7 ms·

Ruminating about the possibility that mainstream general computing is now coming to an end. I guess as long as we have Unix we will still have that. But it loo

Ruminating about the possibility that mainstream general computing is now coming to an end. I guess as long as we have Unix we will still have that. But it looks like for the average consumer, they wouldn't really care as long as their needs are met, even if those machines are becoming more and more like appliances.

user-the-name 6y ago
What is "general computing"? The IBM PC lineage of putting unrelated components together by yourself is an anomaly in the history of home computers, or computers in general. Selling computers as a whole, with set hardware and software, is what used to be the norm, and it worked well for everyone involved. We are to some extent returning to what things used to be.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It didn't work that well for everyone (except the established vendors), otherwise it wouldn't have taken the market by storm. Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation. If we're returning to "fixed sets", that probably signals the exploratory period is dying. Anyway, "general computing" doesn't necessarily mean mixing and mashing hardware. But it definitely means executing arbitrary software with full control over installed hardware. The trend line here is definitely from "more" to "less" of "general computing". We've started with raw metal and hardware diagrams being included in the instruction manuals; then diagrams disappeared, CPUs gained abstraction layers - but it was still fine, computing-wise. But now we're in era of OSes and even CPUs limiting what users can do with them, and multiple parties owning various pieces of a computer, with nothing left to own for the user who actually buys the machine.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    > Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation Is it though? Apple has innovated a whole lot more with the non-modular Macs and iPads than any generic x86 vendor has managed in years and years. Modularity means software has to be designed for the lowest common denominator. And that in turn means that there is nothing to gain by innovating in hardware, because the software won't support it anyway. Somebody who controls every part of both hardware and software can innovate much more freely than you can in a modular market. x86 PCs have been stagnant for decades now.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    It failed more due to mismanagement than anything else.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Modularity can be achieved via extension ports, just like my 16 bit machines had.
- flyinghamster 6y ago
  The Apple II had slots and was thus highly hardware-customizable. The ability to add specialized hardware to a general-purpose machine gives it that much more flexibility, whether it's additional storage, data acquisition, additional network interfaces, machine controls, etc. Sure we have things like Thunderbolt today, but there's a lot to be said for putting the specialized stuff inside the case where it isn't cluttering up the desk and nobody can just unplug it and pocket it.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    It was extendable, but not modular. You couldn't just buy different parts and put them together into an Apple II. It was sold as a whole, that you could add a few bits to.
netram88 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what the average person has wanted out of a computer for a long time though? Most people never change anything in their system, and know little more than exactly what they need to do the specific tasks they want to do (writing documents, photo storage, e.t.c) An appliance like system where "it just works" and you never need to understand any of the structure or fiddle with the computer in any way is probably exactly what a lot of people want.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  I think that's a bit of an illusion. Yes, the average person wants tech to "just work", but what that usually means is "just work the way I need it to work for my specific purposes in my specific circumstances". It's true that the average person doesn't want to spend time tinkering with tech and take the risk of breaking things. But that's not the same thing as being happy with how things work, and it's not the same thing as using tech as productively as possible. When I write software or talk to people about how they use software, they always want it to work somewhat differently. They do want customisation for entirely sensible and very specific reasons. They just don't want to do it themselves. That's why consulting and support is a huge global industry. The problem with "just works" is that it only has meaning where the requirements are specified in great detail with very little variability. That's always trivially the case for single purpose household appliances. It's also the case for things like making phone calls or for device drivers. No one wants to "customise" a device driver to stop it from draining the battery. But computers are not single purpose devices. They are used for a million different things in a million different situations. "Just works" is largely undefined outside of core OS functionality. And that's why the appliance metaphor just doesn't work.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    But that's not the same thing as being happy with how things work, and it's not the same thing as using tech as productively as possible. If productivity of end-users was the goal then we wouldn't see random changes to interfaces that people had learnt, for no other reason than some graphic designer thinks it doesn't look "fresh". The truth is for most of what most people do, computing was solved around 2010-ish and all anyone wants now is for things to be more reliable, faster and cheaper. But that's much harder work for companies that a new flat interface style, or some animated emojis.
oblio 6y ago
They're even worse than old appliances. You'd usually own those appliances, be able to repair them, patch them up and use them for a long, long time. Tech companies are turning everything that you can put software on into something you rent. And you can put software on everything. Software companies are becoming the ultimate rent seekers. The endgame of anyone/any company, it seems :-)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- warent 6y ago
  I can tell you as someone sells SaaS that I prefer rent because it allows me to serve my customers more effectively, meaning they get more value and Iget more money. This isn't glib doublespeak. There's probably a better way to articulate this for people who were formally educated in business (not me). Basically customer lifetime value is variable on a monthly fee, meaning you can always add upgrades and provide support. But if you just sell it one-and-done then depending on the price it can be difficult to find the motivation to provide any meaningful long-term support.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    SaaS is good because it gives you a constant income stream, which matches the constant development of your product. For the user however, it means lock-in and their data being held ransom. A good SaaS manages to remedy the downsides to enable the upsides to shine, i.e. data export, open formats, open core, open source + hosting business, ... and hopefully more diverse and better ideas to cover more markets, use and business cases.
  - nnq 6y ago
    ...but you can find the motivation to offer a product that just works (mostly) perfectly and doesn't need support! Rarer updates, because you just need to test your things perfectly and ensure 99.9% of user will not need any "support". And shipping things that are "done" - they don't need upgrades. If I find I actually need any kind of support with any service/product and I can't "just use it" then I start looking for an alternative product/service. There's something rotten at the core of everything-as-a-service and continuous-improvement and growth-hacking and everything that comes with it... Most people actually like things that are done and stay done, most stuff doesn't need to need to be fixed, and it doesn't need to evolve or improve beyond the glacial pace needed to keep up working on the infrastructure it uses...
pjmlp 6y ago
Anyone that has ported UNIX software across all big iron vendors knows that POSIX is only half of the equation. I want my Amiga appliance back, computers that have a soul of how hardware and software are designed together.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  So get a Mac. That's what they are.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I already have it, alongside Windows laptops, Android phones, Windows phones and set top boxes, thank you very much.
rimliu 6y ago
Maybe "mainstream general computing" was never the thing? Gaming is mainstream, social media is mainstream, many thing, but general computing is not.
- marcodave 6y ago
  what is "mainstream general computing" in your understanding?

