Did Tesla predict the smartphone?

Vala Afshar tweeted a quote attributed to Nikola Tesla:

Before I start bringing this quote into conversations, I want to confirm it’s true.

It appears to be taken from When Woman is Boss, an interview with John B. Kennedy, published in Colliers in 1926. The site (TFC Books) appears to be a Tesla fan’s online bookstore. In trying to validate the quote above, I came across other Tesla fan sites that claim the quote (or perhaps quotes along these lines) range from 1906 to 1939, with no cites.

I have no reason to distrust TFC Books, and the quoted interview truly seems legit. But given the unbelievable accuracy and specificity of the quote, I also have no reason by that site alone to believe it is true.

My internet connection is acting up. It’s taken a frustrating hour of waiting for pages to load to get this far. I turn to you for help in tracking down the original source.

Did Tesla predict the smartphone?

What would be so surprising about Tesla saying this in 1926? The telephone was old hat, radio had been invented, and television was being demonstrated. Combine all those together and make it small, and you have a mobile video phone, which is all the quote seems to be addressing. (The idea of automated computation, which might be held to be the other major component of a “smartphone” and the Internet infrastructure more generally, doesn’t figure into the quote at all)

Lots of books use this quote and attribute it to the 1926 *Collier’s *interview. I have no doubt that’s correct. The magazine date was January 30, 1926. I can’t find the whole article online but that’s probably because it is still in copyright.

Indistinguishable is right when he says that 1926 is maybe even a late date for this. Tesla was himself a nut on wireless: he thought anything could be sent that way, including energy. But just about everybody else who was predicting the future assumed that wireless telegraphy and sound were just around the corner long before 1926. People getting news from all over the world were being depicted in the late 19th century. The first inauguration speech on radio was in fact Calvin Coolidge’s in 1925. Television was the talk of the day, and everybody assumed it was closer than in fact it would be.

Beamed wireless power was a common prediction, especially for flight since it solved the problem of those heavy and inefficient early engines. The problem with Tesla is that he believed in beamed power long after everybody else realized it was unworkable. He wasn’t a genius predictor on the subject; he was a crank.

This particular quote is a nice collection of trends, and the bit about a vest pocket phone is particularly good. Instruments had steadily been getting more powerful at the same size or smaller than ever before, but bigger and better was probably still the norm for thought. That Tesla made a good hit on one of the thousands of predictions he made shouldn’t surprise anybody or be taken as evidence of a superior mind. He made many times more bad predictions than good ones. We cherrypick the past to pluck out a presciently successful prediction just as we do to pluck out seemingly ludicrous ones. We ignore that those often appears back-to-back in the same writing. People in the past were just as good as us when predicting the future. Now ask yourself how good that is.

You’re right. I guess the word “wireless” together with the talk of the world as brain primed my reading to imagine that the device in my vest pocket used YouTube to show me the inauguration.

And I am surprised that television was in the public mind that early.

So the unbelieveability is likely due to my equating today’s reality with what Tesla had in mind when actually his vision was of lesser scope than what we have today. Still remarkable, and I still wouldn’t mind confirming the article.

Exapno ninja’d me and typing on my cellphone I missed the edit window. The “you’re right” was to Indistinguishable but you’re right to.

It was the “lots of books” I was looking for when my connection crapped out. I’m certainly not in the “Tesla is super-genius” camp, and Your point on cherry picking is spot on. It’s just that my first reading of the quote left me with “that’s eerily cool” as well “it’s too good to be true”

Nothing said about Tesla has been trustworthy, from any secondary source at all, since Cheney’s slobbering god-worship book was published. Frankly, the man accomplished his true wonders in a very narrow window, about 20-30, and never did a realistic, workable thing ever again. The claims of his troo bleevers are right up there with Nostradamus rewriters.

