Hydrogen will probably be the future in some manner just due to the simple fact it's the most abundant element in the universe while also being an energy source.  The problem is that the environment pre-segregates other fuel sources like oil or wood for you where you can just pick it up and set it on fire to generate energy, while you have to spend energy to segregate hydrogen to turn it into fuel.

Turning water into 1 kg of hydrogen with electrolysis uses 39 kWh of power, while the 1 kg of hydrogen is a 33 kWh metastable energy source.  It's a net negative reaction in otherwords.  That is not to say the hydrogen is useless.  It gives you 33 kWh of portable power vs 10 kWh or so in diesel.  It sounds like miracle fuel until you take into account it takes up an enormous amount of space unless you spend large amounts of additional power to liquify the hydrogen, while also being a net negative energy gain with oil being a positive energy gain.

Even though hydrogen creation is a net negative energy reaction, if you utilize 'free' energy to create it (i.e. solar, geothermal, dams, etc) then it becomes somewhat useful again solely as a portable energy source for vehicles.  Unless you can lower the friction to creating hydrogen to be net positive instead of net negative, it seems like it's main application is solely vehicles where power density of fuel is one of the main concerns, otherwise you would skip the generation of hydrogen and use the solar, wind, nuclear, or dam power directly.  If battery storage got exponentially better, you would then also skip hydrogen generation completely and send the electric power straight to the batteries too.  So hydrogen power is currently mostly based around the idea of batteries always being bad.