user-the-name 6y ago

What is "general computing"? The IBM PC lineage of putting unrelated components together by yourself is an anomaly in the history of home computers, or computers in general. Selling computers as a whole, with set hardware and software, is what used to be the norm, and it worked well for everyone involved. We are to some extent returning to what things used to be.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
It didn't work that well for everyone (except the established vendors), otherwise it wouldn't have taken the market by storm. Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation. If we're returning to "fixed sets", that probably signals the exploratory period is dying. Anyway, "general computing" doesn't necessarily mean mixing and mashing hardware. But it definitely means executing arbitrary software with full control over installed hardware. The trend line here is definitely from "more" to "less" of "general computing". We've started with raw metal and hardware diagrams being included in the instruction manuals; then diagrams disappeared, CPUs gained abstraction layers - but it was still fine, computing-wise. But now we're in era of OSes and even CPUs limiting what users can do with them, and multiple parties owning various pieces of a computer, with nothing left to own for the user who actually buys the machine.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > Modularity is a good thing to have for innovation Is it though? Apple has innovated a whole lot more with the non-modular Macs and iPads than any generic x86 vendor has managed in years and years. Modularity means software has to be designed for the lowest common denominator. And that in turn means that there is nothing to gain by innovating in hardware, because the software won't support it anyway. Somebody who controls every part of both hardware and software can innovate much more freely than you can in a modular market. x86 PCs have been stagnant for decades now.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  It failed more due to mismanagement than anything else.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Modularity can be achieved via extension ports, just like my 16 bit machines had.
flyinghamster 6y ago
The Apple II had slots and was thus highly hardware-customizable. The ability to add specialized hardware to a general-purpose machine gives it that much more flexibility, whether it's additional storage, data acquisition, additional network interfaces, machine controls, etc. Sure we have things like Thunderbolt today, but there's a lot to be said for putting the specialized stuff inside the case where it isn't cluttering up the desk and nobody can just unplug it and pocket it.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  It was extendable, but not modular. You couldn't just buy different parts and put them together into an Apple II. It was sold as a whole, that you could add a few bits to.

