5 ms·

The article correctly goes through the history of personal computing but then just stops short of reaching the obvious conclusion: everyone pretty much has a 'p

by cm277 6y ago

The article correctly goes through the history of personal computing but then just stops short of reaching the obvious conclusion: everyone pretty much has a 'personal computer' already (even feature phones count, kinda). There's no "next platform". PC technology spread is done. As with other technologies, the next waves will be about efficiency, price and (as TFA does say) changing the way we work and live around PCs/smartphones. Consider previous technologies: planes went from the Wright Flyer to the 747 in 50 years or so. But there's little "next gen" for airliners after the 747, other than well, fuel efficiency, operational efficiency, safety, etc. Which made riding in one a lot more approachable to anyone and eventually made low cost carriers possible and world tourism and Instagram influencers, etc... But a modern jet engine would be recognizable tech to an engineer from 50 years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it's no longer a gold rush, it will be an evolution-driven industry just like, well, everything else.

badRNG 6y ago
The comparison to airlines is really insightful. I wonder if we could have a comparable article written in the 1960s wondering what the next revolution in transportation technology would be. Trains, cars, planes, next is hover cars? Space craft? With this example we have the benefit of hindsight and understand there isn't a new "automobile" right over the horizon.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  That is a dangerous way to look at it, because you risk missing the next big transportation device because it doesn't look like what you expect it to look like. What if the next thing you use to transport yourself to work is not a hovercar but Zoom (the online meeting app)?
- mikestew 6y ago
  Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meaning it went the wrong way. Which, because it's the 60s in the hypothetical example, is fitting. The next revolution is the quantum of transportation: the electric scooter. I jest, but only a little. It gets me to work just fine, gets me there in only five minutes more than the car, and I don't have to pedal. And I can power it with the 400W of solar panels on the roof of our RV. Seeing how fast one can dump fuel into an engine in 2020 isn't what I'd call a "revolution".
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    Space ships aren't necessarily less efficient than airplanes for intercontinental travel. Yes, they burn an incredible amount of fuel for a couple minutes, but then they can travel through space without using any fuel because there is no atmospheric drag. So in the end the fuel usage is comparable. Space ships also have the advantage that they can use "green" fuel, fuel that is synthesized from green energy, water and atmospheric CO2 rather than using fossil fuels. (Jet planes could also run on green fuel, but jet fuel is significantly more expensive to synthesize than hydrogen or methane). Methane and hydrogen rockets also burn much cleaner than jets. The fuel is almost pure, and the oxidizer is pure oxygen rather than air, so there is almost no sulfates, NOx or soot. Still pretty inefficient compared to an electric scooter, though. :)
hackeraccount 6y ago
Red ocean not a blue ocean.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  http://www.corporatestrategy.com/red-ocean-vs-blue-ocean/ http://www.corporatestrategy.com/red-ocean-vs-blue-ocean/
ksec 6y ago
>but then just stops short of reaching the obvious conclusion, Everyone pretty much has a 'personal computer' already...... I think he said / describe it as below; but well over 4bn people have a smartphone today and there are only 5.7bn adults on earth. We can’t unlock a radically bigger market on that axis - we’ve run out of people. For context, the Author ( BE ) was AFAIK the first person to put numbers together and reach that conclusion long time ago. The recent one in 2019 is here [1], the platform war in 2016 [2] and his twitter mentioning it go as far back to 2014 or earlier. And arguably his work on Mobile Phone analysis started in the early days of 3G, before the whole Smartphone revolution. > As with other technologies, the next waves will be about efficiency, price and Which is part of the reason why Apple is pushing for Services Revenue. Strategically speaking it was definitely the right move, some of its execution though, leave a lot to be desired. ( Apple TV+, Apple Arcade.... ) [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/5/28/the-end-of-mobile https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/5/28/the-end-of... [2] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/7/25/platform-wars-final-score https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/7/25/platform-w...
tjchear 6y ago
One thing that could change around how we use and live around smartphones would be voice interface. Voice recognition is getting better, but NLP/AI still leaves a lot to be desired, and people are less inclined to use it in public. I firmly believe the next step would be subvocal recognition, so you can issue commands without vocalizing them. Short of intrusive surgery, I think the best way to achieve this is a reader that reads neural signals going to your vocal cords. And the advent of this tech could result in the creation of a new class of device - something you attach to your jawbone, or wear around your neck.
- mackrevinack 6y ago
  with the way things are today there is no way i would get a permanent implant. it would have to be all open source at least. and maybe have some sort of switch on the outside like the librem 5 where you could physically disconnect it from working
  - tabtab 6y ago
    If it's the only way to compete in the world, one may have no other practical choice. iBorg :-)
OldHand2018 6y ago
> planes went from the Wright Flyer to the 747 in 50 years or so Boeing first flew the Dash 80 (the 707 prototype) in 1954, with the first commercial service in 1958. The 747 program started in 1965. The age of jet transport went really fast!
dingaling 6y ago
> But there's little "next gen" for airliners after the 747 There nearly was, with spaceplane projects such as HOTOL and NASP entirely within the technical potential of the 1990s. But the industry pushed for slow, efficient mass traffic instead. So instead of Mach 25 through low orbit we have Mach 0.76 at 41,000ft. But oh such cheap stag weekends to Prague.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  It still might come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
m463 6y ago
> There's no "next platform" I beg to differ. Its sort of like watching old scifi movies and people go into the "future"... where there are no cellphones. Just off the top of my head: - ar and vr are not really solved - look at ctrl labs (bought by facebook, unfortunately) where they can decode neural impulses in your forearm with a wristband - look at Elon Musk's Neuralink where direct brain i/o is being developed

by cm277 6y ago

badRNG 6y ago

The comparison to airlines is really insightful. I wonder if we could have a comparable article written in the 1960s wondering what the next revolution in transportation technology would be. Trains, cars, planes, next is hover cars? Space craft? With this example we have the benefit of hindsight and understand there isn't a new "automobile" right over the horizon.

