The communicator differed from the other props by being not quite beyond the realms of possibility, leaving aside the fictional subspace transmission mode. The best inventions fulfil a need, or better still create one, and after Martin Cooper (with John Mitchell) in the 1970s first demonstrated mobile phone technology as we would now recognise it, he acknowledged the inspiration from the Star Trek communicator.
The next great leap in mobile phone technology hit the world in the 2000s decade, when Apple shrank the cellphone and a powerful computer into one and the same gadget, the iPhone, or smartphone. The ability to sit on a bus and read the morning's emails, check an auction progress, view videos of world news, snap photos, call up a street map, phone ahead with some lame excuse for lateness, all this, and more, became not only possible but assuredly indispensable.
A gadget as world-changing as a smartphone was clearly destined to make squillions of dollars in profits. The user pays for the hardware, costing more than a reasonable TV, and pays again for phone calls and the exceptionally profitable texts and roaming. Then the spending really starts, for software applications, social networking, music downloads, videos, maps, GPS subscriptions, data, games: in other words, content. It's not surprising everyone wants a slice of the profits.
To break into the smartphone market, one needs to be big and powerful. Few are bigger or more powerful than Google, and Google has its hands on internet content.
The technologies of computers and mobile phones are converging rapidly. Apple acquired iTunes as a content provider, Google bought Motorola as a phone manufacturer with a treasure chest of key patents under its belt. Patents are vital. As Fred Vogelstein relates, in colossal patent battles on the scale of Apple v Samsung, the issue of whether a patent is invalidated by ''prior art'' may be almost secondary to the power play.
Put another way, proving one's self to be right can be catastrophically expensive and the threat of taking a patent battle to court can stop the opposition in its tracks. The internet may displace satellite broadcasting as our source of viewing and listening, largely because the internet is an almost limitless source of content.
Thousands of offerings are available, some free, some paid, many providing movies and back catalogues on demand. Amateur video-makers suddenly have a free world audience thanks to the likes of YouTube (owned by Google). The end game will be the release of new productions directly to the internet, hence the push for ever-faster download speeds.
Will Apple, Google, or another company dominate the market? Where's Microsoft in all this? (It's there). Viewers will decide, and small issues like the ease of becoming a subscriber or paying for a movie online have been shown to be surprisingly influential. In five years' time, the world of home entertainment will be very different.
- Clive Trotman is a Dunedin arbitrator and science presenter.