netram88 6y ago

Isn't that exactly what the average person has wanted out of a computer for a long time though? Most people never change anything in their system, and know little more than exactly what they need to do the specific tasks they want to do (writing documents, photo storage, e.t.c) An appliance like system where "it just works" and you never need to understand any of the structure or fiddle with the computer in any way is probably exactly what a lot of people want.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
I think that's a bit of an illusion. Yes, the average person wants tech to "just work", but what that usually means is "just work the way I need it to work for my specific purposes in my specific circumstances". It's true that the average person doesn't want to spend time tinkering with tech and take the risk of breaking things. But that's not the same thing as being happy with how things work, and it's not the same thing as using tech as productively as possible. When I write software or talk to people about how they use software, they always want it to work somewhat differently. They do want customisation for entirely sensible and very specific reasons. They just don't want to do it themselves. That's why consulting and support is a huge global industry. The problem with "just works" is that it only has meaning where the requirements are specified in great detail with very little variability. That's always trivially the case for single purpose household appliances. It's also the case for things like making phone calls or for device drivers. No one wants to "customise" a device driver to stop it from draining the battery. But computers are not single purpose devices. They are used for a million different things in a million different situations. "Just works" is largely undefined outside of core OS functionality. And that's why the appliance metaphor just doesn't work.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  But that's not the same thing as being happy with how things work, and it's not the same thing as using tech as productively as possible. If productivity of end-users was the goal then we wouldn't see random changes to interfaces that people had learnt, for no other reason than some graphic designer thinks it doesn't look "fresh". The truth is for most of what most people do, computing was solved around 2010-ish and all anyone wants now is for things to be more reliable, faster and cheaper. But that's much harder work for companies that a new flat interface style, or some animated emojis.

oblio 6y ago

They're even worse than old appliances. You'd usually own those appliances, be able to repair them, patch them up and use them for a long, long time. Tech companies are turning everything that you can put software on into something you rent. And you can put software on everything. Software companies are becoming the ultimate rent seekers. The endgame of anyone/any company, it seems :-)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
warent 6y ago
I can tell you as someone sells SaaS that I prefer rent because it allows me to serve my customers more effectively, meaning they get more value and Iget more money. This isn't glib doublespeak. There's probably a better way to articulate this for people who were formally educated in business (not me). Basically customer lifetime value is variable on a monthly fee, meaning you can always add upgrades and provide support. But if you just sell it one-and-done then depending on the price it can be difficult to find the motivation to provide any meaningful long-term support.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  SaaS is good because it gives you a constant income stream, which matches the constant development of your product. For the user however, it means lock-in and their data being held ransom. A good SaaS manages to remedy the downsides to enable the upsides to shine, i.e. data export, open formats, open core, open source + hosting business, ... and hopefully more diverse and better ideas to cover more markets, use and business cases.
- nnq 6y ago
  ...but you can find the motivation to offer a product that just works (mostly) perfectly and doesn't need support! Rarer updates, because you just need to test your things perfectly and ensure 99.9% of user will not need any "support". And shipping things that are "done" - they don't need upgrades. If I find I actually need any kind of support with any service/product and I can't "just use it" then I start looking for an alternative product/service. There's something rotten at the core of everything-as-a-service and continuous-improvement and growth-hacking and everything that comes with it... Most people actually like things that are done and stay done, most stuff doesn't need to need to be fixed, and it doesn't need to evolve or improve beyond the glacial pace needed to keep up working on the infrastructure it uses...

pjmlp 6y ago

Anyone that has ported UNIX software across all big iron vendors knows that POSIX is only half of the equation. I want my Amiga appliance back, computers that have a soul of how hardware and software are designed together.

user-the-name 6y ago
So get a Mac. That's what they are.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I already have it, alongside Windows laptops, Android phones, Windows phones and set top boxes, thank you very much.

rimliu 6y ago

Maybe "mainstream general computing" was never the thing? Gaming is mainstream, social media is mainstream, many thing, but general computing is not.

marcodave 6y ago
what is "mainstream general computing" in your understanding?