Regarding Clubhouse. The argument is wrong. Skype was released in 2003. Cellphone conferencing was available in the 1990s. Multi-user phone connections were a technical possibility since the first phone networks were created. It would have been trivial to create Clubhouse on a mobile or on a stationery phone at any period in time (or on …
Regarding Clubhouse. The argument is wrong. Skype was released in 2003. Cellphone conferencing was available in the 1990s. Multi-user phone connections were a technical possibility since the first phone networks were created. It would have been trivial to create Clubhouse on a mobile or on a stationery phone at any period in time (or on a Minitel in 1980s). A Clubhouse on a PC could be created (with avatars and a good UI) in late 1990s. In fact, the Mother of all Demos (1968) featured simultaneous video/audio communication overlayed on the computer interface. Various telepresence technologies were in use in ARC in the 1970s. Building Clubhouse was trivial at any period in time. The only difference now is the availability of cheap venture capital to fund arbitrarily frivolous projects as long as the potential for exponential growth is there. Trust me, I am a UI historian and an IT architect.
I don't know whether something similar can be said about SpaceX, but my guess would be that technically it is possible. The Lunar Lander did something similar to what Falcon rockets do. There doesn't seem to be any radical differences between a Soyuz and a Falcon. Yes, a Falcon is engineered using modern tech. But that doen't allow one to argue that you could not land boosters in the 1960s (even automatically).
Hmm - I think being technically able to do something isn't the same as being able to commercialise it. To do the latter you need to be able to test multiple iterations and make it cost affordable, and available to folks at large. Even if you could make an affordable service similar to clubhouse earlier, you couldn't count on it getting widely adopted as you couldn't iterate multiple times, since you had to build the stack underneath. That's what I was getting at.
Re spacex it's slightly diff as though the eventual outcomes look similar, the underlying mechanics of operations are quite different - in materials, software, design etc. What they needed to do required the tech to catch up in many cases. Re www though, you could be right. I don't know enough about the "what if" scenario here.
Regarding Clubhouse. The argument is wrong. Skype was released in 2003. Cellphone conferencing was available in the 1990s. Multi-user phone connections were a technical possibility since the first phone networks were created. It would have been trivial to create Clubhouse on a mobile or on a stationery phone at any period in time (or on a Minitel in 1980s). A Clubhouse on a PC could be created (with avatars and a good UI) in late 1990s. In fact, the Mother of all Demos (1968) featured simultaneous video/audio communication overlayed on the computer interface. Various telepresence technologies were in use in ARC in the 1970s. Building Clubhouse was trivial at any period in time. The only difference now is the availability of cheap venture capital to fund arbitrarily frivolous projects as long as the potential for exponential growth is there. Trust me, I am a UI historian and an IT architect.
I don't know whether something similar can be said about SpaceX, but my guess would be that technically it is possible. The Lunar Lander did something similar to what Falcon rockets do. There doesn't seem to be any radical differences between a Soyuz and a Falcon. Yes, a Falcon is engineered using modern tech. But that doen't allow one to argue that you could not land boosters in the 1960s (even automatically).
Hmm - I think being technically able to do something isn't the same as being able to commercialise it. To do the latter you need to be able to test multiple iterations and make it cost affordable, and available to folks at large. Even if you could make an affordable service similar to clubhouse earlier, you couldn't count on it getting widely adopted as you couldn't iterate multiple times, since you had to build the stack underneath. That's what I was getting at.
Re spacex it's slightly diff as though the eventual outcomes look similar, the underlying mechanics of operations are quite different - in materials, software, design etc. What they needed to do required the tech to catch up in many cases. Re www though, you could be right. I don't know enough about the "what if" scenario here.
I'm fascinated by the "UI Historian" part - can you share any of your work?