Rubbing salt into wounds is about as much fun as a columnist can have.

It’s the New Year – time to review old predictions and make new ones. Before I critique myself I can’t resist a friendly jab at my colleague Bob Metcalfe, who stuck his neck way out last year to predict that the dot.com bubble would burst November 8th, 1999.

It didn’t, of course. Bob made the same mistake he always makes: He made a specific, testable prediction. That means we got to find out if he was right or wrong. He was wrong.

Bob was wrong on two fronts, really. First, he got the date wrong. That’s minor. His bigger mistake: Predicting that the falling-out-of-fashion of dot-com companies would be an event – a bursting bubble.

But he was right on the important issue. Although venture capitalists still like dot-com investments, skeptics are becoming more vocal. An increasing number figure they’re the real-world equivalent of the satirical company in Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury, whose only product was its stock.

Trudeau, however, got it wrong, too. What’s really going on is that the whole IPO phenomenon has become a new avenue for publishing fiction.

Here’s how it works: Imagine you think up an interesting premise, but can’t figure out a way to attach a plot to it. Here’s an example – the draft prospectus for an actual dot-com retailer that sells product at negative margins, planning to make up the difference in banner advertising revenue.

Since banner advertising is a dead medium, the authors of this prospectus must know it’s fiction. That doesn’t matter, though, because nobody involved in an IPO makes money on company profits. The entrepreneur is simply an author without a good plot, disguising bad fiction as a prospectus. The entrepreneur and his or her venture-capital partners – the publishers – get their shares cheap, planning to sell them at a profit to first-round buyers when the company goes public.

These first-round buyers don’t care if the company ever makes money, either. They’re in and out quickly – like bookstores, keeping inventory to a minimum. They create publicity and high margins (through their own purchasing activity) then sell to second-round investors.

These second-round investors play the role of book purchasers. I hope they enjoy reading the prospectus. In most cases, that’s all the value they’ll ever see.

This sham won’t collapse catastrophically, because the excess of investment capital won’t cease to exist all at once. Starting sometime this year, however, dot-com IPOs will become chaotic.

Dot-com fiction will suffer the fate of overworked plots in the book trade. What will happen? In books, as in television and movies, sequels, spin-offs and copies eventually wear out a genre. What happens next are gimmicks and hybrids.

Gimmick books, like The Duct Tape Book, can make a lot of money. Gimmick dot-com companies will attract a lot of venture capital for the same reason – their novelty will carry them through an IPO whether or not there’s even a pretense of substance to them.

Hybrids succeed by providing publishers with a sense of safety. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a hybrid: Teen angst meets horror. You’ll see a lot of tracking stocks for “clicks and mortar” companies – one business version of a hybrid plot-line. A tracking stock, if you’re not familiar with the term, is a separate stock issued by an existing company for a single line of business. It “creates shareholder value” without the company having to do anything new and useful – it’s a different way to try to get your stock over-valued by Wall Street.

Understand, I like the clicks-and-mortar concept. (For that matter, I enjoy Buffy.) Some clicks-and-mortar implementations will be non-fiction and highly successful, because real businesspeople will run them, for actual profits. Tracking stocks, like any other activity that distracts company leaders from running their business, strike me as a bad idea. You’ll see a lot of them this year.

Meanwhile new Internet author/entrepreneurs will publish increasingly bizarre fiction in a desperate attempt to prop up the genre, but to no avail. As real investors lose interest, venture capital will gradually dry up.

The Internet bubble won’t burst. Wrong metaphor. This year, the wind will go out of its sales … uh, sails.

Consider the automobile.

The automobile was the first of the three great empowering technologies of this century. It gave each of us personal control over our transportation, just as the telephone gave us control over spoken communication.

The automobile and personal computer – the third empowering technology – have many parallels, so the history of the former may provide insight into the future of the latter.

Early cars weren’t very useful. Slow, unreliable, hard to drive, and self-maintained, they were a hobbyist’s device, inferior to the biomechanical technology — the horse and buggy — they eventually replaced.

Early PCs were for hobbyists, too, and of little practical value. Slow, unreliable, hard to use and self-maintained, PCs were inferior to … well, to everything.

Cars needed roads to be useful: first, paved roads in cities; later the interstate highway system. PCs needed networks: LANs and WANs at first, and more recently the Internet. Both personally empowering technologies require a shared, flexible infrastructure.

The automobile’s user interface wasn’t standardized at first, nor was it simple and intuitive. Even though standardization of the interface, as well as innovations such as the electronic starter and automatic transmission, made cars easier to drive, driver’s education is still required.

Likewise the PC, but as with the car, we’ve experienced a trade-off: As cars and PCs became easier to use, they became harder to maintain. Most of us now pay professionals to maintain them for us.

As the automobile attained near-ubiquity, manufacturers resorted to styling gimmicks, such as tail-fins, for differentiation. The PC is just entering this phase: The iMac’s styling gained more attention than its capabilities.

As car manufacturers ran out of new ideas, competition appeared from an unexpected quarter: Japan. American manufacturers had to compete on reliability, performance, and efficiency. The PC’s future history includes this step. The PC hasn’t gained any important new functionality in years, and Windows isn’t its only unreliable product. If the history of the automobile carries over, PC hardware and software will become more reliable over the next several years. Reliability will come both from new competitors, with Linux as Toyota, and through improvements to the brands we’re buying now.

Automotive history yields one other prediction. The “experts” hate the automobile. It’s wasteful, creating urban sprawl and traffic jams while costing more than mass transit. In theory, we should all prefer the alternatives, yet we don’t. Why?

The automobile is a personally empowering technology, in contrast to all of the alternatives available to us. For the same reason, all of the experts predicting the end of the PC era are wrong. Some of the misnamed “thin-client” technologies will succeed, but only in the way that mass transit has succeeded – as an adjunct, not as a replacement.

Happy New Year

With this issue, we’re about to start the last year of the 20th century and the first year of the “oughts,” as in “double-ought”, “ought-one”, and so on through ought-nine. As I pointed out two years ago, decades are eponymous, but centuries are not: The boundaries of decades and centuries aren’t aligned.

I’m also beginning my fifth year of writing this, my weekly love affair with and group-therapy session about the impossible job of leading an information systems organization.

We’re neither entering the new millennium nor finishing the old one. Assuming you define millennium as “two thousand years after the birth of Christ,” you missed the party. Herod was alive when Christ was born, and died no later than the year we now reckon as 4 BC. We’ve also changed our calendar system twice. Nobody actually knows exactly when the new millennium started, but the event was several years ago.

Two years ago I predicted we’d all just shrug and schedule a year-long party to avoid offending anyone. At best I’ll have been partially right, because of all the companies that are imprisoning critical staff over the New Year in case of Y2K problems.

I’m claiming victory in advance on another Y2K score, though: Two years ago I predicted we’d all muddle through. This isn’t, however, a victory over the doomsayers. Their predictions of Y2K disaster weren’t wrong.

They were, in science fiction writer David Brin’s term, self-preventing prophesies. We should thank, rather than scorn, the prophets.

Regrettably and ungratefully, we won’t.