Conclusions

Predicting the future is obviously not a well-defined task, representing a tradeoff between imagination and reality. What passes for science fiction is often based more on hopes and dreams than technological or even physical possibilities. Twelve years is not a lot of time, but it is all we have until the year 2000. This sets some hard limits on what is possible. Many futurists may choose to ignore these, but as Spanish painter Francisco Goya said, ``imagination abandoned by reason produces monsters.''

There is no major aspect of our machine which is not in some sense sitting in a laboratory today. We do not suppose a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, superconductivity, or any other sexy technologies, as foretelling their destiny is still the province of psychics, not scientists. We do not rely on the construction of a new, national infrastructure such as a fiber optic link to each home, since this will require at least a generation to complete. We look at what is possible and start from there. The creativity in our design involves synthesis, uniting disparate elements into a clean and satisfying whole.

Reading through old issues of Popular Science shows how difficult it is to predict the future. Cover stories have focused on such discoveries as polywater and such budding technologies as the flying car. In fact, one might suspect an appearance on the cover of Popular Science is the kiss of death for any breakthrough.

This serves to provide us with some humility concerning our predictions. Still, our vision is both realizable and desirable. We all want this little machine, and twelve years of engineering will make it a reality. The sooner Apple gets to work on it, the better for everyone.

previous  l  next