

• Mainframe computers got replaced by Minicomputers
• Minicomputers got replaced by Personal Computers
• PC market is taken by Portable Computers
• Cable operated shovels got replaced by hydraulic shovels
• Cash retailing got replaced by use of credit cards

And so on. This is the major reason for the death of well managed, competitive businesses in the last 100 years. I think out of Fortune 500 companies before 50 years only 50 are left or something (Not sure, did not verify).

I can also see a huge opportunity in wearable's, Virtual/Augmented reality space. I think the market is not fully ready yet because not many use those technologies but people who invest in them right now will easily be able to jump into the market when it gets ready.

 

[AlexCph]

So basically what that means is that, when it comes to investing in technology. You dont want to be too late to the party, but you dont want to be too early either

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[minirich]

I think we are not at the end of Moor's law.
Currently there are some interesing development and reasearch projects done about improving battery packs.
These insights will be used for the advancement of IC construction and production.

Exactly one year ago IBM announced to use carbon nano tubes for experimental production of integrated circuits and that this technology bears a potential 1000 times performance boost.

So the future is not forever dark, we just have to finde the right candle.

 

[devine]

Unless you have ridiculous amounts of capital, it's actually much better to be late than early. While trailblazers will occasionally hit the jackpot, first generation technology is very often created by visionaries who aren't particularly good at building new markets and productizing their technologies. The Bill Gates', Steve Jobs' and Elon Musks' of the world are the exception, not the rule. Many technologies are created by people who are great at engineering, but very poor at building companies, educating market segments and productizing technology. And more often than not, those "great ideas" will be latched onto by others who ARE great at building companies, educating markets and creating products.

In addition, many technologies are developed well before the infrastructure to support those technologies exist. In those cases, the trailblazer must have the ability to stick around long enough for the infrastructure and complimentary technologies to arrive. A couple good examples here (from an industry that I was integral in helping develop) was television DVR and streaming video. The idea of time-shifted television was brilliant, but early innovators didn't have access to super cheap memory and cheap hardware video decoders -- so early products were expensive and clunky. And while the concept of TV over IP revolutionized entertainment, the companies on the forefront of the technology didn't have the benefit of a universal high speed data infrastructure, cheap edge servers and super cheap arrays of storage to take their products to market early on.

So, while Tivo may be credited with inventing the DVR (at least for home use), they couldn't generate enough of a first-mover advantage to dominate the market long-term -- they're still around, but they aren't the defacto industry titan. Likewise with streaming video -- Netflix most certainly wasn't the first to develop streaming technologies and relationships with the content providers to provide streaming content, but those with the first patents (companies like OpenTV) flailed because the data infrastructure didn't exist in this country when they were starting to innovate.

Another great example are all the early tablet computer innovators -- BACK IN THE 1980s! The ideas were great, and the implementations were as good as couple be expected for the technology that existed at the time. But, again, the cost was prohibitive, and the complimentary technologies just didn't exist to allow those companies to grow and succeed. Here's a great read about one of those companies -- in fact, it's one of my favorite books about how Silicon Valley worked in the "old days":

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140257314/?tag=tff-amazonparser-20

Long-story-short, if you can generate some good IP, being early may be able to ensure that you get compensated for your efforts -- but it certainly doesn't ensure that you'll have the "winning" products.

99.999% won't name a single person that actually invented anything. Not because of their ignorance, but because it's actually difficult to find out their names.
My two reasons to become a billionaire (I have no choice to not become one) is to invest in big things and change paradigms on a global scale. Life is too short to change nothing.

 

[nradam123]

99.999% won't name a single person that actually invented anything. Not because of their ignorance, but because it's actually difficult to find out their names.
My two reasons to become a billionaire (I have no choice to not become one) is to invest in big things and change paradigms on a global scale. Life is too short to change nothing.

The corollary is that you are alive to make changes.
I am going to become a billionaire too, that is proof that you made big changes.

Read this if you haven't already, principles of Ray Dalio - https://www.principles.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[devine]

The corollary is that you are alive to make changes.
I am going to become a billionaire too, that is proof that you made big changes.

Read this if you haven't already, principles of Ray Dalio - https://www.principles.com

Wow, he's like my twin-brother from what I see on this website.
I have a similar list which I plan to release once I get out of the shadows. A lot of principles are even titled and phrased similarly.

