4 ms·
So, if I keep my word document open on my computer and start doing other things, I still get billed? Not sure end users will like this or think it's easier.
by SmooL 5y ago
So, if I keep my word document open on my computer and start doing other things, I still get billed? Not sure end users will like this or think it's easier.
- alexb_ 5y agoThe way I see the future of computing: You have what basically amounts to a keyboard, a screen, and a wifi chip, so that it can be sold at astonishingly low prices. No excess memory, no excess processing power, because all memory and storage will be rented out or extracted for data collection. Privacy will become a thing of the past since everything you do passes through a corporation that's doing the real computing. You will own absolutely none of your data or your programs, you are beholden to the whims of a corporation that can raise prices whenever they feel like, and it will become the norm because "wow cool $90 computer that can run any program". People will absolutely buy inferior products if it's cheap enough and marketed well enough.
- shawnz 5y agoBased on historical trends it seems more likely to me that $90 computers of the future will simply be able to run the most advanced consumer software locally and thin clients will just be unnecessary complexity.
- disposedtrolley 5y agoThe hardware will probably have the capabilities to do so, but I can see consumer software reaching a point where much of the compute is performed remotely, and we're just being streamed a rendered interface.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoIf the hardware has the capability of doing all my calculations locally, then why would I want to do it all remotely and just receive a rendered interface? So that I can have the "added convenience" of having my software unavailable during the occasional network outage? And the pleasure of network latency, even when there isn't an outage?
- bediger4000 5y agoWho says you'll have a choice? This is why plain text matters.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago"Choice" can mean two things. 1. The vendor has a choice of what they offer me. They can decide to offer only networked, for-rent versions. That's their choice. 2. I have a choice what I purchase or rent. I can decide to only buy (not rent) software that resides on my own machines. That's my choice. They can pursue a direction that I don't want if they choose to. I can still choose not to go along.
- harshitaneja 5y agoWhat's being suggested here is that most vendors would only offer networked solutions and you wouldn't have enough options to exercise your choice.
- disposedtrolley 5y agoWe've gradually been having control of the software we use wrestled away from us. The (unfortunate) idea is that network latency will be low enough, and rendered interfaces will be good enough, that companies can make "streaming software" a compelling enough experience for the masses, to the point where it becomes normalised.
- nicoburns 5y agoThat would require networks to be massively more reliable than they are currently. It's all well and good if you live somewhere where you have a rock-solid connection, but most of the world doesn't. And is unlikely to anytime soon.
- pjerem 5y agoAlas, we are already in this situation. Remember that mostly every SaaS app is already a web app.
- mypalmike 5y agoSome very popular CAD software already works this way (Autodesk Fusion 360 and OnShape, possibly others). The people with money to spend on such things tend to have good network connectivity.
- ricardobeat 5y agoThis is what computing looked like 60 years ago. Minus the excessive data collection.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoSounds a bit like a Chromebook to me.
- Razengan 5y agoApple seem to be fighting that trend with their in-house chips being optimized for local processing power.
- renewedrebecca 5y agoNo I won't.
- userbinator 5y agoAnother of the "you will own nothing, and be happy" predictions? Let's hope they don't come true (or at the least, fight against it as much as you can)...