4 ms·
> So what will the new computing paradigm be? The industry seems to have converged on what Rick Osterloh at Google called “ambient computing,” which is a bigger
by pjerem 6y ago
> So what will the new computing paradigm be? The industry seems to have converged on what Rick Osterloh at Google called “ambient computing,” which is a bigger version of IoT: pretty much everything will be a computer, and pretty much everything will be connected all the time in a way that doesn’t necessarily require human intervention.
If « the industry » (whatever it means) thinks that the future of computing is to have computers everywhere, either they have lost hindsight of the reality or they are going to try dangerously hard to push this dystopian future.
Every previous computing paradigms were accompanied with some annoyance but also with significant gains for the humanity.
Where is the gain to anyone to have computers « everywhere » ? What real problems does this paradigm solves ?
- vagrantJin 6y agoNo idea why you are getting downvoted dor asking a hard question. It's hard because we've barely made progress in every other facet of technological progress except computing. Our systems are fragile and not future proof. We haven't learned. We've gone from discovering the secrets of the natural world and modelling it to internet connected toasters in less than a century. This is called decline.
- danaris 6y agoThis implies that we've stopped trying to discover secrets of the natural world, which is the farthest thing from the truth. Basic science is still going on. True, the US isn't as good at funding it as we used to be, but it hasn't stopped, and I doubt it ever will. More importantly, the fact that we're making "internet connected toasters" (and various other experimental gadgets of questionable practical utility) does absolutely nothing to detract from the fact that we are still "discovering the secrets of the natural world". There are a lot of people in the world. There's plenty of room for some to be doing amazing science while others make weird gadgets, no matter what you or I think of those gadgets.
- gumby 6y ago> Our systems are fragile and not future proof. We haven't learned...This is called decline. It’s a sign of technical immaturity. A Cambrian explosion of precarious innovation is standard for any new technology of any import (you can look back merely a couple of centuries to see the same in steam engines, trains, bridges, bicycles, automobiles, aircraft, pharmaceuticals...). Be excited to live through one such!
- criddell 6y ago> Where is the gain to anyone to have computers « everywhere » ? What real problems does this paradigm solves ? You can find some answers by asking people how they use their smart speakers or watch.
- madeofpalk 6y agoSo just to set timers?
- criddell 6y agoYes. Setting timers is pretty useful. With the watch did you consider that the fall alert monitor can call for help? Or how the heart rate monitor can detect abnormalities that should be checked out? None of this might interest you, but surely you can see how some people find it valuable.
- XorNot 6y agoThis is a take I very much agree with. It's also borne out in modern innovations: the smartphone is the success it is not because it's ambient - but because it's personal. Small enough to always be on you, and powerful enough to do all the basic functions we need of a computer. It more or less is the basic defining digital boundary of our identities - and the reason why user controllable and ownable phones is so appealing to us tech-types. I think the industry will push for smart everything, and I think it'll all be met with the increasing distrust and derision which has come from the realization that everything that has a computer is basically spying on you for someone else. If there's hope in this dystopic vision, it surely lies with the open source smartphone platform movements and reasonably egalitarian bodies like the EU pushing for consumer rights and standards.