Almost as much as I love magic quadrants, I adore the Gartner hype cycle.  I think it’s because the phraseology reminds me of Pilgrim’s Progress.  The Peak of Inflated Expectations could easily be called the Delectable Mountain “from whose heights one can see many delights and curiosities”.  The Trough of Disillusionment, where early adopters sink with the weight of hyperbole is also interchangeable with the Slough of Despond, though the Pit of Despair would also work.

Gartner has just released its latest Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, which includes all the social media tools that we love so much, most of which Gartner deem to be two to five years away from mainstream adoption.  Web 2.0, which has been defined by some as the sum of the various social media tool parts, is yet to enter the Trough of Slough but is less than two years away from mainstream.

Disappointingly it’s more than ten years till we all get mobile robots, though it is nice that Gartner thinks augmented reality is at least ten years away, when anyone with access to class a’s can prolly achieve it in ten seconds.

There’s some interesting chat over at Tech Crunch on what technologies are missing from the curve, with OpenID being a major MIA


The original from 1995 features considerably less technology, not all of which have made it to the platform of productivity – namely handwriting and speech recognition.  Both have moved on leaps and bounds but would you consider them truly mainstream?  Also, who the hell has heard of the Information Super Highway?


The 2005 version actually seems a little more reasonable, though from being only five years out in ’05, Grid computing has disappeared by the latest version.  Corporate blogging has slid down towards the trough a little but is still two years away, which is where it was three years ago and handwriting recognition really hasn’t shifted since the original cycle.


There is one major and very welcome change over the past three years, we seem to have shaken our addiction to acronyms.

NB: Apologies for the quality of the second graphic, that’s the only version of the 95 chart I can find

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *