An out of date page?? That's all?
Run a google search on the US government reports on nanotech, the National Science Foundation, etc and you'll see where that page is wrong...one serious indicator of development is the funding for R&D, that number is well above the revenue figure and was growing at 25% till 2008 before the WW recession. It is still over 18%. Total research dollars since 2000" $65 billion. Over $15 billion a year.
Which doesn't change the two fundamental objections raised in the article: 1) that various things are described under the umbrella of "nanotechnology" that are really just rebranding of other fields for hype purposes (e.g. materials science or biomedical research) and 2) that the projections include the value of things that are otherwise totally unrelated to nanotechnology -- prescription drug costs, in this example -- as if they are part of the industry as well.
In other words, it's a bit like looking at the auto industry and then including magazines (because they have ads for cars and car parts) television (because it has car commercials) movies (because there are often cars in them) ships (because they sometimes transport cars), roads (because cars drive on them) and every fast food restaurant in America (because they have drive-thru windows).
Since even a cursory examination of the data behind those claims reveals them for what they are, the only reason people continue to do this is with the intention of attracting easy investment capital from gullible dolts who don't know the first thing about smart investing.
This is exactly the sort of thing that goes on alot with IT startups
, who are able to dazzle would-be investors with a lot of hype and buzzwords that mostly mask the fact that they don't have a viable business model, don't have a steady cash flow and generally don't know what the fuck they're doing. "We're an online retailer, just like Amazon! You should totally invest in us because Amazon makes billions of dollars doing retail online!" When they burn through all that initial capital and then seek further investment from experienced investors like Cisco Systems or Microsoft, they're left twisting in the wind and end up in bankruptcy.
Incase you don't get the analogy, it's this: "Our company has Nanotech in the name! Nanotech is a trillion dollar industry! You should totally invest in us because nanotech companies make trillions of dollars!"
You do realize this is a press release FROM Nanophotonics, right?
RAMA, do you really not understand the difference between advertisement and research? Or do you honestly believe the most interesting man in the world really drinks Dos Equis?