_ Googled him, turned out he's 67 years old, being a multi-billionaire with a lot of achievements in life.
God, why didn't I find out about him earlier.

 

[devine]

Omg, life is hilarious.

Really...

 

[devine]

It's highly unlikely that either of you will become billionaires, but that's shouldn't stop either/both of you from having a big impact on the world. You don't have to be a billionaire to have a positive effect on the world. If people realized the impact they could have today, tomorrow, the next day -- even without being a billionaire -- the world would be a better place.

Everybody says they're going to be billionaires. 99.99995% of them are wrong. But, we should all strive to impact the world nonetheless...

It's highely unlikely that you will become one, as your humble opinion describes your own reality. It's highely unlikely that I will not.
Do you know people that have whole eras associated with them?
I'll be one of them for ours.

I imagine how half of the crowd will get butthurt after reading this, trying to put me down, but reality is: people like me cannot be put down, neither by anyone, nor by life itself. We cannot be put down even when we're dead.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[nradam123]

@JScott Yes, it is unlikely. Everything is a probability and your goal is to shoot as many times as possible.

I live in a city with 7 billionaires living in 50 km radius around my house.
Population of my city is 8 million.
I can take a safe guess that 1% of them are entrepreneurial. Which is 80,000 people.
Let's assume that 1% among them believed that they had the audacity to be a billionaire (Which is important as told by Mark Cuban, Tony Hsieh and several others). Which is 800.

800 people are playing in my league. I just have to be the Top 7.

Now I am getting back to work.

 

[nradam123]

Wow, he's like my twin-brother from what I see on this website.
I have a similar list which I plan to release once I get out of the shadows. A lot of principles are even titled and phrased similarly.

_ Googled him, turned out he's 67 years old, being a multi-billionaire with a lot of achievements in life.
God, why didn't I find out about him earlier.

He is a legend in the world of trading and investment,founder of Bridgewater Associates which is a big hedge fund firm.
I came to know about him from a friend of mine who is big in trading.

You can remove so many traps from your life by listening to people like him.

 

[AlexCph]

Unless you have ridiculous amounts of capital, it's actually much better to be late than early. While trailblazers will occasionally hit the jackpot, first generation technology is very often created by visionaries who aren't particularly good at building new markets and productizing their technologies. The Bill Gates', Steve Jobs' and Elon Musks' of the world are the exception, not the rule. Many technologies are created by people who are great at engineering, but very poor at building companies, educating market segments and productizing technology. And more often than not, those "great ideas" will be latched onto by others who ARE great at building companies, educating markets and creating products.

In addition, many technologies are developed well before the infrastructure to support those technologies exist. In those cases, the trailblazer must have the ability to stick around long enough for the infrastructure and complimentary technologies to arrive. A couple good examples here (from an industry that I was integral in helping develop) was television DVR and streaming video. The idea of time-shifted television was brilliant, but early innovators didn't have access to super cheap memory and cheap hardware video decoders -- so early products were expensive and clunky. And while the concept of TV over IP revolutionized entertainment, the companies on the forefront of the technology didn't have the benefit of a universal high speed data infrastructure, cheap edge servers and super cheap arrays of storage to take their products to market early on.

So, while Tivo may be credited with inventing the DVR (at least for home use), they couldn't generate enough of a first-mover advantage to dominate the market long-term -- they're still around, but they aren't the defacto industry titan. Likewise with streaming video -- Netflix most certainly wasn't the first to develop streaming technologies and relationships with the content providers to provide streaming content, but those with the first patents (companies like OpenTV) flailed because the data infrastructure didn't exist in this country when they were starting to innovate.

Another great example are all the early tablet computer innovators -- BACK IN THE 1980s! The ideas were great, and the implementations were as good as couple be expected for the technology that existed at the time. But, again, the cost was prohibitive, and the complimentary technologies just didn't exist to allow those companies to grow and succeed. Here's a great read about one of those companies -- in fact, it's one of my favorite books about how Silicon Valley worked in the "old days":

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140257314/?tag=tff-amazonparser-20

Long-story-short, if you can generate some good IP, being early may be able to ensure that you get compensated for your efforts -- but it certainly doesn't ensure that you'll have the "winning" products.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Other guy who think it's likely he will be a billionaire. Lol.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.