The race towards bringing robotic flying things hasn't slowed down. The effort to reduce the art of electronics and power consumption to a minimal size has often not shown the commercial uptake it deserves. At least from the skills-basis standpoint. It takes a pretty special bunch of individuals to be able to work in a world of the minuscule. The question I guess is more from the intent of the technology. Do you remember the Kodak camera that you could find at any tourist store? At the time, it was brilliant technology with a commercial uptake, but not sustainable for the needs of the future tourist. That technology had to die and die hard. On the other hand, there's aluminium/cast iron pot in the dusty streets of some West African countries, is still made in the same way 30+ years after that technology was conceived. So what makes technology have a staying factor? In the case of microrobots and any new technologies that are on the horizon (like our interest in 3dpr