Me, I think Brian Daley’s detailed exposition of the “proteus” in his early 1980s trilogy is the most brilliant foreshadowing of the smartphone. Yes, it’s close enough in time that many people could have guessed the gist, or some details, but he laid it out over three books, down to subtle and not readily obvious points. It’s not a vague Heinleinian “pocket phone”… it’s an iPhone or Galaxy, right down to the flashlight app.

Some early examples:

A letter in the October 26, 1901 issue of The Spectator predicted: “Some day men and women will carry a wireless telephone as commonly as to-day we carry a card-case or a camera.”

And from the 1922 The Radio Girls of Roselawn:

“Seems to me we are disproving that right now in this radio business,” cried Jessie. “And it is going to be wonderful–just wonderful–before long. They say moving pictures will be transmitted by radio; and there will be machines so that people can speak directly back and forth, and you’ll have a picture before you of the person you are speaking to.”

"I tell you what," said Amy as, with their paddles, the girls wended their way down to the little boathouse and landing. "Won't it be great if they ever get pocket radios?" 
"Pocket radios!" exclaimed Jessie. 
"I mean what the man said in the magazine article we read in the first place. Don't you remember? About carrying some kind of a condensed receiving set in one's pocket--a receiving and a broadcasting set, too."

Yeah to all this except the ages. He was born in 1856 and did real work until the end of the century. There’s a real dividing line around 1901. It’s possible that nothing he did in the 20th century was of major import, though he did have a few minor patents that might have been useful if he were capable of talking rationally to an investor.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the article were from a Hugo Gernsback magazine. He’s known today solely for starting the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories, but he was far better known in the 1920s as the leading proponent of the wonders of radio technology. He did not coin the term television - SF people want to claim everything as an invention of somebody in the field - but he used it as early as 1909 in an article about a telephot, a kind of two-way videophone. Didn’t have to be old Uncle Hugo - there were numerous other popular science magazines making these predictions, too - but the odds are very good.

I’ve seen many past predictions about modern electronics that are more or less accurate, though they usually say how great it’ll be for education, personal correspondence, and other wholesome activities. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone predict it would lead to the largest influx of pornography in history.

That was something that could never be said in public, so its absence isn’t surprising.

One nitpick. When AB mentioned Cheney’s slobbering god-worship book I automatically assumed he was talking about John J. O’Neill’s Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla, which was the only biography for decades. O’Neill was a friend and a science reporter. Reporters loved Tesla because he flung out headline-worthy quotes every time he opened his mouth. Compared to O’Neill, Cheney was a Dawkins-level skeptic. O’Neill is the source of all the claims made about Tesla’s hundred-years-ahead-of-their-time inventions, not Cheney.

The fact that this part sounds slightly nutty makes me think that it’s probably a real quote from Tesla.

Just to hammer it home conclusively that Tesla was late as the first predictor of the cellphone, here’s a quote from Herbert Gubbins’, The Elixir of Life or 2095 A. D. A Novel of the Far Future, which written in 1913 and published just before the start of WWI.

Wireless does a lot more than make phone calls. It sends sounds and images around the world.

There’s obviously good reason why works like these are forgotten today. As i said earlier, cherrypicking the good predictions - or, for that matter, the silly ones - out of the dozens made is simply foolish. They tell us much more about their contemporary world than they do about what they thought the future would be like.

Also important is remembering that most futuristic wonders were first thought of far earlier than most people think. And that SF writers of the Golden Age didn’t come up with very many that hadn’t been around in principle for decades.

No he was more into the idea of building large towers and when lighting strike it use that to power homes and also into the idea of tapping energy from the ionosphere.

Many people say that is pseudoscience.

It would change the world we live in today if we can harness energy from lighting or from the ionosphere.

It would be more of major breakthrough than the rocks or air planes. It would be clean,free and lots of energy for everyone.

The problem is how do you harness energy from lighting or from the ionosphere? And how do you store it. There no special battery that can store that about of electricity.

Well, technically, those are problems, but the primary ‘problem’ with the idea is that it’s competing for development resources with a lot of other ideas, many of which are either proven to work, are not the decades-old rantings of a man who had fallen increasingly behind the science of his era by the time he uttered them, or, most likely, both.

