August 15, 2014

Chart of the Week: The hype cycle of emerging technologies

FT_gartner-tech-hype-cycle-640px
The 20th edition of the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies tracks the rising (and falling) expectations for various emerging technologies.

Have you been hearing a lot about “the internet of things” lately? Maybe you even read our recent report collecting expert predictions on the subject. The 2014 Gartner Hype Cycle might help explain why this volume of attention has risen. This annual report plots the rising expectations and enthusiasm (and subsequent disappointment and disillusionment) for various emerging technologies. As Quartz’s Leo Mirani points out, the Internet of Things has “reached the zenith of its hype,” egged on by copious, “breathless” news coverage.

Also at or near peak hype and headed for the downward slope, according to the Gartner analysts: natural language question-answering systems, like Apple’s Siri, which help computers to understand human thoughts; wearable user interfaces, like Google Glass or Apple’s anticipated iWatch; and autonomous vehicles, like Google’s driverless cars.

Already descending into the “trough of disillusionment” are gamification, the idea that turning everyday tasks into a game makes them more engaging; mobile health monitoring technologies that help patients and physicians monitor vital signs and symptoms; and the fascination with the use of “big data” as a gold mine of information on everything from consumer tastes to predictive analytics about when you will die.

The Gartner hype cycle is widely used and widely accepted in the tech community, according to Lee Rainie, the director of our Internet, Science and Technology research, who added: “Even though the hype cycle is not specifically based on data, the judgment of Gartner analysts about the state of technology adoption often tracks with opinions of other elite observers. There are sometimes disputes about where on the curve any individual innovation might rest, but there have been few challenges to the general trends it outlines.”

Not all technologies — even those on the up- or down-swing — are destined to become obsolete. Following the trough of disillusionment are the “slope of enlightenment” and “plateau of productivity” where technologies mature enough to inspire more reasonable public expectations regain their footing. Many of the technologies evaluated in this year’s analysis are projected to reach the “plateau of productivity” in just 5 to 10 years or less, including virtual personal assistants, who can hopefully help us keep track of which emerging technologies to be excited about and which to ignore for a few more years.

Topics: Emerging Technology Impacts

  1. is the social media editor at Pew Research Center.

Leave a Comment

All comments must follow the Pew Research comment policy and will be moderated before posting.

1 Comment

  1. Garybau2 years ago

    All very well…the sequence of Hype cycles since 2005 has been very interesting..they are all available online. However, as they are surveys it relative opinion which drives the location on the curve.

    However, if seen in the context of the TAC- technology adoption curve, with the ‘chasm’ overlaid it is a pretty good indicator.

    The vertical axis is not quantified, however, TAC indicates by the time the’ plateau’ is achieved only10% adoption has occurred.

    This is all about the first 3% early adopters and innovators.
    The ‘chasm’ corresponds with the trough when less than 5% have tried the tech…

    Recall to get to majority, early adopter, early majority, late majority need to be convinced, only then has the technology ‘gone mainstream’

    In this context iPhones are still in early majority(35%) territory, while iPads are still with early adopters(25%) the long tail ..the different market read android not ios ..are a different way of thinking…

    Consumers/tech users switch their place on the normal curve depending on the tech..or fashion clothes…

    TAC is a ‘must read’ in conjunction with the Hype curve

    Reply