If there is one consistent unit of measurement that has been applied as a benchmark to nearly every technical innovation that comes along it is this- the pocket. From pocket knives to pocket watches, pocket microscopes to pocket telescopes, pocket radios to pocket telephones, pocket automatons to pocket cameras, pocket televisions to pocket cassette players, pocket calculators to pocket computers, our appetite to cram the latest gadget into our pockets seems endless. If prehistoric man had pockets, then I am sure they would have thrown a party when the first person knapped a stone axe small enough to fit into it. There are probably a myriad of connotations psychologists might use to explain our long-standing fascination with pockets, but at the core there is probably only one basic message that matters- if the device is small enough to fit into a pocket then it could justifiably and proudly call itself ‘practical’.
In a 2013 article by Grant Wythoff in the journal ‘Grey Room’ (full details at bottom of page) entitled ‘Pocket Wireless and the Shape of Media to Come, 1899-1922’ Wythoff explores the way that the popular media of 1900 not only leapt on Marconi’s new invention of wireless, but revelled in speculations about how it would change their lives even before they understood the physics of how radio waves actually worked. As you can imagine, the idea of a wireless communication device small enough to carry around in a pocket was top of most people’s virtual wish list, yet despite a few failed attempts, as we know actualising such a device would take many more years of hard work.
It is a similar story if we use a different invention such as television. Here again the papers of the mid 1920s were full of predictions about how one day we would each carry around miniature televisions to enhance our everyday lives. Finally the nagging wife could check up on their wayward husband in the pub, the doting mother could check if the size and colour of a garment would be correct for their darling child, or two lovers could safely whisper sweet nothings to each other when parted. Yet don’t think for a minute that such fanciful dreaming was merely an affliction of the past, do we not still eagerly discuss the day when driverless cars will dominate our roads, when virtual reality will let us try out possible store purchases from the comfort of our own living rooms.
As we look back at the key technologies of our past, we are very deliberate in assigning praise not to the first person to make it generally smaller, but to the first person who made it small enough to fit in a pocket. The first pocket television we remember was created by Clive Sinclair, the first electronic pocket calculator was patented by Texas Instruments, the first pocket camera was sold by Kodak, the first pocket cell phone was produced by Technophone. The list goes on and on. Of course, when one looks at the length of time it took each invention to mature from inception until miniaturisation, some left the pocket dreamers hanging a bit longer than others. Although television was invented back in 1923 it would take 54 more years until 1977 for Sinclair to release his MTV1 pocket TV. The infamous Kodak folding Vest camera first came out in 1898 although photography had been around since at least 1824. Some inventions miniaturised quicker so people only had to wait 11 years between the first electronic calculator ‘ANITA’ in 1961 and the first Pocket sized example. In the same way it took only 12 years from Motorola’s prototype cell phone to Technophone’s pocket phone (or only 3 years from the first publicly released cell phones). On the other end of the scale it took nearly 800 years between the first mechanical clocks of 723 AD and the first pocket watch of 1510. What slow coaches!
In his article Wythoff alludes to an interesting observation of the Wireless predictions of 1900 which has far wider implications that he fully explores. Since the pocket radio predictions came about just after Marconi had unveiled his invention on the world, how far did their presence actively influence the subsequent direction which the medium would take? It is a powerful idea which others have also explored, and one which Wythoff aligns to the emergence of science fiction at the time. It is really a debate over which came first: the science fiction or the science fact? Did the pie in the sky dreams of media and fiction writers influence what hard working engineers and scientists would try to realise or not? ‘Imaginery Media’ are devices which don’t yet exist in real life but are not theoretically out of reach. Examples could include several of the gadgets used by James Bond to thwart his enemies or very simple devices used on Star Trek. Of course, traction beams and hyper-drive would not yet fall into this category unless Elon Musk knows something we don’t. But to return to Wythoff’s intended point, if these early dreamers did predict the future somewhat accurately then should they be given credit for it also. Just as Leonardo Da Vinci envisioned a flying device that could carry people centuries before planes and helicopters were invented, does he really deserve to be called a worthy ancestor of that device or was it just a stab in the dark which eventually came to fruition?
Whatever your views on all this, there is one thing we can be absolutely sure of. If you want to earn your place on the technology wall of fame, just find the latest greatest invention and make sure you are the one who shrinks it small enough to fit a pocket before anyone else does (because believe me they will!!).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43832240 ‘Pocket Wireless and the Shape of Media to Come, 1899-1922’ by
GRANT WYTHOFF
Photo attribution: jeans pocket by Dvortygirl ; swiss army knife by Jim Pennucci ; pocket radio by Joe Haupt ; pocket watch by Gerry Lauzon ; Miniature pigeon camera of 1903 by jwyg