tomjen3 6y ago
That is a dangerous way to look at it, because you risk missing the next big transportation device because it doesn't look like what you expect it to look like. What if the next thing you use to transport yourself to work is not a hovercar but Zoom (the online meeting app)?
mikestew 6y ago
Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meaning it went the wrong way. Which, because it's the 60s in the hypothetical example, is fitting. The next revolution is the quantum of transportation: the electric scooter. I jest, but only a little. It gets me to work just fine, gets me there in only five minutes more than the car, and I don't have to pedal. And I can power it with the 400W of solar panels on the roof of our RV. Seeing how fast one can dump fuel into an engine in 2020 isn't what I'd call a "revolution".
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  Space ships aren't necessarily less efficient than airplanes for intercontinental travel. Yes, they burn an incredible amount of fuel for a couple minutes, but then they can travel through space without using any fuel because there is no atmospheric drag. So in the end the fuel usage is comparable. Space ships also have the advantage that they can use "green" fuel, fuel that is synthesized from green energy, water and atmospheric CO2 rather than using fossil fuels. (Jet planes could also run on green fuel, but jet fuel is significantly more expensive to synthesize than hydrogen or methane). Methane and hydrogen rockets also burn much cleaner than jets. The fuel is almost pure, and the oxidizer is pure oxygen rather than air, so there is almost no sulfates, NOx or soot. Still pretty inefficient compared to an electric scooter, though. :)

hackeraccount 6y ago

Red ocean not a blue ocean.

dredmorbius 6y ago
http://www.corporatestrategy.com/red-ocean-vs-blue-ocean/ http://www.corporatestrategy.com/red-ocean-vs-blue-ocean/

ksec 6y ago

>but then just stops short of reaching the obvious conclusion, Everyone pretty much has a 'personal computer' already...... I think he said / describe it as below; but well over 4bn people have a smartphone today and there are only 5.7bn adults on earth. We can’t unlock a radically bigger market on that axis - we’ve run out of people. For context, the Author ( BE ) was AFAIK the first person to put numbers together and reach that conclusion long time ago. The recent one in 2019 is here [1], the platform war in 2016 [2] and his twitter mentioning it go as far back to 2014 or earlier. And arguably his work on Mobile Phone analysis started in the early days of 3G, before the whole Smartphone revolution. > As with other technologies, the next waves will be about efficiency, price and Which is part of the reason why Apple is pushing for Services Revenue. Strategically speaking it was definitely the right move, some of its execution though, leave a lot to be desired. ( Apple TV+, Apple Arcade.... ) [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/5/28/the-end-of-mobile https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/5/28/the-end-of... [2] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/7/25/platform-wars-final-score https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/7/25/platform-w...

tjchear 6y ago

One thing that could change around how we use and live around smartphones would be voice interface. Voice recognition is getting better, but NLP/AI still leaves a lot to be desired, and people are less inclined to use it in public. I firmly believe the next step would be subvocal recognition, so you can issue commands without vocalizing them. Short of intrusive surgery, I think the best way to achieve this is a reader that reads neural signals going to your vocal cords. And the advent of this tech could result in the creation of a new class of device - something you attach to your jawbone, or wear around your neck.

mackrevinack 6y ago
with the way things are today there is no way i would get a permanent implant. it would have to be all open source at least. and maybe have some sort of switch on the outside like the librem 5 where you could physically disconnect it from working
- tabtab 6y ago
  If it's the only way to compete in the world, one may have no other practical choice. iBorg :-)

OldHand2018 6y ago

> planes went from the Wright Flyer to the 747 in 50 years or so Boeing first flew the Dash 80 (the 707 prototype) in 1954, with the first commercial service in 1958. The 747 program started in 1965. The age of jet transport went really fast!

dingaling 6y ago

> But there's little "next gen" for airliners after the 747 There nearly was, with spaceplane projects such as HOTOL and NASP entirely within the technical potential of the 1990s. But the industry pushed for slow, efficient mass traffic instead. So instead of Mach 25 through low orbit we have Mach 0.76 at 41,000ft. But oh such cheap stag weekends to Prague.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
It still might come: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0

m463 6y ago

> There's no "next platform" I beg to differ. Its sort of like watching old scifi movies and people go into the "future"... where there are no cellphones. Just off the top of my head: - ar and vr are not really solved - look at ctrl labs (bought by facebook, unfortunately) where they can decode neural impulses in your forearm with a wristband - look at Elon Musk's Neuralink where direct brain i/o is being developed