Is it not the case that having access to a machine capable of running either Minecraft or Linux in the early days of each (if not now) means you are (or were) fairly affluent?
It depends on what you mean by the early days of each - in the really early days of Linux (1992) computers were probably going to cost north of a few thousand dollars and the type of computer Linux was designed for (a multi-user system for dumb terminals) would cost tens of thousands of dollars. By the time linux became a thing more than a handful of people in any given state knew about you could probably run it on a machine costing somewhere around 300$.
Minecraft has never been demanding resource wise, I'm sure early versions had serious performance issues but running it on a cheapo laptop has always been totally reasonable - it's quite accessible (it was written in java even!)
I think they meant hardware. For software, yes there are tons of examples (open source software is usually free, games are usually cheap).
But for hardware, it's almost always some expensive thing first. The internet was once very expensive to access, cell phones were initially very expensive, DVD players were initially very expensive, computers in general, etc.
I think Minecraft and Linux are more like the content produced on top of the technology that is computers. It's like if a new book is written it's quickly available to everyone in the market who can afford a book. The book isn't really technology, but the printing, publishing, and distribution is and it's been around long enough to be distributed.
Software seems less like technology and more like writing. The distribution cost, once the systems are in place, is marginal. The technology part is creating the systems that enable the software.
IBM in the 90's strongly agrees with you - this software stuff is never going to be profitable and everything people pay for will always end up going through us!
More seriously, I disagree about software being less important because there have been very real innovations for tooling accomplished in software alone. Email is a pretty classic example - but a more modern one might be Google Cardboard which can turn your smart phone into a rather underwhelming VR headset. There are plenty of hardware alternatives but the same basic functionality was accomplished on generalized hardware.
Additionally, all this technology is only really possible due to other technology - we don't discount a new shiny computer just because it's just a dumb oddly shaped box if you can't supply it with electricity - but the costs to develop software are generally lower than hardware so I think it's fair to have a general notion that hardware is more innovative - it's just that you're conflating two different variables - cost and medium.
I think you're conflating technology with profitable or important. That is, you see me saying that software isn't technology and think I'm saying that software isn't profitable or important. That's not at all what I'm saying though. I likened software to writing. Writing can be important and it can be profitable, it's just not technology.
Maybe we could agree on email as a technology. Maybe. I think it's a stretch. I hope we could both agree that the nth email client isn't technology though. It's not adding a new capability to humanity which is how I tend to think about technology. Refrigerator - keep stuff cold. Electricity - power to operate machines and light. Computers - organize, access, modify information. etc. New JavaScript library or new game... Not so much technology.
I think that's fair yea - it might just be a matter of semantics. If you think software is included in technology then I stand by my point but, if your view of technology excludes software then you're quite correct.
I disagree - I would agree that Minecraft wasn't a novel technology, just like Linux wasn't a novel technology - it was an alternative version of Minix.
Additionally Zoom isn't a novel technology, it isn't even particularly interesting technically when compared to other video conferencing solutions - but over the past year it's been incredibly important to a number of people.
I think the OC slightly missed the mark in mentioning "important technologies" instead of something closer to "technologically innovative" technologies or, more accurately (but less interesting of a statement) "expensive to develop technologies". Things that are expensive to develop generally aren't cheap to begin with, while things that are cheap to develop need to be cheap to compete with other market entrants and clones. Additionally hardware (a limiting factor on cost for a lot of technology) tends to get cheaper over time and that rate of change is accelerated by a large market of interest (leading to more folks deciding to try and iterate new designs).
Penicillin. But then, he wasn't trying to make money off of it.
And basically anything Nintendo pushes as a console gimmick. It's not that the tech immediately goes from research to broadly accessible, but rather that they tend to take old tech that no one saw as having profitable consumer applications and find one for it. In that way, as far as consumers are concerned, it goes from unknown to widely-used without making a stopover in early-adapter purgatory.
This may be a little unfair, but I do wonder if there isn't a tendency to consider a technology to be widely available when it becomes available to you and the folks farther back in the line don't count or aren't relevant.
To say that a single company's products being used by even a single digit percentage of the world population doesn't meet the requirements to ve considered "widely available" is a stretch.
In any case, you said "important," not "widely available," and yes, Nintendo's products are hugely important. Many of today's technological advancements can be traced back to their proving that a given use case for a primitive version of a given technology was viable.
Whether it's a single company (or product) or multiple is beside the point. If a technology is only available to (say) 1% of the population, I don't think that qualifies as being widely available.
I will also note that my original comment was in response to someone who is "more interested in tech for the other 95%".