We don’t need to undertake the massive engineering challenges inherent in trying to harvest lightning. We already have better methods off the drawing board, on the production lines, and in real-world use around the globe.

So the idea might be pseudoscience. The point is, we don’t especially need to care if it is or not, because we don’t need the idea in the first place.

Tesla has gotten a lot of good press recently. Too bad it’s due to a confluence of ignorant “gee-whiz” reporting, second-option bias (“I used to think Edison was great. Now I think Edison is literally the Devil and Tesla is amazing!”), and conspiracy-mongering of the “suppressed technology” sub-type.

Okay, 20-40 or so. But nearly everything before that dividing line is (1) fairly prosaic stuff like pneumatic brakes or (2) his brilliant insights into AC power. No one much cares about any of it except that the latter establishes the level of his genius. All of the stuff after 1900 or so is wild, hand-waving, contra-physics nonsense… and that’s what the fanboys over at Kwacked just jizz in their jeans about. None of it has turned out to be viable. None of it was based on Science Yet Undiscovered By Mere Mortals. He went down completely wrong roads about “earth energy” and so forth and only the most careful interpretation from a late 20th perspective gives any of it any credence or value at all.

It’s like a cult that’s insane about the brilliance and world-changing possibilities of Newton’s astrology.

I don’t recall O’Neill’s book at all, although I must have read it. I have Cheney here somewhere and read it twice, once very slightly on the fanboy side and once later when I’d put together the “dividing line” thoughts. If Cheney is better than O’Neill, I’m sorry I ever wasted time on him.

Some prognosticator- who wears vests anymore? :slight_smile:

Cheney isn’t much better, unless you are impressed with such things as: “But today, now that science has begun to take an interest in little-understood biological phenomena, Tesla’s strange vacuum tube may hold new interest. It could, for example, have application in the control of autonomic functions of the body through biofeedback techniques. Or perhaps it might help to understand the mysterious Kirlian effect. Kirlian photography, used in conjunction with high-frequency voltages of a Tesla coil, has created scientific interest in the human aura by disclosing to ordinary vision what may have always been apparent to psychics. Tesla’s 1890 research showed the high-frequency currents move on or near the surface of conducting materials, similarly to the phenomenon of superconductivity. It has been speculated that coronas appearing in Kirlian photographs may be the modulation of some kind of ‘carrier field’ surrounding life forms. (Acupunture may be related to such force fields.) It is thus possible to entertain the suggestion of a contemporary electrical engineer that Tesla’s hypersensitive vacuum tube might make an excellent detector not only of Kirlian auras but of other so-called paranormal phenomena, including the entities called ghosts.”

A more recent – and more reality based – biography was published in 2013, “Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age”, by W. Bernard Carlson. But even he has trouble finding what, if any, reality lies beneath the various myths.

Wireless telephones were apparently a reality, not merely a prediction, as early as 1908:

I think you missed the context. I was tap-dancing on Cheney’s book, which I saw sold in the back columns of iffy magazines for many years and IMHO is responsible for the Tesla cult. Exapno was pointing the finger at O’Neill and saying Cheney was better than he was… which is in no way an exoneration. :slight_smile:

That’s why I say that 1901 is a dividing line. All of Tesla’s Big Ideas were nuts. I’m not technical enough to know whether the minor patents he filed were. I don’t think so. There’s some nuts and bolts stuff in there that could be just fine.

Reporters loved both Edison and Tesla because both were willing to make the most gigantic sweeping statements that were great for headlines Edison was completely capable of taking both sides of any argument and stretching each to an extreme - he would never use an invention to hurt people, but when he invented a weapon it would be so terrible it would end war. Tesla talked about Martians and death rays.

Edison was less than a decade older, but he too didn’t do much great stuff in the 20th century besides running his mouth. They weren’t all that far apart in the end. And both would have hated my saying that.