4 ms·
It doesn't necessarily have to be due to an ill-decision; thick/thin client cycling can be seen as the obvious result of network/compute cost effectiveness rati
by setr 8y ago
It doesn't necessarily have to be due to an ill-decision; thick/thin client cycling can be seen as the obvious result of network/compute cost effectiveness ration swapping. When network is cheaper, thin clients make more sense; when compute is cheaper, then it makes more sense to have it local, and thus thick clients.
And due to diminishing returns + economies of the scale, as the market starts investing in one, the other side starts to make more sense..
- Jedd 8y agoYou may be right, but I'm wary of the implication that 'the market' is rational. Also, if the market leans more towards network or compute (I'm not sure that's a useful distinction, but I'll run with it for now) wouldn't the economies of scale necessarily continue to accentuate the initial trend, rather than induce an oscillating pattern?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoData likes to accrete, almost as if it has its own virtual gravity. Cycles oscillate some, depending on compute speed and network latency. But there isn’t as much oscillation as people think. 80’s/90’s style non-networked personal computing was a rare exception to the usual rule of networked centralisation with smrt-ish terminal access.
- setr 8y agoYou're right, my mistake; economies of scale would keep the trend, and diminishing returns dissolves it