Close this search box.

YouTube Find: Apple Futureshock

Table of Contents

This concept video from 1987 shows a device that is basically a multi-touch enabled Ultra Portable Mac. The video is set in 2009…and the only thing that we really seem to be missing to make this happen are foldable screens and better voice recognition (oh, and Bill Nye to be our computer’s visual buddy)…take a look…

Kossi Adzo

Kossi Adzo

Kossi Adzo is a technology enthusiast and digital strategist with a fervent passion for Apple products and the innovative technologies that orbit them. With a background in computer science and a decade of experience in app development and digital marketing, Kossi brings a wealth of knowledge and a unique perspective to the Apple Gazette team.

4 thoughts on “YouTube Find: Apple Futureshock

  1. That reminds me of that floating yellow robot in Flubber… it basically did all of that kind of stuff for him. But that’s neat… Apple probably didn’t know back then that they’d be making touch screens (a la iPhone) that works so well, as well as iChat-like calling, and something like the screen sharing we’re seeing in the newest OSX.

    Now for the foldable screen and Bill Nye!

  2. We’re getting there.

    I understand that more natural voices are going to be a feature of Leopard. Hopefully, the next couple of major releases of OS X can improve voice recognition and its use as a control mechanism.

    With the new multi core processors, the processing power is definitely getting to where it needs to be. That demo is getting more and more possible with every passing year!

    OS 11, maybe?

  3. Something is wrong with this.

    Your claim that this takes place in the year 2009 seems to be incorrect. Even though the day (September 16) is a Wednesday in the year 2009, the merged chart done by the male professor shows that they have data in the year 2010. Watch the year shown on the first chart of Africa (2009) and then also the merged chart of South America and Africa (2010). Keep in mind the female professor had just published her work, and pressumably, that that would have taken some time after she finished collecting data. His data seems to be more current (in that it hasn’t been pubished). Both of these things seem to indicate, if not confirm, a date in the year 2010.

    Earlier than this, the male professor is searching for an article writen by a third person and states that it was “about 5 years ago”, but the computer replies with a publishing date of July 2006. Although not an exact contradiction to 2009, it is consistant with 2010 as well.

    Just after that, but before the chart merging, he also searches in the “University Reaserch Network” for data from Brazil. He says he wants to copy data for the last 30 years, yet his ‘University Research Network’ is already showing the year 1990 on the chart. Now, this is also not definitive proof, just a little ambiguous, at best.

    This looks and feels like something that Apple would do, but I don’t know what to make of the inconsistant facts being shown. Am I being to critical?

    Now, this has me thinking a bit more.

    If it is indeed the year 2009, then it is a possible alternative that the male professor is just ‘projecting into the future his data on CO2 production’ and then forcing those projected changes onto the female professor’s data which is from another, far off, location. But, I doubt that the other female professor would have gone along with that if it wasn’t at least based on actual data. “I’d like a copy of that.” – Female Professor.

    Wait …

    I just noticed something that possibly confirms the reality of this ‘look into the future’.

    The third professor, Flemming (remember his work ‘disagreed with the direction of the female’s research). Well, I think I found his work is to be included in the 4AR of the IPCC. It seems to be a last minute addition to the report. Even though it was after the so called cut-off date to be included in that report (other more recent work has actually been left out). He managed to have his included because he apparently knows one of the political reviewers (or Jim Hansen, perhaps) putting the summary report together.

    This must be the proof that this IS going to be what happens in the future.

    I wonder if in the year 2010, will ‘Professors’ condem those that projected outcomes that turn out to be disproved? “Huh (laughingly), he was really off” – Male Professor.

    Just thought it was appropriate for the times. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

Related Posts