Robert Maxwell wrote:
In order to say nanotech will be a multi-trillion dollar industry in the near future, you require a definition of "nanotechnology" so broad as to be meaningless. The only reasons to push such an angle are to either attract investment dollars or push some other agenda, but clearly definitional precision is not a priority in either case.
Bringing nanotech materials development into the open, and with the likely success of carbon nanotubes, solar panel materials between now and the predicted 6th processing paradigm before 2020, the explosion of the industry even now means investment dollars for future nanotech, which will include rapid exponential development of assemblers and what people "normally" think of with nanotech.
So we can't underestimate the importance of these reports.
The last market report i listed lists a definition and companies for nanotech.
The bolded part is a complete leap in logic and it totally falls apart.
Development of one kind of nano-scale technology does not imply we'll move right along to assemblers, self-replicating machines, atom-by-atom construction, etc. etc. This is a falsity implied by designating every industrial process performed at the nano scale as "nanotechnology," as if they are all equal and equally viable.
I'm sure there will be investment in the more "traditional" conceptions of nanotech, however there is no guarantee that they will succeed and result in practical products. It would be nice if they did, but that's the nature of technological progress: there are always a lot of dead ends before you hit on something that really works, and it isn't always what people predict it will be.