Not really. I just write a bit on technology topics. I've been wrong in the past and will probably be wrong in the future. Make your own decision on the viability of a technology based on how it works, not what others declare to be the next big thing. For example, in the early 1980's, every pundit and expert declared that the OSI model networking products would inevitably replace the obviously inadequate and flawed TCP/IP networking products. According to the experts, we all should now be using X.400 email addresses and X.500 directory services. That didn't happen. Beware of listening to experts.
That's easy. Consortiums, conglomerations, collaborations, and conglomerations.
Computer networks will assume combinations and permutations of existing technologies. That will be driven by SDR (software defined radio) also known as cognitive radio technology. A CPU inside everything will be able to communicate with just about anything else by simply emulating its protocols and technology. Your PDA will be able to talk to your kitchen stove via your kitchen refrigerator, each using its own proprietary protocol. Your TV remote control can send a token to your media center, which will translate the token into whatever protocol is necessary to talk to your garage door opener.
The road to this Nirvana will have some pot holes in it. For example, all the PDA phone and smart phone vendors are building 802.11b/g into their instruments, while cellular vendors are turning *OFF* features in order to enhance their existing overpriced services. Why should the consumer be allowed to use Bluetooth to transfer their photos from the cell phone to their desktop when the vendors overpriced BREW based service can do the same thing. Why should the consumer be allowed to use VoIP over free 802.11 when they can be billed by the minute for airtime over cellular. Why should the consumer be allowed to access the internal GPS directly, when they can pay for location based services. There will need to be a shakeout and it won't be pleasant for the technology vendors.
For home and office networking, single digit improvements just won't sell. With cheap gigabit LAN's, we have all the bandwidth we need for about the next 10 years. Going to the new 10Gigabit ethernet will be useful for the data centers and backhauls, but not for commodity networking. UWB (ultra wide band) for distributing local wireless live video will be a big hit, primarily because there's no alternative way to do the same thing. Mesh networks will be a big thud because there are lots of ways to do it better and because it doesn't offer a large enough benefit over the other ways. I don't have a clue on WiMax but suspect that any technology that has only 50MHz in 3.6GHz, can only be deployed in limited non-metro areas, and competes directly with heavily entrenched telcos, will have a limited uptake.
I can go on and on but I find it boring. I suggest you read about the technology and first determine if it will function as expected. It is not necessary for it to be the superior technology as adequate mediocrity is a big seller in consumer electronics. It just needs to be functional. Next, determine if it will scale well into a mass market. Failure to scale will prevent mass deployments. Last, figure out if the GUM (great unwashed masses) is willing to part with their money for the product on a mass scale. Never mind the early adopters. Is there a mass market? It doesn't have to be economical or cheap. That can come later. If it passes these tests, you have a winner. If it fails at any point, it will not be the next big thing.
If you're not up on wireless politics and technology, I suggest you read through the opinions of Andrew Seybold at: