Talk:High tech

Technology sectors[edit]

Computer Science is listed as a technology sector. I don't think this is fitting. This is basically like listing Biology or Chemistry as a technology sector. Computer Science is the study of computing which is applicable to engineering tools in various technology sectors. I'm going to remove Computer Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.9.226 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition?[edit]

It seems odd that the page is headed with a section on origins. Protocol would be a definition of high-tech heading the page, with origins as a leading sub-section. Is someone better qualified than me willing to write this? Eleanor White (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I've reverted some vandalism on the origin section. Deviant83 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins?[edit]

When and how did the term originate? It happened sometime between the 1960s (when it was unheard of) and the 1990s (when it became common). I think that one indication of this is that MIT was not named the "Massachusetts Institute of High Technology." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band Love released an album called Cybertracks in 1966 with the words "HI-TECH ELECTRONIC MUSIC" on the cover. It's not definitive, but I mention it in case it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.184.34 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

"so products hyped as high tech in the 1960s would now be considered, if not exactly low tech, then at least somewhat obsolete"

The above sentence only applies for certain technologies. 1960's spacecraft, jet aircraft (the fastest military jet fighter is a 60s design), nuclear power, etc. are still relatively high tech today. The most extreme example would be manned space exploration as we have slided backwards into 1940s levels of technology. 203.184.2.147 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certain nuclear technologies are missing. Aircraft goes back to the Wrights who were quite high tech for their day, and they in turn influenced computing (computers were made in Ohio up to the 1980s; we hear and read a very biased history of computing), and those firms spread through the USA and still exist. 67.161.7.73 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" link to Naturoid contested[edit]

I'd like to avoid a revert war over the "See also" link to Naturoid. My concern is that it is inappropriate to include a link to every article that describes something that someone might regard as "high tech." — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the 'theory of naturoids' ('before named 'theory of the artificial') I do not agree. It is obvious that not all Hi-Tech devices are naturoids. In fact, the theory says that the technology (and its history) has a double, alternate teleology: the 'conventional technology' aims to produce machines that have no instances in the natural world, while the 'technology of naturoids' aims to re-produce technologically things that reside in nature. Nevertheless, both are technological traditions and that of naturoids is today strictly linked to the so-called Hi-Tech. Massimo Negrotti, University of Urbino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.68 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2000 cut-off[edit]

"As of 2006, any technology from the year 2000 onward may be considered high tech." wHY? i WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS THAT THERE are some decidely low-tech inventions from the period 2000=2009; there certainly were in the '90s. Kdammers (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of high-tech societies[edit]

What criteria were used to define the examples in he following excerpt from the article?

Many countries and regions like United States, Singapore, Canada, Greece, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Australia, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and France can be in general considered high-tech societies in relation to other countries...

Do we have any citations? Why, for example, was Switzerland not included? Did the author include them in this order like this for a reason? Should they be re-orded to be alphabetic?

--194.217.113.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the comment. Were the citation to include the names of say the G20 nations, etc. I could see that. A small slight is New Zealand (part of UKUSA). I have visited the Swiss technology park. Korea and Singapore are missing. Get a citation. 67.161.7.73 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Even though the abbreviation 'high tech' is now more common, surely the article should be given the full name 'high technology'? Cf low technology Ben Finn (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so per WP:COMMONNAME. And "Low technology" is used more often, I've never heard or read "Low tech".-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style in section "Economy"[edit]

The paragraph beginning with "Like Big Science..." doesn't really read like an encyclopedia entry, it's kind of verbose and doesn't give very much information. Also "if investment exceeds potential... investors can lose most of their investment." Uh... yeah, obviously.

EndgameCondition (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misses critical historical and bureaucratic points[edit]

It's somewhat possible to tell that a young nonhistorian/non-technologist wrote this.

One would think that a person writing using the internet as a communication medium would note DARPA/ARPA among the agencies. But this also shows an English/European language bias. This would pointed out in the 1980s by the Japanese during their Fifth Generation Computer work by MITI. When they pointed out the advanced work done in the USA, they cited the Defense Dept. when most Americans and others thought it was all consumer electronics. The response was more than just the USA and Japan but also initiatives like Alvey, and the continental equivalent name European Strategic Program on Research in Information Technology (ESPRIT).

So yes, this reinforces that at best a C-class article. This author concurs. 67.161.7.73 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced 1[edit]

moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Please dn't restore without sourcing per BURDEN.

Economy==

Because the high-tech sector of the economy develops or uses the most advanced technology known, it is often seen as having the most potential for future growth. This perception has led to high investment in high-tech sectors of the economy. High-tech startup enterprises receive a large portion of venture capital; However, if investment exceeds actual potential, as has happened in the past, then investors can lose all or most of their investment. High tech is often viewed as high risk, but offering the opportunity for high profits.

Like Big Science, high technology is an international phenomenon, spanning continents, epitomized by the worldwide communication of the Internet. Thus a multinational corporation might work on a project 24 hours a day, with teams waking and working with the advance of the sun across the globe; such projects might be in software development or in the development of an integrated circuit. The help desks of a multinational corporation might thus employ, successively, teams in Kenya, Brazil, the Philippines, or India, with the only requirement fluency in the mother tongue, be it Spanish, Portuguese or English. There are several high technology definitions that can be found. Moreover, there are many problems with identifying high technology. There are large diversity of definitions that are used. Here is a short overview of a number of different techniques to define high technology.

OECD has two different approaches: sector and product (industry).

Research and development intensity[edit]

Further analysis from OECD shows that using research intensity as an industry classification indicator is also possible. The OECD does not only take the manufacturing but also the usage rate of technology into account. The OECD's classification is as follows (stable since 1973):

Industry name	Total R&D-intensity (1999, in %)	ISIC Rev. 3
Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals	10.46	2423
Aircraft & spacecraft	10.29	353
Medical, precision & optical instruments	9.69	33
Radio, television & communication equipment	7.48	32
Office, accounting & computing machinery	7.21	30
Electrical machinery & apparatus	3.60	31
Motor vehicles, trailers & semi-trailers	3.51	34
Railroad & transport equipment	3.11	352+359
Chemical & chemical products	2.85	24 (excl. 2423)
Machinery & equipment	2.20	29

Furthermore, OECD’s product-based classification supports the technology intensity approach. It can be concluded that companies in a high-tech industry do not necessarily produce high-tech products and vice versa. This creates an aggregation problem.

Technology sectors===

The sector approach classifies industries according their technology intensity, product approach according to finished products.

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]