There's a counter-argument to multi-cores being the next IT revolution: although they seem to be the way to faster performance, faster performance isn't needed.

There's a counter-argument to multi-cores being the next IT revolution: although they seem to be the way to faster performance, faster performance isn't needed. Data point one: the rise of the netbook. They have slower, single-core processors, and are fast enough for most of the mainstream stuff people want to do: web, email, word-processing. Netbooks are getting faster (and this is needed for some webapps e.g. that musical score webapp is a little sluggish on my eee PC). But what is more important in a netbook is weight and battery life - that is what is needed. Performance isn't needed. Data point two: even in video games, the wii console is the most successful of the present batch. It is unusually low powered even for single-core (and in coincidence, one of its competitors, the PS3, is multi-core). Performance isn't needed. Data point three (an exception): some applications do need performance (weather simulation; google server farms), but these are already multi-core, and have been for a long time (the core used to be in separate computers, but the app was multi-core). I'm arguing that most of the mainstream market can't absorb faster performance (and the high-performance market has already solved the problem). Ripe for Disruption?: It's common for whole industries to overshoot what is needed, in terms of the particular metric they have worked at improving for years. Their corporate organization, product development and marketing are based on improving that aspect, and selling that aspect. When the basis of competition shifts, you get a new set of leaders, because the old ones can't adapt.