4 ms·

IMO thinking in terms of power/performance is completely useless if your goal is to figure out where things are going. All these "computers" have enough power n

by netcan 14y ago

IMO thinking in terms of power/performance is completely useless if your goal is to figure out where things are going. All these "computers" have enough power now or will have enough power in the next few years (either through better hardware or device specific software) to do all the things most people need to do. If there really is a need for rendering animation in your pocket I'm sure it will be possible, at some price. For that reason, this is not the same as the mainframe-minicomputer-microcomputer transition. What is going on now is new types of computers (tablets & pocket tablets) that are defined by their form, not their power. There is a second reason other than new form factors for the success of these new devices that has nothing to do with power or form factor: new OS/app metaphors & paradigms. The basic metaphors & ideas (desktop, file system, install scripts, desktop shortcuts, trash) behind the PC are 20-30 years old. They were created before grandmothers, electricians and 2 year olds used computers. They were never optimal and they have grown hairs over the years. iOS & Android are a clean slate. This has fixed all sorts of things. Most important (IMO) is tuning applications application into "apps". Apps have a clearer definition than applications. They are self contained, easy to install and easy to remove. Applications are things that your older brother or IT department has to install. This second factor (the clean slate factor) is tricky one because it's very important in the short run. In the long term it's irrelevant to the number of desktops, laptops or tablets sold. PCs will eventually incorporate the features (or the whole OS) that are better in touch OS's. This factor will not affect the ratio of laptops/tablets sold in 2018. Declaring the PC dead is silly. This is just like web based software vs installed software. Power was a bottleneck. Now that it's clearing we can see that for all sorts of things web based software is better but not always. Keyboard & mouse vs touch is similar to this "transition." Things that work better on touch will move to touch, but not everything. This will be a dispersion, not a migration.

mtgx 14y ago
The PC's and mini-computers were defined by form and price, too, not performance. In fact the much lower performance is what completely blindsided IBM when mini-computers appeared, and later DEC when PC's appeared. For their customers, the new type of computers didn't make any sense. But there were whole other markets out there who wanted a much more "portable" or cheaper computer. You can now get a decent tablet for $200. You could also get netbooks for that price, but they aren't exactly decent when it comes to overall performance, and that has more to do with how the software is written (for powerful x86 chips - not for Atom chips), while mobile apps are written for much lower performance chips.
- netcan 14y ago
  Yeah, I didn't put in quite enough time into the definitions. But, there is a fundamental difference that I was trying to describe. Micro/mini computers were computers at a different price/size points. I agree. But, the reason for buying a minicomputer was not that you didn't have room for a mainframe. It was because of price & power. They were the same category of thing just at different prices & power. Once power on all of them became enough to power everything most users needed, the lower priced form factor (microcomputers) became the only form factor that mattered. By making that analogy Jeff is implying that smartphones, tablets & PCs are the same category of thing and that the thing at the lower end of the price/power chart will eventually become the thing of the future. What I am arguing is that he's got it wrong: the form factor is there for the its own reasons. It's not there to facilitate power and its not there to facilitate price. Laptops have keyboards and mouses. Smartphones fit in your pocket. There is overlap in what they do, but phones won't get awesome enough to replace laptops. This is unless they become laptops. Maybe eventually everyone will have a keyboard that snaps onto their tablet when they need it and a screen at home/office that plugs into it too. That's cheating. It doesn't count.

by netcan 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

The PC's and mini-computers were defined by form and price, too, not performance. In fact the much lower performance is what completely blindsided IBM when mini-computers appeared, and later DEC when PC's appeared. For their customers, the new type of computers didn't make any sense. But there were whole other markets out there who wanted a much more "portable" or cheaper computer. You can now get a decent tablet for $200. You could also get netbooks for that price, but they aren't exactly decent when it comes to overall performance, and that has more to do with how the software is written (for powerful x86 chips - not for Atom chips), while mobile apps are written for much lower performance chips.

netcan 14y ago
Yeah, I didn't put in quite enough time into the definitions. But, there is a fundamental difference that I was trying to describe. Micro/mini computers were computers at a different price/size points. I agree. But, the reason for buying a minicomputer was not that you didn't have room for a mainframe. It was because of price & power. They were the same category of thing just at different prices & power. Once power on all of them became enough to power everything most users needed, the lower priced form factor (microcomputers) became the only form factor that mattered. By making that analogy Jeff is implying that smartphones, tablets & PCs are the same category of thing and that the thing at the lower end of the price/power chart will eventually become the thing of the future. What I am arguing is that he's got it wrong: the form factor is there for the its own reasons. It's not there to facilitate power and its not there to facilitate price. Laptops have keyboards and mouses. Smartphones fit in your pocket. There is overlap in what they do, but phones won't get awesome enough to replace laptops. This is unless they become laptops. Maybe eventually everyone will have a keyboard that snaps onto their tablet when they need it and a screen at home/office that plugs into it too. That's cheating. It doesn't count.